Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 11 July	13 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SourceMedical Solutions, Inc.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. Looks like a product listing. CorporateM (Talk) 23:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources have been added. This is not a product listing, as the above user mistakenly surmised. It is a listing for a company. KatoTalk 12:07, 15 July 2013 (EST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article is primary. I was able to find some coverage in the Birmingham Biz Journal like this, that's the only source reporting on them. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absence of third party sources. This does not satisfy the general notabilty guideline and should be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page is entirely sourced to materials published by the subject of the article, which is the same as having no sources at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/sibsabah.org.my by Beetstra. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/sibsabah.org.my[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bot malfunction. CSD was denied. Unable to just move the page since the Wikipedia namespace page already exists. Ish dar ian 23:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? A CSD was denied? Weird, because where the page currently is, it IS patent nonsense. Speedy delete and trout Bbb23 for not getting rid of this gibberish sooner. Love, Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Columbine High School massacre. postdlf (talk) 19:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William David Sanders[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:SINGLEEVENT apply. Everything relevant here is already at Columbine High School massacre. There's really no reason for this man to have his own article. Beerest355 Talk 23:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - important individual who helped hundreds of students to safety. Also per WP:GNG, WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Columbine High School massacre. He is known only fort his incident and nothing else. A standalone article is not justified. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed above by Whpq as notability is derived from a WP:SINGLEEVENT. He was a selfless individual who lost his life at a significant event and is rightfully included in the article about the event. Kooky2 (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirecting this to Columbine High School massacre seems to make more sense, as he is associated with that event only. More information about him that comes to light could be added there. A stand-alone article for one event, which put him in the news because of the tragedy, seems to be unjustified.--Zananiri (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commando Cody[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No out-of-universe notability. Beerest355 Talk 23:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 23:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 23:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep My first question here becomes "would we expect the lead character of multiple 1950s movie serials and films, as well as being the inspiration for later projects, to have real-world relevance in 2013?" Surprisingly, research shows this character has indeed received special note in multiple independent sources[1][2] thus justifying a keep. This understood however, after a keep, I suggest we use the article's talk page to discuss a merge and redirect to the more comprehensive Commando Cody: Sky Marshal of the Universe where the character is properly spoken of in relationship to the films in which he featured or inspired. As far as "in-universe"... and while some of the available coverage is "out of universe"... it is expected and quite logical that a character be spoken of in relationship to the works in which he appeared or inspired. After all, we will not hear real-world news about a fictional character running for president or winning an Olympic medal. By way of example, coverage of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo is also mostly "in-universe", without detracting from these characters firmly established notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't see how those books and sources listed justify a keep. All of the coverage relates to the character in the serials he appeared in, with little on the character and how he is notable. Also, for the Skywalker and Solo articles, note the Reception section, which proves they have out of universe notability, as they, the characters themselves, have been covered in different articles, unrelated to the films. Beerest355 Talk 18:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See response below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The character made a significant impression on George Lucas, a musician and others. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does that provide notability? The way the section's worded, it seems most people were more inspired by the serials themselves than this non-notable character. If sources can be found that establish the notability of this character on his own, then the article should stay, but for now it seems he's really not notable. Beerest355 Talk 21:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as it shows the wished for real-world effects of a fictional character. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems most of these are about the serial. Heck, the article even uses a television template. Where are the sources that show notability? Beerest355 Talk 22:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing a template is a matter for regular editing, not deletion. Fictional characters are naturally discussed within Wikipedia in context to their works of fiction. We do not mandate that Han Solo be covered only if we have coverage of Han rescuing a bus full of nuns or for running for political office. While the matter of covering fictional elements returns to AFD for discussion on a regular basis, notability of a fictional character is not found simply through anything the characater has done, but rather though the contextual coverage of the character within those things that were done. If there were no coverage, then your assertion of non-notability would make sense, but wide coverage over many years in in multiple independent sources meets our most basic notability guide. Of course, this still might be best covered at Commando Cody: Sky Marshal of the Universe... but per Deletion policy, a merge discussion does not require a deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of Han Solo is far more then this character. Also, I'd like to see those reliable sources you're talking about, as I found about zero that cover Commando Cody exclusively. Note that fictional characters need to be notable outside of having a large role in notable media. Beerest355 Talk 22:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "topic exclusivity" of a source is not per guideline... guideline which instead specifically tells us that a topic being discussed need not be the main topic of the source material.

Note, we do not expect that fictional characters be notable for running for public office or doing some real-world event. Topic notability for fictional elements is logically and rationally based upon coverage of that character in relationship to their notable works of fiction.... not coverage that ignores their works of fiction.

IE: Without his relationship to Star Wars Han Solo has no real-world notability. Without his relationship to Star Trek, James Kirk has no real-world notability. Without their relationships to their notable works of fiction, such as Chewbacca or Winnie the Pooh have no out-of-their-universe notability. Their notability is because of their fictional works. And yes, in those other articles, other-than-in-universe analysis is offered due to the recentism and popularity of those fictional works... but such would not be available if the related fictional works did not exist ih the first place. It's chicken or egg. One is dependent on the other's existance.

The cogent essay WP:FICTION tells us "There is no special guideline for the notability of fictional elements (such as characters and episodes) on Wikipedia. See other relevant policies and guidelines in order to determine which fiction-related articles are appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. In particular, editors should review:

The general notability guideline
The policy on what Wikipedia is not
The manual of style for writing about fiction

Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just hold up a second here. "Exclusivity" isn't what I'm trying to say - I'm trying to say that sources that discuss more than just "Commando Cody is a character in Radar Men from the Moon" are needed. From WP:FICTION: "Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details." Also, please stop bringing up all those other articles, which clearly have segments devoted to the reception, proving their notability outside of the franchise they belong to. Commando Cody's only sources only discuss the fact that he, yes, appeared in some serials. Unless you can prove me otherwise, because I failed to find any. Beerest355 Talk 01:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your writing " I found about zero that cover Commando Cody exclusively." and your also writing "fictional characters need to be notable outside of having a large role in notable media". As I illustrated, your first point runs contrary to existing guideline and your second point ignores that fictional characters have their notability in direct correlation to to their notable fictions and are not expected to have the same real-world coverage as do real people. That isue aside, I feel that Clarityfiend offering "The character made a significant impression on George Lucas, a musician and others" shows this "fictional character" as actually having real-world ramifications beyond his films. Also a point of logic is that film heroes of the 1950s do not have quite the same level of analysis or commentary as do their their modern counterparts.

Further your debate has not at all addressed the possible merge of material to the more comprehensive Commando Cody: Sky Marshal of the Universe. Please read that that article to see that it is a suitable merge target. Hmmm? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Where will the "Confusion with other serials" and "references in other media" sections go, if this article is deleted. They're interesting, but they don't belong on either of the articles about the two serials, but they're not specifically about just that serial. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why, after a "keep", a merge to Commando Cody: Sky Marshal of the Universe is well worth discussion to make that determination (and I would think that discussion should have been undergone first)...but, and please note, per deletion policy, a merge discussion does not require an AFD, AFDs which quite often and well-intended happen without first looking for better solutions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Radar Men from the Moon and Commando Cody: Sky Marshal of the Universe, as appropriate. Subject does not meet WP:GNG; sources are passing mentions. Miniapolis 13:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7 by RHaworth. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BEDROC (hip hop duo)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC; unable to locate any reliable sources. Ish dar ian 22:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnanianania (talk • contribs) 00:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PSI Seminars[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ok. This one took some digging, and it's a bit problematic if I've missed something, but here goes.

I think the article is misrepresenting its subject and I can't find anything to help its claims to notability that is a reliable. I thought there was a problem with the tone, and that I could fix it. First I tried searching for new sources. Then I tried looking at the existing ones. My discoveries and conclusions are as follows:

Ref 1: If Life Is a Game...These Are The Stories - this contains 2 pages, written by Jane Willhite herself, and I can't see any details specified in the sentence it supports.

Ref 2: The Unity Movement: Its Evolution and Spiritual Teachings - there are brief mentions as part of a list of similar groups. Nothing more. It's very true that they are cited by the author.

Ref 3: I can't see this, so I don't know. If we're thinking about reputable sources though I invite you to look at the publisher.

Ref 4: Extreme Success - I can see one, two word mention. Again, cited! But...

Ref 5: The success principles: how to get from where you are to where you want to be - There's no preview, so I can't speak to it.

Ref 6: Snyder, Patricia (March 1983). "The use of nonprescribed treatments by hemodialysis patients". Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry (Springer Netherlands) 7 (1): 57–76 - This one really gets me. Yes! The study examined exactly "the extent to which chronically ill members of the population in Hawaii sought out alternative methods of self care by utilizing nonprescribed treatment patterns." - but the article's subject was far from a substantial part of the study. The abstract of which (for those who can't see it) goes:

In an attempt to examine the extent to which a specific chronically ill population might be engaged in self care through the use of nonprescribed treatments, 230 adult hemodialysis patients in Hawaii were interviewed. Information about the use of various treatment methods was correlated with sociodemographic characteristics, and the chi-square test of significance was applied to selective findings. Within this multiethnic patient population, 74% indicated they had tried one or more nonprescribed treatments for their kidney failure, and the majority of individuals judged their efforts to be effective. Ethnicity was not a significant determinant in the tendency to use nonprescribed treatments, although it influenced the selection of specific methods. Other sociodemographic characteristics were also found to be of minimal value as predictors of this type of help seeking behavior. The illness experience itself overrides many of the sociocultural factors in this study.

I'm going to stop there. I removed the Larry King reference because it was the person who was selling (and worked for) the company and someone being touted for spokesperson reasons. I can provide parts of the transcript if anyone would like them.

Sorry that was long. Hope a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article obviously meets the notability criteria and so should not be deleted, but needs to be rewritten. Editor2020 (talk) 23:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't mind being wrong, but would you please let me know how to make it (rs and v etc.) notable? Or at least, where I went wrong? Could be rather simple error I'm sure, it's been a while. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Or rather, I will fix it, if pointed in the right direction) Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. Adding a primary source and then re-writing the article with nary a care to the fact that the other sources don't (as far as I can see) support notability in any way, counts not as fixing it. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with Panyd's analysis of the references provided in the article; they are either not independent, or they are only trivially associated with the subject. A search of Google News Archive found only passing mentions, nothing about the company. Google Scholar search found a few mentions, minimally cited. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and look through previous revisions for material. This article has been frequently targeted by editors with an axe to grind. The subject and the organization are notable and entirely worth inclusion. And, on a practical note, I think that the acolytes of the subject of the article have wandered off by now, so it might be worthwhile to start improving this one again. Since you seem interested in doing so, the next step, really, is to pick an arbitrary point in the past, revert to that point, and start building from there. — Bigwyrm _{watch me}^{wake me} 03:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with major rewrite. I feel this is a notable topic because this company has been a major player in the large group awareness training industry, with a 40-year history and with (they claim) over 500,000 students. Because of the increased interest in "positive psychology," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_psychology), I think there will be growing interest in these old-line large group awareness training (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large-group_awareness_training) companies that derived from positive psychology's forerunner, humanistic psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_psychology). Therefore, a dispassionate article with reasonable references should be both useful and possible, although, looking through the article's history, I agree completely with the comments that this has been "frequently targeted by editors with an axe to grind." A few years ago, I did some reaseach into PSI Seminars and other large group awareness training companies, and I even tried to clean up some PSI Seminars entries. I'm traveling today and tomorrow, so an extensive entry is impractical, but I will be back home in a couple of days (coincidentally, I'm currently taking an evening class at Stanford where PSI Seminars and other similar classes have been mentioned), and I could attempt a rewrite over the next week to fix what I agree are rather flimsy references, etc. in the hope that it would be more acceptable as an entry. ADDED 22 July: This is going to take another two weeks, because I have tracked down a relevant PhD thesis that I want to see, but I need to get an interlibrary loan. Please don't take further action until I've gotten the article updated, or you can contact me on this page, which I'll look at every day. Eric Siegel (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motive Interactive[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sources are blogs and a website that has a blatant disclaimer saying it is a "paid review." Article came up in my patrols for articles listing "Network Products Guide" which is a pay-for-play award. CorporateM (Talk) 20:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, any more than it did when it was last up for AfD. --bonadea contributions talk 20:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as the business has won a notable award. ^King Jakob _C2 21:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't accept that any award for the fastest growing business (or fastest growing anything else) can confer notability. Any business that grows from nothing to something in a particular period has an infinite growth rate. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing to Weak keep per the low number of google news results, although I'm still hanging onto the possibility that notability can be established with this. @Phil Bridger: Notable is still notable, they have won a award with a blue link. ^King Jakob _C2 18:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if the award was notable enough, there'd be some reliable sources about it p b p 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sourcing in the article consists primarily of blogs and press release. My own search turns up more blogs and press releases only. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. To be clear, Wikipedia policy is that it is for those seeking to add, restore, or retain material to provide citations and sources for it. In the event that anyone is desirous of merging any of the content into one of the other articles mentioned, please contact me and I will restore as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 15:06, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bells (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Two reviews [3] [4] from non-WP:RSes might make their albums notable, but no feature articles on the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references still do not establish notability for this band, no significant improvment since this was deleted after AFD previously RadioFan (talk) 18:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clarify, it's not up to the article's editors to show the subject's notability, it's ours to discover if the subject is or isn't notable. With a name like "Bells" that's obviously a bit more difficult. However, I couldn't find anything to support the band's notability (or I would have added it to the article and removed the notability tag there since January). Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - HUH? It is the one who writes who has to give proof of what he writes. When the author thinks a band is notable, he/she has to provide evidence to prove the notability. The Banner talk 20:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Please dont imply that you are clarifying Wikipedia policy or even practice. What you note here just doesn't match up with how Wikipedia works. Please review WP:PROVEIT particularly the section which reads The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material--RadioFan (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:PROVEIT is about how to resolve a challenge to material, a "challenge" being more like "I don't think this is correct, so show me a citation", instead of merely "this is currently unsourced." PROVEIT does not give us license to delete an article (or part thereof) purely based on whether it is currently unreferenced without regard to whether it is verifiable; that interpretation would completely ignore the "challenged or likely to be challenged" qualifier. WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:NOTCLEANUP should together make that clear, and we must read PROVEIT in conjunction with those other policies. postdlf (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to August Burns Red and/or This or the Apocalypse. There's not much more here than who the band members are and the fact that they released an album last year, but while an article might not be justified, I don't see why this shouldn't be mentioned in the articles on the bands that the members were previously in. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the band self-released its CD, That's not a good sign for notability. Is there any good evidence that they have toured nationally? Bearian (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm afraid that I can't find anything the band meets any of the factors for WP:BAND. The four reviews (Shut Your F#$@!*ing Face and Listen, MVRemix reviews, The Ravel, and Chameleon Club) are from non-reliable sources, and not from the list of "approved" sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music/Sources. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deletion G4. Non-admin closure AllyD (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Postcard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article about The Post Card, a Bengali magazine; have no relevant references or citation. Given sources are not exist with the article. Leela Bratee (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4. A previous article was deleted via AfD just a month ago. Since then the same editor has made attempts to create it under variant names, and User talk:Kemdad indicates a block. AllyD (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 21:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien et la Mary-Morgane[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sufficiently notable. PatGallacher (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested prod, the contestor just said "don't do prods, sorry, you'll fall flat on your face if you take it to AFD mark my words...", which I don't think is a very good response. This rather obscure French TV programme does not appear to be notable, there was not an English version produced. The article is also completely unsourced, and the programmed does not have an entry on IMDB. PatGallacher (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Small world, I created both Cécile Aubry and Marrakesh too! How bizarre that this links to that article! A quick search in google books indicates it has coverage in multiple reliable publications and I'd imagine coverage in French newspapers of the late 1960s.

Well, you've volunteered for the grilling so you're going to get it.

"The programmed does not have an entry on IMDB" = it is a spin-off of IMDB entry.
"As this was never broadcast in English I question its notability" Shall we put every non-English language TV series, film, play, book, novel etc up for deletion because it has never been written in English? Possibly the most ignorant comment I've ever heard in the history of wikipedia which displays a shockingly biased outlook on the world and other cultures. Being written in English is far from being a decider of what is notable or what isn't!! That's basic common sense.
The article is also completely unsourced? An article on Henry Kissinger could be unsourced. Does that make him non notable. Try looking in google books for starters.
Conclusion? You've not even attempted to try to look for information but have displayed a bias towards this article subject in such a way that you ought to be embarrassed with yourself.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just because it was not broadcast on an English-language station is no reason to deny notability.--Ipigott (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks to meet notability to me. And I have to agree that not airing in English really isn't grounds for deleting an article. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable. Even "The Oxford companion to Canadian theatre" makes a reference to it and cast member Jacques Godin (playing role of Jonathan): His television films include L'Ile au trésor (Germany-France-Canada), and Sébastien et la Mary Morgane (France-Canada).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is supposed to have a worldwide view on things. A French film that receives coverage is just as notable as an English films that receives coverage. The problem is finding those sources; a person living in the United States may find it difficult to find sources about a topic in another country because they either can't read the other language or they don't know where to look. Barbed comments aside, Dr. Blofeld has found sources that indicate the show has significance (i.e. the references in "The Oxford companion to Canadian theatre"). Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Before nominating, a quick book search would have shown obvious notability. This is a waste of everyone's time. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —per reasons outlined by Dr. Blofeld. -- Cassianto ^Talk 11:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is this for real?: "...does not appear to be notable, there was not an English version produced." FYI, Office de Radiodiffusion Télévision Française was quite a major outlet at the time... --Soman (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply OK, I realize that the article has been improved significantly over the past few days, but I would point out that at the time I put it up for AFD it was completely unreferenced, and there has been a "notability" flag on it for a week with no response or attempt to improve the article. PatGallacher (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you expect me to have 95,000 articles on my watchlist? I already have around 1050 which is more than I can keep track of as it is. Naturally I wasn't aware of your tagging until you prodded it, and I don't do prods. But I did tell you what would happen if you took it to AFD...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nom, based on the direction of this AfD, you may want to consider withdrawing your nomination. czar · · 04:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if people want to close it I'm not standing in their way. PatGallacher (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'll stay open until (at least) the 19th (a full week) unless you withdraw the nom earlier—your call czar · · 03:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I withdraw the nomination on the grounds that the article has been substantially improved since I nominated it for AFD. However, to reply to Dr Blofeld, there is another side to this coin, if a notability flag has been on an article for a week, and there has been no reply or attempt to improve it, I think it is legitimate to take things a stage further. PatGallacher (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, article has no sources, and AfD unopposed for a long period. We can reasonably treat this as an expired {{prod}}. Prodego ^talk 15:45, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kharb[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Right from its creation in 2006 there have been queries about this article. I can find no reliable sources that discuss this clan, although there certainly are some people who have Kharb and variants such as Kharub as a name. Fails WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment there are several dozen of such articles; see the template there. I suggest to merge all these one-liners into one place, tag each with "fact", and then remove if remain unreferenced. - Altenmann >t 05:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you will find a lot of them are already tagged individually. Those that are not soon will be - they are almost all the work of one or two specific contributors many years ago. - Sitush (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

After the article has been on AFD for over a month, there is not a clear consensus. I am not relisting it again; there is clearly no consensus and the article will be kept. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No RS to support this, not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 19:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-orelated deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage I see is passing mention when the head of the group is quoted. I see no significant coverage of the group itself in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator here. Since the article was listed for deletion I have added a couple references from credible third-party sources and will continue to do so. The text is NPOV. On the subject of notability I don't think there's any shortage of mention of the group online: there are plenty of LegCo documents demonstrating the involvement of the group in community affairs, especially if you search in both Chinese and English, and other event notices published by universities, other professional groups, etc. Additionally there are many other professional organizations in Hong Kong on Wikipedia with similar levels of notability, and I think they belong. Why is the Ichthyological Society of Hong Kong acceptable but HKIUD is not? That group is of a similar age and judging by their website may be less active. Citobun (talk) 05:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, the other article you mention seems much better referenced than this one. But we are debating the deletion of this article, not that one. Just because we have adequately referenced articles about notable Hong Kong organizations does not mean that we should keep a poorly referenced article about this particular group. So, please point to the significant coverage in reliable, independent sources discussing this specific topic. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABLE states that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." User:Tyros1972 has attempted to have the page deleted twice in less than two days since I created the article. This gives me very little time to beef up the article and add reliable sources as I now know is required, and deletion is hardly being used as a "last resort" in this case where the notability is clearly subject to debate. "Ichthyological Society of Hong Kong" and other similar pages demonstrate that. They are very similar precedent cases.

The rationale given for both the deletion attempts is shaky. When it was first listed for speedy deletion it was under the promotional content criterion -- but the article was totally NPOV and the speedy deletion request was delisted. Now the reasoning is that there are "no RS" to demonstrate notability -- not true. It is still poorly sourced because I've been given no time to work on it. Deletion at this time would be inappropriate and even listing it here runs contrary to the guidelines at Wikipedia:NOTABLE. Citobun (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a one week process starting on June 19, so you do have time. If you add a few high quality independent sources, I will change my recommendation from "delete" to "keep". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator again. I have spent some time today beefing up the article and adding some more third-party reliable sources. Citobun (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - You query why Ichthyological Society of Hong Kong is acceptable for an article and this one is not. That is not the point. It, too, could end up at AfD, for all you know, but, applying your own argument, one could just as well ask why HKIUD should have an article when only one of the six similar bodies given prominence in your fifth source viz. Hong Kong Institute of Architects has a Wiki article, apart from this one, which is being discussed here. I note from the HKIUD website that it has only around 100 members. In any case, this is a fairly young organisation which has only been around for just over two years. I think, since you are connected with this institute, WP:COI is also an issue here..--Zananiri (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking through the article and alerting me to WP:COI. Yes, I should have made it clear much earlier that as a student of urban design in Hong Kong I have been a student member of the institute for a couple months. My motivation to create the article came before I joined, however, when I first Googled the institute and found no Wiki page. After skimming WP:COI, I will refrain from editing the HKIUD page, though I also want to add that I have not received any sort of compensation, benefits, nor do I know anyone at the institute particularly well. Thanks, Citobun (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - No case to answer. The nominator's reasons are just too thin. The article simply needs improvement, not deletion. STSC (talk) 07:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any substantial coverage in reliable independent sources covering this subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the Chinese name "香港城市設計學會" on Google, I got 116 actual hits. That is substantial. STSC (talk) 03:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only replied to the question if there's substantial coverage. The article still needs improvement on citation. STSC (talk) 08:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little to add really, so not much to improve either, as this is a very young institute - in its infancy actually - with around 100 members and without a proven track record. At present it lacks notability. However, it is understandable that students and others following the subject may find it interesting and think it warrants a stand-alone Wiki article. In fact, the creator of this article has conceded this very point here. A better solution might be be to list all the institutes in the fifth source in one article, mentioning their respective salient features. The fifth source is, in any case, a press release by them about themselves and not an independent, third party assessment of the institutes or HKIUD, so it is a primary source.

The number of Google hits, substantial or not, in whatever language they are present, does not really equate to sources establishing the importance or notability of HKIUD. Google hits in this context may actually mean nothing. I could find hits entering my own name. Does that make me notable or worthy of a Wiki article? I think not. Quantity and quality are separate issues, particularly when it comes to Google hits. My favourite coffee and wine suppliers have umpteen Google hits. So what? However, I think, we should be clearer about the notability of HKIUD in a couple of years' time. Let it mature and prove itself to be a worthy contender for a stand-alone Wiki article. Until then, just one article for all the institutes mentioned in the fifth source may be the answer. After all, the said institutes also issued the press release, cited in that source, collectively - one statement for all of them.--Zananiri (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being a young institute with about 100 members can be notable and is not a valid reason for deletion of the article. Notability is established by multiple secondary sources. STSC (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the reason I gave for deletion. Notability has just not been established per WP:GNG.--Zananiri (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is in your comment above, if it is not the reason then how and why the article fails the WP:GNG? STSC (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence following that comment clearly states that this company has no track record. And I did make other comments as well. I note that you have edited the article since my last comment here, but you have not mentioned anywhere that this is a limited company, as its website states from which I quote verbatim:

articles and bye-law
"The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design is a company limited by guarantee which was incorporated under the Companies Ordinance in 2010.
The Institute is governed by a memorandum and by articles of association. Together with a set of bye-laws now approved at the EGM held on 5th May 2011 these instruments cover, amongst other things, the classes and rights of and requirements of entry to membership of the Institute, the composition and powers of the council to manage the Institute and the conduct of general meetings."

The above quote is taken from: http://www.hkiud.org/en/about-us/articles-and-bye-law

Its full name is: The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design Limited. The lead in the article should have mentioned that it is a limited company, when saying it is a professional body for urban designers in Hong Kong. It appears it is just another limited company, whatever it does. The bit about it being supported (no citation, though) by the government, when it was established, was another opportunity to mention its limited company status. It doesn't really matter who was invited to cut the ribbon at the company's inauguration and who was present. That is incidental.

I still think the article should be deleted. Parts of it also look like blatant promotion to me. I also note that the company's entries at the social media website linkedin are promotional, too, being a copy of what the company's website says about itself viz. http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Hong-Kong-Institute-Urban-Design-4708154/about - Enough said. I will leave it at that.--Zananiri (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any organization can be set up legally as a limited company. So, you want to delete the article because of that? STSC (talk) 17:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would like it to be deleted, because I believe this company still fails WP:GNG. Even after all your edits. The sources don't vouch for its notabiliy, not the English ones at any rate and I doubt that the Chinese ones are any different, as the company's languages are English and Chinese. Additionally, the lead is, in my view, misleading, overhyped and tendentious. It should state unambiguously that UKIUD is a private limited company and membership entails an annual subscription viz.http://www.hkiud.org/en/membership/fee-a-payment

The bit about the company having received government support is ambiguous as well. There is nothing unusual about new companies inviting government officials or ministers to attend the inauguration ceremony. The guest of honour at such vents is often a high-ranking government servant, particularly in Asian countries. Good publicity. That does not mean active government support or say anything about the notability of the company, but the lead certainly gives me the impression that this is what the reader is expected to surmise! This company merely provides the facilities for fee-paying members to get together, to discuss matters that interest them, make proposals pertaining to their interests and organise events they are interested in. Think of a wine tasting club, society or institute where like-minded members pay an annual fee, attend tastings, pass judgement on wines they taste and write articles about such wines. Every now and then, they award points to wines they taste, after which the organisation is quoted by wine merchants to sell some particular vintage. Good for the organisation and good for the wine merchants. Inviting distinguished guests to their tastings gives the organisation even more publicity, like the events HKIUD organises. Would the wine organisation pass WP:GNG? I doubt it. I think the same applies to HKIUD. Zananiri (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HKIUD is not a business entity as you are playing it out to be, and I don't know any professional association without annual dues. As you quoted from the website, it's a company limited by guarantee, which in Hong Kong means a "company limited by guarantee [which is] set up for purpose of advancement of education, religion, relief of poverty, trust and foundation, etc. Most Institutes formed by this structure are not for profit-marking but they may not be charitable" source. This is not an applicable basis for making a claim of promotional material. The institute is not for profit and many other similar professional associations in HK have the same legal setup. Citobun (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. the gnews hits are very limited and not indepth. number of members is irrelevant to notability. LibStar (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - There are multiple secondary sources published on the net (mostly in Chinese - Google and some in English) that support the notability of the subject. I have improved the article and it's improvement should continue through regular editing. STSC (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - User STSC is right, weak reasoning for deletion. Already improvements made by user STSC to show further notability. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After having seen the revision and the new sources, I have come to the same conclusion again i.e. HKIUD does not pass WP:GNG The new sources provided do not vouch for the notability of this institute.

The lead is still misleading, about government support (no citation) and who attended the opening ceremny. In fact, the lead dwells too much on this.

The third source (We Own The City) points to an event organised by the Faculty of Architecture, University of Hong Kong, which HKIUD, among others, supported. It was the initiative of the university.

The fifth source relates to a government initiative in which everyone (public consultation), was invited to submit their views. HKIUD may have taken part but so did many others.

I have previously commented on the sixth source (fifth before revision) and stand by my observations, even if HKIUD is a non-profit establishment.

The seventh source relates to HKIUD entering a competition. Entering a competition relating to urban design is one thing, winning it is another.

The ninth source quotes someone who attended an event in Hong Kong organised by the HKIUD. After saying he enjoyed being there, he concludes: "Hopefully they will be able to progress from a ‘professional’ body to become a wider influence on place and culture." This is, in essence, what I have been saying all along. HKIUD does not yet have a notable track record. Give it time to mature and the chance to become hopefully a notable body eventually. At present, it does not seem to pass the notability test for a stand-alone Wiki article, which this participant at the HKIUD event, in my opinion, confirms in diplomatic language.--Zananiri (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship anarchy[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. I'm not seeing anything in reliable sources about this; lots of blogs and forum hits, but nothing that could be considered reliable. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As either a non-notable neologism or something made up in one day, which is a less generous spin on the same idea. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC) // Urban Dictionary is thattaway...----> Striking my previous in the light of the cites by George Makepeace below. Moving opinion to Keep under GNG based on that. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a relatively new term, but I wouldn't say that it's non-notable. As for sources: Could this be considered reliable? http://sex.sagepub.com/content/13/6/748.full.pdf (page 763). George Makepeace (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that could be, actually; good find. I'd say it takes more than one, but I see that there's another work using the term that's cited in that one; that might do the trick. I don't have an opportunity to look at that at this moment, but I will, and the combination of the two might well be enough to get me to withdraw the AfD. Nice work! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! If it helps, I've also found some studies done by Jacob Strandell in 2012 and 2011. Unfortunately, the latter one, which is entirely about relationship anarchy, is written in Swedish. George Makepeace (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Non-English sources are acceptable if equivalent English sources are unavailable. Grandmartin11 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an undergraduate thesis on the topic, also coming out of Sweden. groupuscule (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a neologism. There are probably already other articles about the same concept. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean: You think that relationship anarchy is not distinct enough from polyamory to warrant a separate page? George Makepeace (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't seem to be. Although there is very limited evidence. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if better sources than a single blog can be found. As posted above there do seem to be professional publications using the term, so it is potentially notable. Lesion (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relationship anarchy is not polyamory, it is distinct from that style of relationship. It is a relatively new term but is quickly gaining usage in the polyamory and fetish communities as a way to describe relationship styles that have previously had no clear description. It should be kept on the basis that at the moment there is no central repository for information about relationship anarchy and thus it can be hard to find out about. The ability to have a central article such as this, that can be expanded and added to by anyone, is of great importance when discussing concepts such as new relationship styles. As a practitioner of relationship anarchy myself, I cannot stress how helpful it would have been to have had this resource while I was learning about it. By having this article we also encourage more people to write about the subject and eventually will no longer be considered an underground movement. Much of the writing about Relationship Anarchy is currently in Swedish and therefore not accessible to English speakers. CharlotteM85 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please review your motivations for wanting to keep the article, and ask yourself whether these correspond to Wikipedia's aims or represent your own personal interest. See, of possible relevance WP:COI and WP:ADVOCACY. Lesion (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I have vested interest in this subject, there is no conflict. I believe that it is a legitimate inclusion alongside other relationship styles in a place that is a written compendium of knowledge. It could be a decade or more before it is included in academic discourse, yet there is much discussion on specialist interest sites of this practice. This practice has been happening for decades, but only recently have communities put a term on it via the internet. CharlotteM85 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. A few academic sources were suggested above, but I assume you meant common usage of the term in academic publications. I think this article is potentially notable to stay and grow on wikipedia, but someone would need to use these better sources instead of the current blog that is used. If you are interested in this topic, please consider doing this as a lack of reliable sources is the main reason people are "voting" to delete it. Lesion (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have two Swedish bachelor theses on the subject (Jacob Strandell, 2011; Ida Midnattssol, 2013) (non-English sources are acceptable), and an article mentioning the term on SAGE, amongst other things. George Makepeace (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find these citations to be compelling — this is indeed a term used in academic sociology. I stand corrected. Passes GNG, and an encyclopedic concept. Carrite (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of fashion designers#Italy. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion designers of Florence[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure what purpose this list serves - the individual designers where appropriate appear on List of fashion designers#Italy and many are red-links. I don't see where we have other lists for people from Florence, apart from the clearly encyclopaedic List of mayors of Florence. It does seem a bit redundant. Maybe merge the names to Italian fashion, although almost all the names checked here seem to also have namechecks on that page. Also, I see no equivalent lists for say, London, or Milan, or Paris, or Tokyo, and don't think they are required at this point in time. Mabalu (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge No indication that this is a significant category considered as a group by reliable sources, as required by WP:L. Florence isn't one of Italy's biggest fashion centres; there's no article on Florence's fashion; the section Florence#Fashion is one paragraph long. List of fashion designers#Italy covers the same topic and we don't need both. Maybe there would be a case for a page which lists Italian fashion designers with info like city and dates, but we don't need the sort of granularity given by one list per city. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of fashion designers#Italy per above sound analysis. Cavarrone 07:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That might not quite work because that list is (unfortunately) sorted by where people are born rather than where they are active; the criteria makes it rather useless, unless the two happen to coincide. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can see, all the bluelinks listed in Fashion designers of Florence are of Italian origin so yes, it appears a case in which the two happen to coincide. Cavarrone 06:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of pharmacies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unmaintainable and inexhaustible list. Do we list all shoe shops? We do not, nor all fishmongers. That is because Wikipedia is not a directory. Doubtless this was created with good intentions, but those are misguided. Fiddle Faddle 22:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." See also: Category:Pharmacies and Category:Pharmacies by country‎. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to do with the old category vs list argument. Look at the list! It is impossible to maintain. Fiddle Faddle 23:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTPURP as a completely standard article list. Why is a list of notable pharmacies (i.e., those which have or merit articles) unmaintainable? The nominator needs to read the first part of WP:NOTDIR: "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." And this is nothing more than a standard index of articles. postdlf (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not familiar with the policies surrounding this kind of article, but I would comment that a lot of work seems to have gone into this page, and it might be a shame to delete it. However, there is a noticeable lack of sources and the style could be more consistent throughout. Lesion (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You need sources saying that these are pharmacies? If the individual pharmacies are completely unverifiable, then they shouldn't have articles and shouldn't be included in this list. If the pharmacies are at all verifiable, and particularly if they merit an article, then any source that discusses them is going to confirm that it's a pharmacy, and it's just clutter to add references for that basic and completely uncontroversial fact to this list. postdlf (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree on principle- you should need a source to say anything on Wikipedia. However like I said, I am unfamiliar with the policies for lists. What stands out more than the unreferenced list of pharmacy companies is the often unreferenced "trivia" comments that accompany many of the individual items in the list. I don't have a problem with those, but I think ideally they should be sourced appropriately. Lesion (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last two sentences. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but set out guidelines in the Lede. Costco may have a pharmacy in there stores, but Costco is not a pharmacy. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that's not hard to do, as Costco is not included in any pharmacy category. Same issue regardless of whether we're using a list or a category to say "this is a pharmacy." Many grocery stores also have book and magazine racks, yet I don't think we have much of a fight over whether they belong in bookstore lists or categories. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am Zozo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, non-notable stub. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a trailer review by Dread Central; the movie was mentioned at the website of Screen Daily and Variety [5]. I think it is enough to meet our notability requirements. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate/userfy. I'm a little hesitant about keeping this based on the sources currently in the article. I've found coverage from 2011, but it's all in relation to the film as far as pre-release stuff goes. I can't find a review of this movie in any reliable sources, which would really make me feel that this pushes it to where it passes WP:NFILM. Heck, if we had just one review I'd be willing to say that it passes notability guidelines. (Maybe someone in charge of the film can send a user copy to Dread Central or one of the various horror movie sites and try to get a quick review?) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Festival screened film whose topic meets WP:NF through coverage of film and production in multiple independent sources, and rather than being from 2011, many of the more recent and speak toward Image Entertainment picking it up for distribution: Cinema Blend Bloody Disgusting JoBlo Dread Central Screen Daily Variety (multiple articles) We can certainly expect this well-covered film topic to have critical commentary and review after wider distribution. This means we can allow a sourcable topic to remain and be further improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage can easily be found. Please follow WP:BEFORE from now on. SL93 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pre-release coverage does count towards notability. SL93 (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamiat Ulama-e-Islam Nazryati[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:ORG. An examination of India and Pakistan Google sites detail an existing but very new political party, up less than a year. So fails general notability guidelines. The article has had no references since inception, with non added in the interim. scope_creep 15:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep. References added. Delljvc (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the party participated in the Pakistani general election, 2013, which makes it notable IMO. Mar4d (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The party was noted by Urdu media such as this. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omploader[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Omploader was a small file sharing website, seemingly mostly used for posting Arch Linux screenshots. As it lacks any media coverage or sources I think that's reason enough to remove it, but the site has been down for over 2 months with no signs of life too. There hasn't been any status report on the associated twitter account or elsewhere. I didn't think this would be controversial so I went through the proposed deletion process, but that tag was removed so here we are :). strcat (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Construction and business development in Chicago[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a presumably partial list (with no selection criteria stated) of construction permits and business licenses issued in Chicago during the first half of 2013, this seems to be nothing but an indiscriminate and unencyclopedic collection of data. See also WP:SALAT. Deor (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, truly indiscriminate. I don't think I've ever seen such mundane information posted on WP. Delete per nom. postdlf (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:INDISCRIMINATE list: This page appears to be just a list of (selected?) very recent business openings and related government filings, with no indication that they are particularly significant. (Contrast with lists such as tallest buildings, mayors of major cities, etc.) Page does not have any substantial content other than the list. --Closeapple (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never meditated syndrome[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and seemingly made-up syndrome. References used may support "stress relief from meditation" but do not support the use of the term "Never meditated syndrome". Fringe claims (e.g. physical effects of wi-fi, supposed medical effects of "tapping of the energy meridians at key points of the body") are presented in non-neutral manner. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete No hits whatsoever on Google other than us. Obviously something someone made up. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly made up/original research. I can't find any reference to the phase's use. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sounds like something somebody made up in one day. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well intended Original Research IMO. I cant find the term in any of the half dozen of the Ref's that I checked. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR. Looie496 (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete a colostomy bag full of undesirable article types in one: WP:HOAX, WP:MADEUP, WP:FRINGE, WP:POV, WP:OR, etc etc etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Ansh666 20:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nom got it right. -- Scray (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OwnagePranks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another YouTube channel. May have got some minor attention at Funny or Die and so on, but fails WP:GNG, WP:WEB and any number of other policies and/or guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 11:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the end, there just isn't enough to really show notability for this YT channel. I can see where it's mentioned on the internet, but not in places that I would say can be used as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After reading the article. Youtube can NOT be used as a refrence. Non-notible subject. NSlights^Talk 22:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not satisfied with the sources. In order for the author to keep this article he should put some authentic sources and Youtube by far is not an authentic source. Nefirious (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tales Tlaija de Souza[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully pro league to establish notability. Finnegas (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Siciliano[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography with no references to reliable sources, which is generally a bad thing under the BLP policy - there has been IP edit-warring over information in the article with no evidence of what's correct. There's an assertion of notability regarding a major award he's won, and his IMDB page suggests he's been involved in a fair few minor productions, but I cannot find any real references to back up most information in the article. ~ mazca ^talk 11:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't seen any strong indication of notability in English-language sources, but I have seen some decent looking sources in Italian. I'm not sure if WP:NOENG applies here. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has nothing to do with language of a source. Could you provide links to the sources you have found? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[6], [7], [8] and [9]. Toccata quarta (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've listed more reliable sources in my comment below. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (ec) This article (culturalnews.it) says Siciliano received the award "Composer of the Year" at the 67th Venice Film Festival. His works are noted by notable Italian newspapers such as la Repubblica [10] or Libero [11]. It is possible to find out more about him here. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article as it stands is much clearer about his education and his retirement than about the achievements which presumably came between. (Whether he retired is a question, actually: according to it:Louis Siciliano he merely changed his professional name to ALUEI.) The 2006 Nastro d'Argento for Best Score for La febbre does suggest notability, but his is only one of the four names listed. I currently have no instinct as to whether the article should stay (and be improved), or should go. Ian Spackman (talk) 08:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Composer of the Year" award at the 67th Venice Film Festival and 2006 Nastro d'Argento award for Best Score are quite enough to pass WP:ANYBIO's first requirement. The coverage that was listed above is also fine. Cavarrone 06:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cavarrone and the sources given by Vejvančický and myself. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Comment: I'm italian. This guy take advantage of self-made fake news in order to gain visibility. Articles are constantly deleted for this reason, check again links you've posted in this discussion! --Tarukofusuki (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tetracycline litigation. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. Paul Minieri[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. I reviewed the references in this article, finding the following:

Citation 1.) and Citation 2.) are both links to Facebook and are to his descendents. They do not contribute anything to a claim of notability.
Citation 3.) is a statement about the number of legal cases related to the article's subject's work on the drug tetracycline. One actual case number is provided, but even this is a case about the drug, not about the article's subject. The article's subject was not named in any lawsuit regarding the drug and a claim of notability cannot be made on his involvement with a drug that WAS the subject of any or multiple lawsuit(s).
Citation 4.) is a reference to an article in which the subject's name does not appear.
Citation 5.) is a reference to a Time Magazine article about legal battle over tetracycline, not about the subject of the article. What I could read for free on the Internet did not mention the subject's name— it may be hasty of me, I admit, but I doubt that his name appears anywhere in the article in any other context than possibly as a brief mention as having been involved in research on the drug, if that.
Citation 6.) is apparently a repetition of the name of the publisher and location of a work listed in the article, not an actual reference or a citation.
Citation 7.) is a link to a patent on which the article's subject's name appears— having a name on a patent does not establish a claim of notability, never mind that he shares the patent with two other researchers and that the patent itself, though it deals with the production of tetracycline, is not in any way particularly notable.

Having said all that, I also did an independent search for information about this individual. What comes up on searches for him are his publications, of which he does have a few. Having publications, however, does not establish a claim of notability: I could find nothing that talked about HIM, nothing to establish HIS notability independent of his work, nothing to suggest that HE himself was notable. His work on tetracycline was interesting, and should probably be cited in the Wikipedia article on tetracycline. And I am sure he was a very, very nice man. But I do not see sufficient material here to warrant a claim of notability, general, academic, or otherwise: to the best of my research and in alignment with the information in the existing Wikipedia article he was not a member of the faculty at any university, was not the editor of any major (or minor) academic journal, received no prestigious awards during or after his lifetime, made no impact outside of academia, was not elected member of any highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association, etc., etc. He co-authored (never single-authored) several research papers that dealt with tetracycline, and single-authored one 6-page publication titled, "New Reaction of Nitriles: Amides from alkenes and mononitriles" in 1948 which has been of no enduring significance or interest inside or outside of the field of organic chemistry. Based on these findings, I propose that this article on him be Deleted from the Wikipedia website as a non-notable individual. KDS4444^Talk 09:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did some independent search and came with some references which qualify the subject as notable. http://www.uni.illinois.edu/~jkblue2/chemistry.html This article has the mention of Mineiri as the one who discovered the ritter reaction along with Ritter. Plus, he wrote a number of publications which had, somehow, influence on the organic chemistry. Usmanwardag (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That link is to a student's personal web page on the University of Illinois web site. You have been editing Wikipedia articles since August of 2011, which means you are about to finish your second year: do you understand yet that this is not a reliable third party source of information? KDS4444^Talk 15:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's nothing in WP:PROF that requires "notability independent of his work." His PhD work with Ritter is certainly notable, with their paper being cited 375 times, and his work on tetracycline also seems notable. -- 202.124.75.20 (talk) 04:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for "Minieri" and "tetracycline" finds many book references because of the famous Tetracycline litigation concerning his patent. I think that counts as "impact outside of academia." Contra the nomination, his paper describing his PhD work, "A New Reaction of Nitriles. I. Amides from Alkenes and Mononitriles" (i.e the Ritter reaction) was not only cited 375 times, but has been of continuing interest inside the field of organic chemistry, being cited over a dozen times in publications printed so far this year, and being discussed in numerous textbooks on organic chemistry. -- 202.124.88.17 (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Ritter reaction is very notable. No argument. Say, have you considered getting a username? It's free and easy. KDS4444^Talk 02:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that tetracycline work satisfies WP:PROF #7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." -- 203.171.197.16 (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...And that is what the article on the Ritter reaction does. I don't disagree with you. (But then, I don't think you are listening to me...) KDS4444^Talk 07:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're interpreting WP:PROF differently. In particular, there's nothing in WP:PROF that requires "notability independent of his work." And I think that the tetracycline work (which is not the same as the Ritter reaction) satisfies WP:PROF notability criterion #7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." -- 202.124.88.18 (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. I withdraw the interpretation. There remains, to the best of my knowledge and research, no significant, reliable, independent third-party sources that discuss the subject of this article. At best, I could see the article being merged into the article on the Ritter reaction, though I do not think there is evidence to necessarily warrant even this. You have not addressed the fact that even Ritter himself does not have an article, and are focusing only on the number of times that this individual's collaborative work has been cited. I do not believe that this means we need a stand-alone article on him nor one reviewing his family life or telling us what a nice guy he was (which is what we currently have). When I ask myself, "Is this article the kind of thing I would expect to find in a paper encyclopedia?" I continue to hear myself saying, "Not really, no," in response. KDS4444^Talk 16:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:NOTPAPER. -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...Which states that "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia...there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content." It goes on to state that although articles are theoretically unlimited in scope, they should nevertheless be limited in practice in order to make them digestible as is done in a paper encyclopedia. My concern is with regard to content, not scope. Under WP:WHATISTOBEDONE it states, "When you wonder what should or should not be an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." That is more to my point, and that is where I feel this article does not seem to meet the standard of inclusion. KDS4444^Talk 10:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I disagree, believing that WP:PROF is the relevant guideline for inclusion, and that the subject passes WP:PROF, for reasons given above. -- 202.124.88.10 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Mineri discovered that tetracycline could be produced through fermentation. He discovered ritter reaction in collaboration with Ritter and received a patent on Tetracycline which certainly qualifies him as notable. Usmanwardag (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these things are so, and if they make him notable, then please provide evidence of their significance in reliable, independent, third-party sources. Even John J. Ritter does not have a Wikipedia article (his reaction, yes; him, no). Also: please explain the basis of your "Speedy Keep" recommendation— the normal discussion period for an AfD is seven days and I do not yet see any reason to close the discussion before then. Please advise. KDS4444^Talk 15:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to lack of biographical sources, does not meet the general notability guideline. - MrOllie (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep after stubbification. I think the Ritter reaction and the tetracycline synthesis patent issue are together enough to pass WP:PROF#C1 and avoid falling into WP:BIO1E. But, an encyclopedia article here can only contain material coming from reliable sources, and I completely agree with the nominator's demolition of the sources as nominated. I am unable to find sources for most of the personal detail in the article as nominated, but have stubbed it back to a short article that reports only on the two things I can source: the Ritter reaction and tetracycline. It may be necessary to keep this article as a perma-stub, but I think it's ok in that state. However, I would prefer deletion over reversion to its expanded and badly sourced version. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Tetracycline#History or similar. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Tetracycline litigation is probably a better merge target. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of biographical sources for a biography (thus failing ANYBIO, GNG, etc), as MrOllie points out. No objection to a merge or redirect as long as any merged content is sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete due to poor sourcing. Probably can be covered within Tetracycline litigation. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Final?] Comment Although the trimmed-down article is a great improvement, the first reference does not discuss the article's subject other than trivially and the second reference is from a teacher's guide that was never assigned an ISBN (presumably because it was considered too ephemeral, a reason given here by a Canadian issuing authority— which issues them for pretty much everything— for not assigning an ISBN to a given book). This makes its reliability as a source somewhat dubious. No other reliable sources on this individual have been identified other than those mentioning his name on publications and patents, as already discussed. KDS4444^Talk 07:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of reliable sourcing given significant effort. Should be covered in history sections of the phenomena in question. I'm interesting to see the outcome of this debate. If Minieri deserves an article so might James Christenson whose PhD experiment on CP Violation won his advisors a Noble Prize in Physics [12]. Poor Jim isn't even mentioned in the CP Violation article but then again doctoral students are guided by their advisors. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noha Radwan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This orphan page created by a blocked user fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). OCNative (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her comments are sought after by notable media such as The New York Times [13], Democracy Now! [14] etc. [15]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not just an academic; I added several sources about her newsworthy activities in Egypt during the Arab Spring. --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also reorganized the article into a more standard biographical format, revamped the categories, and provided links from other articles so that this article is no longer an orphan. --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a orphan page is no reason for deletion, being created by blocked user also no reason for deletion. Notability of the subject established by the info added and the above comments. The Legend of Zorro 04:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Concordia Forum[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability Bromley86 (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC) Six minutes after creation it was PRODed; the creator removed that. It's been tagged with notability since almost the start. Very little editing of it since then; I've added a load of cites and updated, but I was only drawn to the article because Concordia was listed on Lord Ahmed's parliamentary register of interests. Now he's no longer a member, and given that the CF don't publicly discuss what they actually do, there's no reason for anyone to ever notice it. Bromley86 (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Various searches (including Guardian, Highbeam, Questia) turn up nothing on this. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E.C. Illa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article most certainly does meet WP:GNG. Click on the news and books links above. The current version of the article gives no indication that the article meets GNG, but reading it gives a clear feel that he is some type of underground/cult legend. My first thought was: I wonder what the two cover stories were that are associated with his appearances on the covers of magazines. I felt relieved to see the extent of aforementioned search results. Please keep and please encourage the involved editors to wikify this article with WP:ICs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 5. Snotbot t • c » 05:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources currently present in the article (Chicago Tribune + Allmusic bio) suggest it is possible to write a well referenced article about this artist. See also [16]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could do with a cleanup, but there are already 2 sources in the article that show WP:GNG & WP:MUSICBIO are met. — sparklism ^hey! 16:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La Lanterne[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially a copy of the Nuttall Encyclopaedia ("Lanterne, La, a stout lamp-iron at the corner of a street in Paris, used by the mob for extemporised executions during the Revolution by Lynch law."), as far as I can tell, it is meaningless. "Lanterne just means "lantern" in French. Sure they were used for lynchings during the French Revolution, but an article about that should be called use of street lanterns for lynching during the French Revolution, and I really doubt we have enough material to make an article anyway.

As I think it is fairly obvious that the current article should not be kept, I was tempted to change its meaning to that fr:La Lanterne or fr:La Lanterne (journal). But those are completely different topics, so deleting the article and create new ones afterwards is a cleaner solution. Superzoulou (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless anyone can come up with modern reliable sources. Firstly, old encyclopedias are not an adequate source for Wikipedia, except in special circumstances. We simply do not know where the writers of individual entries got their information or how well they knew their topic, and modern research has often disproved what they say. Secondly, there is no hint of this usage at the French Wikipedia, which throws doubt on the notability of this usage if it ever existed (I suspect that the writer of the Nuttall entry had been reading too many novels). --AJHingston (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So ... we should refuse old encyclopedias as a source and instead of it we should rely on the information of an incomplete crowd-sourced project? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, yes. Old encyclopedias are useful to establish notability of a topic, and occasionally have a particular value as a source when they are covering events contemporary with the topic covered there, but as a sole source they are suspect for the reasons I explained. On virtually every topic there will be more recent and better sources. For subjects most likely to be covered in another language version of Wikipedia, it is usual and useful to refer to these both because they are likely to cite other and better sources and because they can give a useful indication of notability. --AJHingston (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete As far as I can tell this really is nothing more than an explanation of one phrase in one version of one song. It's hardly necessary to have an article one what any connoisseur of lynching already knows, and I hardly think that even Nuttall meant one particular lamppost. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and maybe rename to "A la lanterne!" (To the lamppost!). Please, read the article about this social phenomenon in the Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Revolutions and New Ideologies, 1760-1815, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007, ISBN 9780313049514, pp. 388-389, check the sources listed at the end of the entry or other references at G-books [17] [18]. The topic is definitely notable and encyclopedic. It is also very interesting and scary. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For those who need the topic to be covered on fr:wiki to prove notability, see Lanterne_(éclairage)#À la lanterne. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The French examples show the opposite, given as how the passages in question are not articles in themselves. We don't need articles on every French expression, and especially not on ones which have no currency in English. A sentence in an appropriate article might suffice. Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article. It isn't perfect but I believe it is better and more informative than before. Please, check. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it turns out that we have enough sources for a short article, thanks. The current version is ok for me, as long as you consider that the article refers to a historical phenomenon, not an expression. For this reason, I would oppose renaming it "à la lanterne". As the current title is is misleading and grammatically weird, I really think it should be renamed to lantern lynching during the French Revolution or something meaning that. Superzoulou (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think renaming the article to À la lanterne would be problematic. Everything in the article revolves around the slogan, it is an expression with specific historical meaning. The article refers both to the historical phenomenon and to the expression and context should be crystal clear to anyone reading it. Lantern lynching during the French Revolution seems to me not wrong, but rather slavishly literal. We can discuss it on a broader basis via WP:RM if the article will be kept. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

À la lanterne is certainly very different from the original title, and it is very helpful that you have managed to track it down in this way. There is a comparable expression in English hanging/hung/hanged from a lamp post both literally to describe mob justice or to display the penalties for disobedience to authority, and metaphorically (see this Indian example). The first question is whether that should be the subject of an article (and not confined to US lynchings even if that were the numerically most common example). The second is whether the French example à la lanterne is sufficiently distinctive to have its own article, and whether it is normally used in French even in English speaking countries. My feeling on the second is no. As to the first, I suspect that lamp posts, and Parisien street lanterns, were used because they were most convenient, at least in the past where they were shorter and often had a cross piece for the purpose, but any tree or other street furniture would serve. But I might be persuaded otherwise, because the lamp post did take hold in the popular imagination in this context - probably the most famous example is Benito Mussolini, commonly said to have been hung from a lamp post even though the contemporary photograph shows that it was a different structure. --AJHingston (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The slogan À la lanterne is—in my opinion—sufficiently distinctive to have its own article, I've tried to demonstrate it in the article. Read WP:GNG: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. WP:GNG is definitely met in this case, take a look at the article. During my work, I focused on describing the phenomenon solely in the context of the French Revolution. It could stay as it is or it can be developed from broader perspective and renamed respectively. The slogan À la lanterne doesn't need to be translated into English in the title, the topic (as it stands now) is purely French and it is irrelevant whether it is used in French in English speaking countries. Years ago, when I wrote the article Mánička, I decided to name it in Czech, as it is notable and known solely in the context of Czech Republic. This is similar example, the article doesn't need to be named in English because the topic/phenomenon is not English. Also, all the English books I cite refer to the French À la lanterne. As for the reason for using street lanterns, you can find an interesting explanation/opinion here (pp. 100-103). The author claims that the reason was partly symbolic, as the street lamps represented the ancien régime. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I still feel that it is a manifestation of a wider phenomenon. As it stands, though, the article deals with the French revolutionary use, and I agree that you have found sources to establish notability. I am happy to change my vote. Renaming to À la lanterne is better, as I think you agree, and others may wish to write or suggest an article on the wider topic with which it might arguably be merged, but those are editing matters irrelevant to deletion. It is very different from the original article and I admire your efforts to improve it. --AJHingston (talk) 11:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the title. I am ok with keeping the article now, but I would agree that it can either widened or merged in a wider article. I would say that the interesting topic is lynching during the French revolution. The use of lantern seems rather anecdotal - presumably, it was just the most handy tool at their disposal. Sure it so happened that "à la lanterne" became an idiomatic expression, but that does not mean that things would have be really different if they had used another thing than a lantern. --Superzoulou (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment La Lanterne is a disambiguation page, but this discussion seems to be about A la lanterne. Should the deletion tag be removed from La Lanterne? Boleyn (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Lourey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable author. No indications that either she or any of her books have received any significant attention. No reviews outside of Goodreads, and no press coverage of her other than some very local stuff. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links to national reviews (Boston Globe, Tulsa World) have been added, as well as links to starred reviews from two of the four (Library Journal, Booklist) national reviewers. Kirkus and Publishers Weekly (the other of the big four) reviews are available on her website, which is also linked to the article.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:17, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, no prejudice against recreation provided reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ENTHOI Lakatamia FC[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Argento1985) 11:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator has not stated a reason why this article should be deleted. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - based on the 'famous players' section this looks to be a hoax, I need to do some more investigating though to be sure. Giant Snowman 16:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OK, based on this the club is probably real, however sources are very hard to come by and I do not think the club is notable. Giant Snowman 18:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - search results do not yield concrete, verifiable notability of this club. --MicroX (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 3). The content is available under the redirect should anyone wish to merge it. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eton Road[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Former X Factor boy band active for only two years. They have released only two singles, none of which charted; I searched them at Official Charts Company. There is nothing about them at Allmusic. There is already considerable detail about this group here: List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_3)#Eton_Road. Surely this is all we need and not a separate article. Bluidsports (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 3)#Eton Road (assuming there's anything to merge, otherwise redirect). I agree that they're not notable outside of The X Factor, since neither of their two singles charted. –anemone projectors– 11:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as needed (or redirect) per anemone above. The group did not appear to achieve sufficient notability independent of the show (i.e., articles written after the show still referenced them as the X-Factor band/former contestants) to warrant a standalone page. Gong show 05:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Franziska Braun[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established, and is not inherited from being the mother of Hitler's wife. All sources I found were simple fleeting mentions of the fact that, yes, she was Eva Braun's mother, and the sources were more about Eva instead. Beerest355 Talk 18:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Mentioned only as the mother of Hitler's wife. Edison (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Eva Braun, per WP:People family and invalid criteteria. She only seems to be mentioned in passing. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rocori High School shooting[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of long-standing notability. Beerest355 Talk 20:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough articles on school shootings on Wikipedia, as well as multiple categories related to school shootings, to infer notability in them. They are not simple news events, but events that are well-remembered and revisited when the next one happens. Eauhomme (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, some school shootings are notable, but is this one? Is there anything long-standing here? Beerest355 Talk 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. School shootings in and of themselves are not inherently notable. However, this particular shooting has received more than just local coverage. Most of it is local, true, but the case was covered in a few medical journals as well. There's just enough here to where I'd say that this could pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable school shooting. international/national coverage etc.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Y's[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Co-produced a few hit songs but there is no independent notability from Justin Timberlake and a google news search did not turn up much. STATic message me! 21:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article appears to be written as an advertisement with no reason to fix it per OP. Lazy Bastard Guy 01:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antavius Weems[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

resume/promo. It's only cite is the subject's own website. Non-notable: I did do some weeding and attempted to find RS, but ~~couldn't find any~~ found a blog interview. DePROD EBY (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, only one reference, mostly original research, non-notable. – Recollected • 22:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A blatant case of self promotion, not a independent source in sight. Finnegas (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Best Bakery case. postdlf (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheera Sheikh[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BLP1E This individual is known only for the Best Bakery case and there is nothing much in this article which is not in that one. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a redirect to Best Bakery case is in order. BLP1E looks valid. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Roscelese Finnegas (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Nehring[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is written like an advertisement, has had significant contributions by its subject, has virtually no sources, and the only sources it does have are 1st party. Athene cunicularia (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 05:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there are problems with the content of the article and the significant contributions by its subject, we usually keep State chairs of the major political parties in the United States. It would be better to completely rewrite the article, but the subject does meet WP:N. Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Twice served as chairman of the California Republican Party? Notable. Oodles of coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim massively. As chair of the California Republican Party he does appear to have attracted significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources and thus notability (as was apparently the case for his predecessor and successor). However, the unsourced bragging and boosterism in the article need to go. I'll work on that. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there. I added reliable sources, trimmed most of the puffery and added balance. --MelanieN (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent bookstores[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Incomplete, never to be complete, unmaintainable list that is not even broad enough to be a directory, which Wikipedia is not. Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." See also: Category:Independent bookstores. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nothing to do with the old category vs list argument. Look at the list! It is impossible to maintain. Fiddle Faddle 23:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at related AFD.[19] postdlf (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have considerable concerns over lists such as this, because Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (notability) are only indirectly related to their merit as places to go for books today, especially as notability relies on historic evidence. They may be mere shadows of what they were, under different and incompetent ownership. The average user cannot be expected to understand the subtleties of this, and that the listing is in no sense a recommendation by the Wikipedia community. Other, and better, bookshops may be available. At the very least, the lead should make this clear. Wikipedia is not a directory. --AJHingston (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entries for the UK include Foyles and Stanfords which are major institutions and seems quite appropriate for browsing and navigation. My concern would be the word independent which seems an unhelpful distinction and open to argument. We shouldn't keep the chains while deleting major stores that don't have that business model. Warden (talk) 13:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that these are identified as "independent bookstores" within the individual articles' text and via the category structure Category:Independent bookstores, an AFD regarding only this list really isn't the proper place to be questioning that whole classification. postdlf (talk) 17:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the list forms part of a set of connected classifications and categories, it is not sensible to consider it in isolation. The structure is therefore relevant to the AFD. Warden (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If wikipedia has enough of them with Articles to warrant a mention on the {{Companies by industry}} Table, then there should be a List to assist people that Browse by that method. Also, This List cannot be considered in isolation from its counterpart List of bookstore chains either. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:04, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the subject is definable (a bookstore is either independent or a chain: some indie stores have multiple locations, but with each store allowed to make purchasing decisions. chains centralize buying decisions, with the store managers having little or no say in purchasing), the inclusion in the list is based either on the store having an article, or refs which show notability (and thus could have an article or article section if someone tried). all lists get unsourced names added, thus all lists are "unmanageable" to a degree, if no one is watching them, just like articles are "unmanageable" if left alone too long. as long as we allow former stores back in (we are NOT a directory for potential customers), the list is fine. problems with maintaining it are a separate concern from AFD, which is for determining if the subject is both notable and, if a list, definable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the things listed have blue links to their own articles. Perfectly valid Wikipedia list article. Dream Focus 14:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy closed; redirect restored and protected. Angr (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Han-Nom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It has been claimed that consolidating "Han" (Literary Chinese) and "Nom" (Vietnamese written in Chinese characters) together in a single term, subject, or article is WP:OR. See this discussion. As this issue has been the subject of extensive edit warring, I bring the matter here. MergerDude (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MergerDude, welcome to Wikipedia. Are you in the right place with this AfD? This re-created article (at the time anyone clicks it will probably be a redirect) has already been merged following a lengthy 2 month discussion with at the time 6-1 in favour. the creator already raised a query at WT:AFD and was advised against using the AfD process. Without question both Chinese language in Vietnam (Hán) and Vietnamese lanuage in demotic script (Nôm) are notable, which is why we already have two very large articles, one for each language. The OR is in equating the two. I have seen Chinese books claiming that the 6-8 demotic poetry is "more Chinese than Vietnamese" - but I don't think that's a view shared by mainstream Chinese scholarship, let alone Vietnamese or Western. There may be a case at a future date for a detailed article on Chinese-Vietnamese parallel texts (i.e. Chinese medicine books with demotic Vietnamese translation) but at present neither vi.wp nor zh.wp have such an article, and I can only think of 2 sources in English even touching on the subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the Han, and Nom articles, where is also Chu-Nom, which is greatly duplicative of this content. speedy close as delete/merge/redirect, as there is already a strong consensus this should be merged. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy close redirect and protect Agathoclea (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to merged article – The article was merged to Chữ nôm following this discussion in which all but the article author were in favour of such a merge. He has since repeatedly restored the article, claiming it was blanked. It needs to be returned to a redirect; it cannot be deleted because its history provides attribution for the text merged into Chữ nôm as required by Wikipedia's licence (see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Kanguole 08:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as merge. Already consensus for the merge. All the material fits in Literary Chinese or History of writing in Vietnam or Nom. Merge rather than delete, keep page history per Kanguole. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ithavaram[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from the fact the the subject of the article exists, for all other claims concerning the subject there appear to be no reliable sources available. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then remove those other claims from the article. Verifiably existing settlements are invariably considered at AfD to be suitable topics for articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. Withdraw/close.--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for deletion, leaning towards keep. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FCEUX[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insignificant NES emulator. No evidence of notability over others. Beerest355 Talk 23:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage for this software. SL93 (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I do see coverage in multiple RSes (e.g. GameSetWatch, Kotaku, Kotaku, etc.). I guess the question of notability turns on whether or not this is significant coverage. Certainly sources like these cover FCEUX through a large proportion of the source article, but then again the source articles are pretty small. I tend to !vote keep for topics like this that are of borderline notability. -Thibbs (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comment by Thibbs.Besides,I think this can be considered as significant coverage.L smll 10:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shirukume[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and defunct rock band with no reliable sources which maintain their place. Jonjonjohny (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article helps improve Wikipedia's coverage. NHCLS (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Improves Wikipedia's coverage of what? A band which fails every criteria set for the notability of such a topic. Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 05:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Süleyman Çelikyurt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The last afd resulted in no consensus due to disagreement whether or not playing in the Turkish 2nd division confers notability or not. In recent afd's (here and here) the decision was that it does not. His playing time in Germany was always for reserve teams playing in the fourth division or lower, which does not confer notability either. Most importantly, he has not received significant coverage. Of the sources listed three are player profiles, three are routine transfer announcements, and one is a squad list. Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability guidelines. – Michael (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those discussions actually touch on the subject if the 1.Lig is a "fully professional" league. Sources for it being a professional league are easy to find (finding a source including the exact term fully professional is unfortunately difficult for leagues with very little English language coverage), attendances are comparable to the English League Two or the German 3rd division (http://www.mavisimsekler.com/zmanset/en-fazla-biletli-seyirci-adana-demirspor.html), and the clubs sign foreign players from unquestionably professional leagues, who most likely won't play there for free (e.g. from the 2. Bundesliga, Jupiler League, Scandinavian and Eastern European first division leagues). The last two points indicate that the Turkish FA's definition of professional can be read fullfilling the criteria here.Alexpostfacto (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I continue to believe that the article passes the GNG and it is very possible that the Turkish second level is fully-pro. Online Turkish-language sources are difficult to find for me, but there is enough here to warrant keeping the article. Jogurney (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think the nominator is correct that the previous AfD reached no concensus because of uncertainty about the fully-pro status of the Turkish league. Instead, editors were split about whether the article satisfied the GNG. I've added another article of significant coverage to show that GNG is truly met here. Jogurney (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has any Turkish speaking user comment on this subject? I mean the full pro status of turkish second divison? I find it hard to believe a country so fanatic with football only has 1 fully pro league. I would go with Alexpostfacto point, maybe the lack of verifiable sources in english is the problem.--Threeohsix (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Programming with Big Data in R[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of references but which of them actually demonstrate that this software is notable outside the narrow world of statisticians? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. pbdR is series of packages(technically not a software) and is expanding continuously after it's apperance in october 2012.Recently it appeared on Google summer of code for mentoring a project . link: http://rwiki.sciviews.org/doku.php?id=developers:projects:gsoc2013:mpiprofiler and it has been selected for mentoring : your proof :http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/project/google/gsoc2013/igaurav/30001 . So it is making it's way out of narrow world of statisticians to public. igauravsehrawat —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is it correct that you are doing a GSoC project mentored by pbdR, i.e. you are affiliated with it? --188.98.216.174 (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. pbdR is also interested by HPC community; however, common inaccurate impression of pbdR and Rmpi can be fount at http://www.open-mpi.org/community/lists/users/2013/02/21466.php. Wikipedia should be a perfect place to distinguish and educate this. Wccsnow (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would you please disclose whether you happen to be affiliated with pdbR? Your name indicates you might be Wei-Chen Chen. I've seen you promote this package and his articles all over Wikipedia... --188.98.216.174 (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Yes, name changed in personal page. Thank you for your time and contribution. Any editing from anyone to the page is welcome. Wccsnow (talk)

Keep There is no WP policy that states an article needs to be notable outside a given specialty. Instead the real criterion is whether (1) there are multiple independent in-depth reliable sources and (2) the article has surmountable problems. The article itself is well-written and well-cited. Most of the citations specifically about pbdMPI are primary, so the main question is whether there are RS available. Reference 25 is a tutorial by Raim, who I think is independent of the authors and reference 26, the CRAN task view by Eddelbuettel is almost certainly independent. The tutorial goes into a great deal of depth about pbdMPI and the task view has a paragraph about it, which is marginal for the in-depth criterion. Thus notability is marginal, but I am inclined toward keep because (1) a CRAN task view is a short list of the best R packages for a task and the presence of pbdMPI on the list indicates notability by itself and (2) notability for this new R package will only grow over time. Marginal notability and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although weak for me. Indeed, just because there is a narrow community of notability is not by itself grounds for deletion. The article does however, need to show it is notable by reliable sources outside of the group that produced it. There are all sorts of packages promoted by their own developers, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote them using assertions of those same developers. I agree with above arguments that notability is marginal but seems more likely than not to stand the test of time. However, I think the article itself has huge problems. Parts are OK but other parts include a HOWTO which might not belong. Worse is the over-use of inline raw URL links. Generally the body of the article should not have the raw URL links, but be in English with wikilinks on first use of each related term. If a term is not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, then do not link it in the article, but put in external links section of the article on the term that it describes. The section order is also not up to standard. But those can be worked on if it stays. W Nowicki (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to have a strong advertisement bias (see above for the COI question), and we shouldn't start documenting all R packages on Wikipedia. It could probably be merged into some R related article, too. "Appeared in Sept. 2012" certainly does not indicate this is widely adopted yet, is it? --188.98.216.174 (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done a pass over the article, removing a lot of unrelated references (e.g. citing R; but since R has it's own wikipedia article, we don't need references for its existence!). Now very little references remain, in particular I didn't notice much independent third-party references on pdbR. Google Scholar doesn't find any either. So I'd say delete it for now, and maybe re-add it in 1-2 years when the test of time has proven it to be a commonly used package. --188.98.216.174 (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An average CRAN package, as far as I can tell. I see no indication of Wikipedia:Notability. This is and end-of-2012 and 2013 development, and has not received substantial attention yet even within the R community. As such, it lacks in "Significant coverage". The appropriate place for this as of now are CRAN and their homepage, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not meant to cover all 4688 CRAN packages... we can't even cover all of these in footnotes to the R article. That is exactly what CRAN is for, after all. --Chire (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage at Google is not to be found with the exact article title, but with the package names. There are many hits for rmpi (being described as "Two packages (snow, Rmpi) stand out as particularly useful for general use") and for pbdR, and there's of course the website with the same name as this article has been also directly cited by scientific research. Diego (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse pbdR with Rmpi. It's not Rmpi; but a competing approach! The articles citing pdbR are either authored by the pdbR authors, or refer to e.g. "Primary Budget Deficit as a Ratio (PBDR)", I could not find any independent reviewed references. --Chire (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Peer-reviewed papers "authored by their authors" are still relevant to establish notability from the moment they're published by scientific media. And there articles like this that are not by them. Diego (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ample coverage in peer-reviewed scientific papers. Diego (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above. The scholar link is for a competing package, Rmpi! --Chire (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the other links, pbdR has papers of its own. Diego (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Gazetteer. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Pronouncing Gazetteer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only results when searching for this publication on the internet are those of the publication itself. Due to this it appears to fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and notability guidelines for books. There is no hope of communication with the user who created this article, as the user (Claire Wynn was a suspected sock puppet of Gladys Tuffnell. Both accounts have been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. Jackc143 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gazetteer? I see many such publications included there with article links and external links. Seems worth noting in the encyclopedia. The author (Thomas Bladwin) has published some other work, but I can't find much on him. Alternatively merging into an article on him would be an option if some bits can be put together. He seems to have been from Philadelphia and to have worked with another fellow (http://montgomery.pa-roots.com/Biographies/DavidThomas.html David Thomas) who published some other Gazetteer type pubs and seems to be of some note. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The PC Plus™ Program[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this article's author appears to have striven for neutrality and for a collection of reliable sources, there does not appear to be any indication that this particular company's loyalty program is in any way unique. It may be unique among food retailers in Canada, but it is not unique in the world. While there might be a legitimate call for a general article about digital loyalty program that could be separated from the main loyalty program article, any article written about one particular company's loyalty program, unless it is truly unique, can only be seen as advertising. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a sufficient argument to justify deletion. A subject does not have to be "unique" in order to have an article in Wikipedia. Failure to achieve uniqueness ≠ WP:SPAM. Taroaldo ✉ 17:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Loblaws. Since this article is about a loyalty program specific to one store, I suggest that it be merged with Loblaws. With the exception of loyalty programs shared by multiple companies (Air Miles) or programs with notability on a national level (Canadian Tire money), there are very few articles on specific loyalty programs. --Ahecht (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title also appears to violate WP:TITLETM. The spelling with the trademark is not demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. --Ahecht (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should've cited MOS:TM instead: "Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs)." --Ahecht (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 07:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoang Danh Ngoc[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Appearance in national team is not confirmed by reliable sources. This remains more or less valid. The only coverage he's received are the usual player profiles, which WP:NSPORT explicitly states are trivial sources, making them insufficient for WP:GNG. He has still only ever played in the Vietnamese top flight, which is confirmed as not fully pro. His international appearances are no longer asserted and confirmed not to have taken place. He has been called up to the Vietnamese national team, but since he has yet to play, the article still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in a fully professional league (per WP:FPL) or represented his country at senior level. There seem to be a few name-checks in google searches for sites in Vietnamese but not being able to understand Vietnamese, or the Google translations thereof, I would like to get the opinion of a Vietnamese-speaker in this regard. Hack (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hack well there's a lot of newspaper articles mentioning him and a few focussing on him so passes WP:GNG. He has his own vi.wp article, has played for the U23 against Myanmar so is a hope for the national squad. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - should be at Hoàng Danh Ngọc, passes WP:GNG but newspaper articles in Vietnamese not English. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have links or references to the articles? And, IIO, are you familiar with the footballer notability guidelines, because they are clear-cut. Are you arguing that the sources definitely indicate he meets our criteria? Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Versageek under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DragonRealms App[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The prod was removed by the creator with this edit summary -"do not delete/game is new and gaining popularity quickly/article will be able to be continually improved as the game continues to grow". That is exactly why the article should be deleted. It is new and does not have notability at the present time. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typical of GREE's approach to public relations and marketing of new games, nothing has been mentioned about this game from their official channels, but several discussions have begun, on their own forum and others regarding the game. People are searching for more information on this game, making the self-edited community of wiki the ideal location for the beginnings of a reference to a very in-depth game. CohibAA (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as an encyclopedia, it only covers notable things per the notability guideline at WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - I think it's pretty obvious (given the comment above) that this article exists to promote the product ahead of its release and the author has grossly misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. Beyond anything else, the subject fails WP:GNG entirely. Stalwart111 01:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem is that there are no reliable sources to show that this game is notable enough for an entry. It's not up to Wikipedia to make up the difference for the lack of coverage and we have no responsibility to cover every game that ever existed. It'd be nice if we could, but we simply cannot and will not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that I have no true problem with this being userfied, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if it's correctly userfied but I have read the links provided and make an attempt at it. I imagine the more cynical among you suspect I work for GREE or have some skin in this game, but I am just a paying customer trying to improve my experience with their game. I appreciate the feedback and assistance. CohibAA (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to California's 16th State Senate district#2013 (special). Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad obama arif[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly non-notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Arif and Mohammad "O" Arif on Ballotpedia, which this article is mostly copied from. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A politician from California; no evidence of notability. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:58, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or Redirect to California's 16th State Senate district#2013 (special) . I prefer deletion; he only got 0.7% of the vote in that election. If redirected, the article title should be fixed with proper capitalization --MelanieN (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to California's 16th State Senate district#2013 (special). Since there is an page about the 2013 election, a redirect is an appropriate action. Otherwise, I support deletion. Enos733 (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of special elections to the California State Senate. There's an entry there where he is listed, and he is more notable (to the extent that he is) for being a candidate in the election than he is to the district itself. Holdek (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long Sight[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD.PROD tag removed by 116.202.131.166 without reason.The concern was Fails WP:NF,WP:GNG.Lacks references..I think this upcoming film is not notable(see the concern),and its release date hasn't been announced.So it shouldn't have its own article. L smll 00:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFILM, WP:CRYSTAL. Pburka (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malayalam film:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, no evidence of any real coverage to demonstrate notability, particularly given there's very little information available suggesting when it will even be released. ~ mazca ^talk 11:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.