Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 July	29 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe Fest[edit]

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

Unremarkable recently established music festival lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. List of acts is nearly entirely redlinked. RadioFan (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:EVENT, no indication that there is any encyclopaedic notability on this. LGA _talk^edits 00:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable, very minor festival. No reliable coverage elsewhere (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find coverage in reliable sources; does not appear to pass WP:GNG. Gong show 23:51, 29 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zane B. Stein[edit]

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

This astrologer does not satisfy WP:GNG, and the claims to notability are minor. There is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are "independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability). The only sources which do mention him are unreliable fringe sources. That this individual has not received attention from mainstream sourcing indicates his lack of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of notability: http://www.faasa.com.au/documents/zaneb.steinbio.pdf http://www.astro.com/astro-databank/Stein%2C_Zane http://matrixstein.wordpress.com/about/ http://www.vicastrology.net/zane-stein-lecture-and-workshop http://ashevillefriendsofastrology.org/pages/zane_stein.htm http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Zane_Stein http://www.blogtalkradio.com/edwilliam/2011/03/13/talking-with-ed-and-verena — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.86.92 (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random self published material isn't reliable for wikipedia and does not help to establish notability, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adamlink I need to find what 'sources' are considered usable for Notability by Wikipedia. I'm not sure how to post here, so forgive me if this is not the correct procedure. For example, what sets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Campion as being an acceptable entry?

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) 19:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Adamlink - the proposer of this Article of Deletion (AfD) also put Nicholas Campion up for deletion. The result was a unanimous vote by six editors to keep the article and a look at the discussion will show that one of the main reasons given were that Campion satisfies the requirements of WP:AUTHOR.

The requirement (stated above) for significant coverage in reliable sources that are "independent of their promulgators and popularizers" (Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability) is not applicable as this guideline specifies "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory)". A biography of an individual is not a fringe subject or an aspect of a fringe theory. This guideline has been debated at length and until the rules are changed to specify biographies or individuals as advocated by IRWolfie, this guideline does not apply to this type of article about an individual except where there are details of a particular fringe theory or claim.

Nevertheless, other similar guidelines WP:N and WP:BLP do cover notability of living people. Though the links provided above suggest notability of the author (Zane Stein) within the astrological field and possibly beyond, I would support keeping this biography if it had any references, comments, reviews, interviews or articles from sources that are reliable and independent (i.e. outside the field).

Also, Adamlink - remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes (~) (as described at the bottom of the edit box) these symbols will automatically convert into your username with links and a time stamp. You can test this with a preview before posting. Kooky2 (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kooky, here is a small hint, if you want to address a specific editor leave a comment on their page. Don't take sly swipes at me. The main changes I made to that guideline have stuck. To satisfy getting "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large" requires sources which are not on the fringes pretty much by definition. The reason the RfC got nowhere was because the question was ambiguous and no one was sure what was being discussed and things where all over the place; no consensus was the only conclusion to arrive at. The Campion AfD has no connection to this topic, the notability of a different topic (a decision which I think was an erroneous close by a non-admin, where the original NAC was done early by another editor, and then his friend piled in to vote keep when I complained at his user page, and other irregularities) is irrelevant. I got 5 delete votes here, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Kalinski_(2nd_nomination), do I win a prize? Nothing of your post is on topic.IRWolfie- (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie - my answers applied here and not on your talk page. My message was addressed to Adamlink who asked about 'usable sources' and the Campion article. Since you were evidently not inclined to answer, I supplied the basic facts and without mentioning your name out of discretion rather than any sly agenda. If I had wanted to take a swipe, I would have been much more specific. At the very least I would have added that though I was not involved, the Campion AfD was in my view a classic case where an inappropriate AfD wasted editor's time and yet, you still insist on questioning the good faith of the independent editors rather than your own judgment. If my answer was not satisfactory, you might explain to Adamlink - without jargon as he or she is obviously new to Wikipedia, why Campion, who is in the same field, was deemed acceptable and Stein is, in your view, not.

The other relevant point is that you are still incorrectly citing Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. It doesn't matter whether some of your changes to the guideline have stuck or not or whether the RFC went your way or not, this rule does not apply to biographies as stated above. Therefore it is misleading to use it as a reason for AfDs until you can persuade editors to change this rule.

Now I don't disagree with all your AfDs. I have supported you before and you may be right in this instance, though I think editors, including new ones, should be given a fair chance to assess the article. Kooky2 (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to me, I was referring to the comments you left to Adamlink, You are fallaciously trying to compare an AfD from 8 months ago to one today, a particular AfD I think was suspect. Your continued use of it is here is an effort to piss me off. This "If I had wanted to take a swipe, I would have been much more specific. At the very least I would have added ..." is purely being a jerk. Knock it off. Fringe sources can not show "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large" (WP:GNG) for the People, because they are part of peripheral non-mainstream movements etc. What fringe sources think is important is not what the world at large does, IRWolfie- (talk)

Comment - As fun as it is watching you guys be borderline uncivil to each other - maybe you could get back on point. What policies do you think we should refer to? Why? What part of the history, or sources, or content do you think makes your position tenable and correct? The closing admin doesn't care about 'sly agendas' - so start acting like you're having an AfD discussion and this can be resolved. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I am not sure how we got so heated up. Right now, I don't believe that we have any disagreement on policies for this AfD. Kooky2 (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZaneSteinI am the subject of this article and am in the process of gathering appropriate documentation to substantiate the article as relevant to Wikipedia's guidelines. The first thing I did, today, was to create a link to a copy of the original letter awarding me the Canopus Award.

I would like to know if the following is a useful item to add to the article: In 1994 I was the primary guest on The Sue Lovett Show, a television show on Toledo, Ohio's TV station WUPW-Channel 48 (which is no longer on the air) where I was interviewed about my work on Chiron. While I own a videotaping of the show, I cannot provide a link to the show as the TV Station is no longer existant.

One item that was added a few days ago was about me being interviewed in a non-astrological newspaper in Bowling Green. I have a scan of that article, which I can if need be upload to my website and link to. But the newspaper does not put an archive or article listing on their site.

This link is not self-published - http://www.astrotheme.com/astrology/Zane_Stein - Astrotheme did not even consult me asking permission for putting my birth chart and profile on their site. So it is a good link, but unfortunately it is from an astrology site so not 'mainstream'.

Would being referenced in a non-astrology book be a usable reference? I am mentioned in this book: SOUL REFLECTIONS: MANY LIVES, MANY JOURNEYS by Marilyn C. Barrick. The theme of this book is described on the Amazon website as: "Soul Reflections includes intriguing studies of factual and legendary heroes in their quest for enlightenment—and alchemical formulas to enrich our own quest for soul liberation. Topics include curing the angst of the soul, transforming the inner critic, setting sail on a healing journey, and the living flame of love."

I am also mentioned in this book: THE TRUE PHILOSPHER'S STONE by Craig & Suzzan Babcock (writing under the pseudonym Paul Magdalene). This is also non-astrological, and the description is too long to put here but you can read the blurb on the Amazon.com site: http://www.amazon.com/True-Philosophers-Stone-Paul-Magdalene/dp/1418423726

I hope I have correctly entered the above on this discussion. More will be upcoming. Zane Stein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaneStein (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we would be looking for is several mainstream secondary sources that describe you and your life in significant detail. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contribution, Zane Stein. I have some additional thoughts and some questions for you:

- The letter confirming the Canopus Award is an acceptable link to the article but it is a primary source and for notability, we require secondary sources like a third party reporting on your award.

- Your inclusion on the astrotheme site does arguably count towards notability as the site appears to list the horoscopes of celebrities who are almost entirely outside the field of astrology. It is nevertheless a specialist astrology site and editors may consider that this does not count towards notability outside your field.

- Can you provide the exact date of the TV interview? Subject to the views of other editors, I don't believe there is a need to provide evidence of the TV interview (such as a screen shot) as it occurred before the Internet took off.

- The other links may count towards notability. I may need to ask you more about them.

- The article mentions plans for opening an astrology school, does this school exist yet? Unless there has been some widespread publicity like a newspaper article about the intended opening, this is future history that could be added if and when the school exists. For guidance on this see: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

Kooky2 (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZaneSteinThank you. The date I was the guest on The Sue Lovett Show was April 7, 1994. Screen shots available if needed. Astrology School not yet open so we can remove that if necessary. More to follow as mentioned. —Preceding undated comment added 02:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Canopus Award isn't a famous or notable award. 2. astrotheme isn't a reliable source, it is not relevant if it includes celebrity horoscopes (not sure what difference this would make) 3. Interviews are primary sources 4. The True Philosopher's Stone is not a reliable secondary source (read a few pages from amazon), we couldn't use it to make claims about a living person; can't access it but remember you need significant coverage. 5. The notability or not of a school does not contribute to notability WP:INHERITED. 6. Merely being referenced does not count towards notability, as a great number of people are referenced in books. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZaneSteinI understand 'merely being referenced' is not notability. What about being described as a pioneer with specific details? Also, I'd like to ask about the value of this reference: Astrology Encyclopedia by Visible Ink Press (a Detroit publisher that publishes a wide variety of books on science, history, minority studies, and the paranormal as well as astrology.) In the chapter on Chiron my pioneering work is described in a bit of detail and one reference states "Stein's historic pamphlet, Interpreting Chiron......"

While I understand the need to have non-astrological sources, I also feel the fact that my work has been quoted in detail, and often described as THE primary source of Chiron information, by almost every book and magazine author who writes anything that includes Chiron (and I have personally counted close to 100 such references), should be at least one point of significance.

I have been interviewed by reporters from two college newspapers both, which I will try to get source info for; one radio interview on a Philadelphia radio station WHYY-FM; all of these were non-astrological media.

(Of course one internet radio show may not be considered valuable because the show is regularly on astrology, and my interview on camera which is on YouTube may also not be usable as that is also by an astrological source.)ZaneStein (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZaneStein (talk • contribs) 09:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews don't help much with notability. It's specifically secondary sources that are of interest since you will need to meet the general notability requirements. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:47, 14 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) 09:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article, cut out some comments and added references to support the content. Zane Stein, can you please be more specific about the Astrology Encyclopedia published by Visible Ink Press, Detroit, MI? The full title of the book, the date of publication, ISBN, the author, any page numbers, links if they appear on the web such as Google books and quote the particular reference to you and your work. Kooky2 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being referenced does not make one notable, or else a great many of us would be notable. That would set the criteria ridiculously low, rather than say a H index of 20, which requires at least 400 references. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Complete lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. The only substantial mention of this person is in unreliable self-published fringe sources that do not meet our sourcing requirements by a long shot, nor do they signify depth, breadth and persistance of coverage. My own searches turned up nothing even faintly promising. Subject meets none of the requirements of any of our notability guidelines by a wide mile. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZaneStein"IRWolfie I notice that you removed the comment "he obtained a planetary ephemeris for this new body from the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. " as being an anecdote that is unverifiable. "However, I kept a record of the correspondence between Dr Brian Marsden and myself, including the letter which was later published in the Astrological Review, vol 47, No. 1, 1978, a copy of which you can see here: http://zanestein.com/DrMarsden.pdf" "For a secondary source on my communication with Dr Brian Marsden see The Astrology Book: The Encyclopedia of Heavenly Infdluences, by James R Lewis, Visible Ink Press 2003 p.132. "Recently 1995DW, was upgraded to minor planet number 10370 and was finally named Hylonome largely at the suggestion of astrologer Zane Stein and others in communication with Dr Brian Mardsen (sic) of the Minor Planet Center." http://books.google.com/books?id=nPMnUMhZzswC&pg=PA135&dq=zane+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2EPjUbyfG4Wp7Abxi4EQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBg#v=snippet&q=Zane%20Stein&f=false The Astrology Book books.google.com

Letters and emails

"As well, I have some of my further correspondence with Dr Marsden on Chiron, and other bodies, which you can find at these links:

http://zanestein.com/QB1_93c.jpg

http://zanestein.com/MarsdenQB1.jpg

http://zanestein.com/MarsdenComet.jpg

http://zanestein.com/MarsdenElements.jpg

http://zanestein.com/6Centaurs_Brian.jpg

as well as with several other professional astronomers, including David Rabinowitz, the discoverer of Pholus

http://zanestein.com/Pholus2.jpg

As well as Dave Tholen and Oliver Hainaut

http://zanestein.com/Chiron1945.jpg

http://zanestein.com/6Centaurs_Oliver.jpg

ZaneStein (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the astrology book reliable for making this claim. There is no significance to writing some letters and emails to get information from people, who then reply. I see no reason why that would be mentioned. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie when you write "I don't consider the astrology book reliable for making this claim.", are you saying that the author James R. Lewis (scholar), is not a reliable independent secondary source in his various references to Stein in his Encyclopedia? If so, it puts into question a few hundred other links throughout Wikipedia from Dr Lewis, a renowned author. Whether we agree or disagree with the information, we have to accept reliable independent sources. Kooky2 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis is a scholar on new religions, thus he is a relevant figure on those topics, it is not surprising that they link to him, or even maybe use his sources (although he appears to be an anti-anti-cult advocate, which does hamper his use as a neutral source in new religions). He is also a professional astrologer, and this work would not be considered de-facto reliable; his expertise in new religions is irrelevant to the publication of his astrology book in a non-academic source. Individuals are not declared reliable for everything they produce. See WP:RS. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some more references. As a creative professional, his profile fulfills WP:CREATIVE. He is the first astrologer to research and write about the minor planet, Chiron and reliable independent secondary sources state that he was involved in the naming of another minor planet, Hylonome. His work has since led to a popular new area of study in his field. A search on the web shows that Chiron is now the subject of > 618k astrology articles, blogs and books etc. His books have been translated into several languages and appear to be still in print 25 years after first publication. The German edition is in its 4th reprint according to his publisher (that could be down to bad planning). He is widely cited by his peers and successors (> 40 book titles listed here), invited to lecture at international conferences and has been granted an award for his research and education. The combined evidence from reliable, independent sources shows that Stein is highly notable within his field. He has also attracted attention beyond his field, even though astrology studies rarely attract reliable mainstream or scholarly coverage - no matter how popular the subject remains with the general public. Though we might reasonably question the belief that an obscure minor planet could influence us and a few editors question whether fringe practitioners should be included in Wikipedia at all, our rules were not designed to cleanse these type of articles leaving only an encyclopedia full of 'good mainstream guys'. Kooky2 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no secondary source showing why astrological writings about Chiron contributes to notability. Being involved in the naming of an asteroid does not contribute to notability, and the source is not reliable for that claim. The discovers of Hylonome were Jewitt & Luu, not Stein. Astrologers can not claim to fulfil WP:ACADEMIC since astrology is pseudoscience (and/or religion depending on how you look at it) and not a legitimate field of research, and it was never the intention of academic to cover those involved in it. Being invited to lecturer at an international conference does not make one notable, or else most scientists would be notable. The reality is that the claims you make are quite ordinary, and not the signs of a truly notable astrologer. James R. Lewis, studies new age religions (setting up an anti-anti-cult group, and is writing this astrology book as a professional astrologer, outside his university job in a non-academic print. So no, I do not view it as reliable. I can give plenty of examples of university professors writing nonsense outside their regular fields in non-academic prints. Also, google searches don't mean anything, WP:GOOGLEHITS. "He has also attracted attention beyond his field,"[citation needed] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRWolfie - I would ask that you don't revert my cited edits on this article. You previously deleted the reference to correspondence with Dr Marsden on the basis that the "anecdote that is unverifiable". Zane Stein then produced good evidence of his correspondence with Marsden over a number of years (some of the links are in the text that you have collapsed) and a reliable, independent secondary source that further verifies and comments on this correspondence. It is important and relevant as it establishes that Stein is a pioneer in his field and obtained data about Chiron before it was published and available in the public domain. Astrologers obtain their planetary data from astronomers and Stein's role here was significant.

No one here is claiming that Stein fulfills WP:ACADEMIC or that he discovered Hylonome or that astrology is not a pseudoscience. This is misrepresenting your opponent's position and therefore a Straw Man argument. I would ask that you strike that out as it misleads other editors. The naming of planets is usually not a scientific act but the symbolism of the name from Greek mythology has significance to astrologers therefore this astrologer being involved in the naming of a minor planet is relevant and notable.

The only possible reason that Professor Lewis's comments in his Encyclopedia are controversial is that they are reliable, secondary and independent and they further support the notability of the subject. If you keep deleting these types of links, you will not allow other editors to judge the merits of the links in relation to the entire article. Editors here are experienced in assessing citations. As this is an AfD, you should let the article have a fair hearing. You can always cut out comments that you don't like if the article survives the AfD as you have done before in at least one of the previous four AfDs of notable astrologers that have not gone your way. Kooky2 (talk) 08:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss article issues, do so on the talk page, rather than filling this AfD with irrelevant points. You are adding content that is about an anecdote sourced solely to primary correspondence, the quote from Lewis's book does not verify the text. We don't stick poor content into articles and only remove them post-AfD, that would make no sense. Anyone looking at the letters will see that it establishes nothing, it is an interested amateur contacting scientists (we don't bite, give it a try), big whoop, how you get from that to calling him a pioneer I do not know, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stein is a professional not amateur astrologer and a pioneer in his field. His correspondence with Dr Marsden at the Minor Planet Center and Professor Lewis's references supports this. There is no claim that Stein is a scientist. As explained, I disagree with your points, but if your point is so obvious, can we let other editors judge the content and give this AfD a fair hearing? You have reverted yet again to a text that doesn't even read correctly. Kooky2 (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet he is an amateur astronomer; It doesn't matter what his day job is. Please don't tell me what to do. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to amateur astronomers, you are labelling Stein in a way that belittles his relationship with Marsden. The exchange was clearly between two professionals in their own fields with a shared mutual interest. Evidently there is an overlap between astrology and astronomy and in that zone an astrologer does not become an amateur astronomer, any more than an astronomer becomes an amateur astrologer. In most contexts to say someone is an amateur is a put down and if Stein is not notable as you claim, there should be no need to dismiss him unfairly. Kooky2 (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zane accepted that he was an amateur astronomer in response to my point, so can you please drop this unnecessary point. There is no need to burden the AfD with pointless discussions. The characterisation of the email exchange is original research on your part, and I disagree with your interpretation. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZaneSteinIRWolfie - You have collapsed records of my correspondence with Dr Marsden and other astronomers. Shall I assume that you did that simply to keep the page tidy? I would hate to think that your motivation was to cover up the fact that Brian Marsden of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and I had an ongoing exchange in connection with planetary data over many years. He not only provided me data, but was always willing to answer my questions as well. While my contact with other astronomers was of great value to my research, I consider the collaboration with Dr Marsden the most significant and important of all to my work. Truly I could not have done anywhere near the amount of research I have so far done if it hadn't been for his assistance.

And yes, I said 'collaboration' because he was responsive to my suggestions on a number of topics. In 1995 we began a discussion on names for newly discovered Centaurs. At that time I was also working with several other astrologers on Centaurs, and three of us independently came up with the name we thought would fit the Centuar 1993 HA2. So with that impetus I wrote to Dr Marsden, letting him know that myself and the other astrologers all felt the name Nessus was the best fit for this body, could we put the name in the running for it? He wrote back that it would most likely be officially named in the Spring of 1997, and he would see what he could do about having the name Nessus accepted. And he was a man of his word because on April 1997, 1993 HA2 was officially named Nessus. This was the first time in modern history that the suggestions of astrologers in naming an astronomical body were accepted But it wasn't the last time. In 1999, two other names that were sent to Dr Marsden by astrologers were also made official names, and we now have bodies in the solar system called Asbolus and Chariklo. Not to bore you with details, but to my knowledge at least 7 other Centaurean bodies have been named as a result of suggestions sent by astrologers.

So in addition to everything else, that collaboration with Dr Marsden opened a bridge, albeit a small one, between astrologers and astronomers that had been closed centuries ago.

Not only did I have the good fortune of collaborating with Dr Marsden but we also developed a more personal relationship. Over the years we exchanged personal letters, Christmas and birthday cards. And in 1999 I had the good fortune to finally meet and spend some time with him in person in New York. Not that it matters for Wikipedia, but I found him an extremely warm and pleasant man in person, and he was very interested to hear some of my findings on these Centaurean bodies.

You mentioned that my letters show "an interested amature contacting scientists" is a bit of obfuscation. True I am an amateur astronomer, but I wrote to Dr Marsden as a professional astrologer, and Dr Marsden knew full well of my professional status. So in what way does my amateur status in anything relate? Also, if it were only me contacting the astronomers and getting stock answers, or even technical data, it would not have been that signficant. What was significant was the INTERCHANGE of information between myself and Dr Marsden (as well as the other astronomers)....the interchange between a professional astrologer and a professional astronomer.

Yes, astrology is considered a pseudoscience by many, and I will not attempt to argue that catagorization. But prior to the doors of communication opening between myself and Dr Marsden, it was an accepted view that no astronomer would consider astrology as anything other than a waste of time, and not even consider an exchange of ideas. Aside from my pioneering astrological research (which may not meet the requirements because it is done by a pseudoscientist), I can also be considered a pioneer in opening a new connection between astrologers and astronomers, one that has since expanded beyond Dr Marsden. I know of at least two other professional astronomers who are giving a second look at the possible influence of planets and stars on events here on earth. ZaneStein (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed]. You make grand claims yet no mainstream source talks about your work, nor does any mainstream source discuss your emails and letters to Marsden as pioneering "in opening a new connection between astrologers and astronomers", but if any astrologer contacted an astronomer for information about their area of expertise, I would be very surprised if the astronomer refused. (an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim, notability is not inherited from someone else by the way). Not everyone is notable, and for example, most scientists are not. Your personal correspondence does not contribute to your notability. If you were friends with Stephen Hawking you would not be more notable, notability is not WP:INHERITED. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my response above on this, these comments suggest that you did not read the exchange of letters before you collapsed Zane Stein's links.Kooky2 (talk) 09:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:GOOGLEHITS, and a substantial amount of puffery and misrepresentation of sources, none of the sources proferred even come close to qualifying as a reliable source according to our policies. The subject has been totally ignored by everyone outside of a small segment of the fringe community. No relaible sources means no article. Personal correspondence and mention in "for entertainment purposes" fringe sources does nothing to establish general notability. The subjects own claims for notability above are far from convincing. Still have not turened up anything reliable sources in my own searches, and still think the article should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following on a book written in German and would like to know if this is an acceptable reference for Wikipedia: "Philosophische Fragen der Astrologie: (Hg.) Volker H. Schendel - Band 2 der Schriftenreihe Astrologie und Erkenntnis" by Dr. Christoph Schubert-Weller, published in 2011 (a link to it on Google Books can be found here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=YT7qZV44sOcC&pg=PA106&dq=zane+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gIjnUZq_M4a5O-T7gOgH&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=zane%20stein&f=false:

"Der erste astrologische Forscher in Sachen Chiron, Zane B. Stein, ist zunächst weit weg von diesem Begriff der ,,tiefsten Wunde". on page 106. --- My German is a bit rusty but I think it translates to: "The first astrological researcher in terms of Chiron, Zane B. Stein, even if he was initially far removed from [using] the term of the "deepest wound"."

"Steins Ueberlegungen stehen am Anfang der Chiron-Forschung" on the next page. --- This, I think, translates "Stein's considerations mark the beginning of the research into Chiron."

There are further references on those pages as wellZaneStein (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a self published book through [1] (specifically [2]). IRWolfie- (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the article as it stands now after a lot of dicsussion, I don't see any real indication of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources; as might have been expected, coverage appears to be generally limited to sources in the astrology subculture that are of questionable reliability and independence. Sandstein 06:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the article as it now stands may not reflect it, Stein definitely meets WP:AUTHOR, in that in his field he is (1) regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors, and (2) known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. He is THE pioneer and world astrological expert on Chiron, now regarded as an extremely significant part of an astrological chart and listed on all birthcharts. All subsequent authors or commentators on this astrological body have given deference to Stein and used and quoted his data and findings, including some of the authors seen here, and also Debbi Kempton-Smith's very influential and internationally revered (including in The New Yorker magazine, etc.) Secrets from a Stargazer's Notebook, and many other books which do not show up on Google's currently rather clunky and inadequate book search. Here are a few other views of mentions: [3], [4], [5]. Softlavender (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We require substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. The sources you give are all unreliable. Do you have any RELIABLE sources that SUBSTATIALLY discuss this author from outside of the fringe community that would demonstrate wider notability? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender, thank you for your references. Debbi Kempton-Smith's book was published by Bantam Books in 1982. As you state, it is not possible to search the contents of this book on the web - is this a passing reference to Stein or is there a quotable comment that may add notability? Kooky2 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation: I've lost the 1982 Bantam edition of the Debbi Kempton-Smith book, and that edition is out of print (though available on used-book sites). The book was reprinted by TopQuark Press in an expanded edition in 1999. Here is a quote from that in the chapter on Chiron, taken from the 1982 edition and then added to with an addendum. I don't have time to copy out all the ten paragraphs she quotes from Stein, but here is her intro:

“

What does Chiron mean in a chart? Nobody knows yet. Astronomer Charles Kowal discovered it on November 1, 1977. In those days, astrology lovers could join the Association for Studying Chiron and they sent you a regular newsletter and a form to fill out with your observations about what happens when Chiron passed over different areas of your chart. Now you just go to Zane Stein's website [she must have added this word to the new edition, as it wouldn't have been in the 1982 edition] or read his book, Chiron: Essence and Application. Zane Stein founded the association in order to get feedback quickly on the new planet. Data poured into the ASC from all over the world; Zane collated the observations and cranked them out. He is presently the world expert on Chiron. so we'll give him the floor:

[she then goes on to quote five paragraphs from Stein].

[Then in an "Author's Update" (for the 1999 edition of the book), she quotes five additional new paragraphs from Stein.]

All this is pp. 268-272 of the 1999 reprint via TopQuark Press.

”

Softlavender (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reference and quote is on page 243 of the original Bantam 1982 version. ZaneStein (talk)

If he is as notable as you appear to claim, then why don't reliable secondary sources, independent of the promulgators and popularizers exist? Why are we only seeing unreliable sources and links to google? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable in his field, the field of astrology. There are numerous reliable secondary astrology sources that confirm this. What you are inacurately categorizing as "promulgators and popularizers" are independent researchers and noted thinkers in the field of astrology, not vapid daily horoscope vendors in the local tabloid. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology has not been legitimate field of inquiry for several hundred years, it is clear pseudoscience. That he is involved in standard western astrology and not sun-sign astrology does not give it one iota of extra legitimacy. It is still pseudoscience which has been thoroughly refuted, with no academic legitimacy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently, not at all notable as an author. Amazon rankings for his books are abyssmal:

Chiron: 3,894,522

Interpreting Chiron: 11,414,358

Daily Position Ephemeris of Chiron: 12,925,151

Essence and Application: A View from Chiron: No ranking (Amazon has never sold a single copy, and only stocks two used copies)

Chiron, essence et interpretation: No Ranking

Very far from a best-selling author, and probably hasn't sold more than a couple of hundred copies worldwide of all his books combined. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The figures quoted are not correct. Dominus did not do more than a superficial exploration on Amazon.com, or he would have seen that, first of all, my book has had more than one printing, and second, that there are definite figures available for Essence and Application: A View from Chiron. Take for example the current, most recently reprinted edition, which you can see here: http://www.amazon.com/Essence-Application-Chiron-Zane-Stein/dp/1933303441/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374489881&sr=1-1&keywords=essence+and+application+a+view+from+chiron

The ranking is a wee bit higher: 412,769.

There is a much older out of print edition, published in 1995, listed, with a very low ranking: 5,292,385.

Essence and Application was a booklet I had written, and it has not been in print separately for years, but was included as part of Essence and Application.

Chiron, essence et interpretation is a French translation of my book. Seriously, if you are going to reference a book published in France for the French market, wouldn't you be wise to look at the French version of Amazon.com? http://www.amazon.fr/Chiron-Essence-Interpr%C3%A9tation-Zane-B-Stein/dp/2884480293/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374490662&sr=8-1&keywords=Chiron%2C+essence+et+interpretation

As you can see there, the book is ranked 210.611

And while you didn't mention it, my book has also been published in Germany. http://www.amazon.de/Wendepunkt-Chiron-Anwendung-Zane-Stein/dp/3925100083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374490777&sr=8-1&keywords=Zane+Stein

Ranking there 383.402

And no, I have not sold millions of copies. Since the book was first published until today, all editions together have sold a good deal more than 'a couple of hundred copies worldwide/. (There was also an Italian edition but that is no longer in print.)ZaneStein (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still unimpressive. Hardly evidence that you are notable as an author. Actually, rather good evidence that you're not. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus Vobisdu – If the page is deleted, I won't lose any sleep over it. And your description of my books sales as 'abysmal' doesn't offend me, as I know it is an untruth.

What does concern me is the possibility that this entry in Wikipedia not be judged fairly, on its merits, by truly unbiased judges. As I see Wikipedia, that's one of its virtues....that there are people willing to review entries for their worth. And I'd like to always feel my faith is justified in Wikipedia’s unbiased and accurate reporting of all topics, fringe or otherwise.

Your fruitless searches for sources that you, on two occasions, claim to have done appear completely unreliable. I'd hate to think that my page ended up getting deleted based on incorrect reporting of facts and biased judgements.ZaneStein (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but without substantial mention in multiple RELIABLE independent secondary sources, you're just not notable enough to have an article. Your argument is with our policies and guidelines, not with me. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus, you are quite wrong when you write "Your argument is with our policies and guidelines, not with me." If you truly had read what I wrote you would see that I have no problem with my profile being deleted if it is truly deemed not to meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines by unbiased judges who rely on the facts. In each case where you have misrepresented the facts, and I have mentioned this misrepresentation on your part, you have chosen to totally ignore your errors. Now, either your errors are because you are not very good at researching the facts before bringing them into your discussion (and I hope this is the case), or you purposely attempt to omits some of the facts because those facts are inconvenient for your agenda. In either case, totally ignoring your errors when you are called on them is definitely not the work of an unbiased judge who is trying to uphold Wikipedia's policies.ZaneStein (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon has many times fewer French books than English books. You can not compare a ranking in English to French, and act as if the french books are more popular. These books aren't best sellers, nor are they indicative of notability IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus, I find it quite amusing that, when I quoted rankings for editions of my books in different languages to show that in all cases the ranking was much higher up than the erroneous ranking you used, you chose to conclude that I was saying something I never did say....that I was comparing the rankings to show that the French books are more popular. No, all I was showing that in EACH case my rankings were a good bit higher than any of the rankings you had supposedly found to prove your point. It is not Wikipedia's policies that I am responding to. It is your attempts to support the way you interpret those policies with either poor scholarship on your part, or twisting the truth to arrive at the points you are trying to make.ZaneStein (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dominus Vobisdu: Please read WP:AUTHOR. Stein definitely meets criteria (1) and (2), as I have noted above. Your book-sales count is therefore a red herring. That said, you do not have even close to the complete tally of Stein's book sales. To acquire that you would need the yearly Nielsen numbers. Amazon (a single source and an online vendor) is obviously not a reliable source on book sales counts, especially for someone who has been writing since the early 1980s. Softlavender (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Wp:GOOGLEHITS, then WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and now WP:ITSNOTABLE. He doesn't even come remotely close. He's a total zip outside of a tiny fraction of the fringe community. Nothing even resembling substantial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Actually, nothing resembling any coverage at all in reliable sources. Fringe "for entertainment purposes only" books by self-styled "experts" count for jack shit both in the real world and here on WP. Try Astrowiki. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going to say this one more time, here: Please read WP:AUTHOR and base your comments on that. Softlavender (talk) 23:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read it, especially this part:

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

You have no evidence at all from reliable independent sources that he meets either of the criteria you mention. Just a bunch of books by clowns, and this is not Clownopedia.

In other words, if he doesn't exist in reliable independent secondary sources, he doesn't exist at all as far as WP is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus, all that you've proven there is that you didn't read WP:AUTHOR, because you are not quoting from it. Moreover, you are obscuring the facts by casting aspersions and insults. I have no interest in engaging further. Softlavender (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your own text you aren't claiming he is a notable author or poet, rather you are saying he is notable for his astrology work; WP:AUTHOR simply does not apply to this. WP:AUTHOR is for individuals working in creative disciplines i.e "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects". To contrast, a scientist notable for his work, is not notable under WP:AUTHOR but WP:ACADEMIC even though they may write many articles and books. Astrology is not recognised as legitimate and so its proponents can not claim WP:ACADEMIC for their work. WP:ANYBIO is the target. Again though, this is not written for the case of pseudoscience, recognition in legitimate fields is what is required. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)::[reply]

IRWolfie, you can try to distort, manipulate, malign, misconstrue, or misquote the guidelines all you want, but the fact is Stein meets WP:AUTHOR and all your posturing cannot change that. Softlavender (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You accused Dominus (unfairly) of "obscuring the facts by casting aspersions and insults", yet freely throw such attacks at me without addressing a thing I have said, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there’s increasing evidence that Zane Stein meets WP:CREATIVE/ WP:AUTHOR, the argument has dramatically switched onto the ridiculous notion that astrology is not legitimate anyway and therefore he cannot be considered an author or a creative professional or indeed under any WP Notability criteria. Astrology may not be legitimate in some editor’s eyes and this fixation has prompted their personal crusade to cleanse Wikipedia of this unlawful and illegitimate practice. This imaginative angle is symptomatic of what appears to be a legal interpretation of rules to delete this biography. Kooky2 (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender was the first to claim that Zane meets WP:AUTHOR. I reject this argument as not being met. Naturally I avoided countering arguments that were not made per WP:BEANS prior to Softlavender making them (specifically you indicated that WP:AUTHOR was not met earlier). Please desist from comments directed personally at me, particularly considering of recent warnings. I highlight the sentence "ridiculous notion that astrology is not legitimate", for the closing admin to reflect on. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's keep it on topic. Astrology may have been illegal under Stalin etc and it may be pseudoscience, but as far as I know, astrology is not unlawful in western democracies - otherwise an awful lot of people would be breaking the law. Perhaps you need another reason to justify why an astrologer cannot be considered an author or a creative professional or fall under any notability criteria. Also, I was not aware that I had "indicated that WP:AUTHOR was not met earlier". I admit that I was in some doubt about the merits of this article initially. As you know, WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE are the same guideline which includes authors and other creative professionals. Kooky2 (talk) 23:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple, the reasons Softlavender were giving were not about satisfying WP:AUTHOR for his books, but for his work as an astrologer. If he is notable not as an author, but an astrologer there should be independent secondary sources to satisfy that, which there aren't. If you want to claim WP:AUTHOR you need to have best sellers and famous awards (awards that we have heard of, astrologers giving each other awards don't add up to much). IRWolfie- (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation I have a number of quotes in various books that may be relevant. Here is one from The Continuing Discovery of Chiron by Erminie Huntress Lantero, published 1983 by Samuel Weiser, inc. of York Beach, Maine. ISBN 0-87728-549-7: page 4,

"On first hearing of the new planet, astrologer Zane B Stein, then of Warminster, PA, understood quite well what needed to be done; and he was unwilling to wait for publication of the astronomer's complete and definitive ephemeris, which might take awhile. So he wrote to Dr. Brian G. Marsden, Director of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory at Cambridge, MA, who was to compute Chiron's orbit and prepare an astronomical ephemeris for world-wide use. Stein requested his help in regard to advance information, and wrote to discoverer Kowal as well. After a few months of cooperative correspondence between Dr. Marsden and himself, Stein was given an advance ephemeris of printed-out ten-day positons in right ascension/declination."

The author then talks about Stein forming of a "Chiron Committee" with two other astrologers and a computer programmer, and finishes up with "but Stein was considered the "Key member" since it was he who made the first formal contact with the astronomers." ZaneStein (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference, Zane. Kooky2 (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dates on the letters and the dates of that book don't add up. The book is not under a reliable imprint (Weiser Antiquarian Books), and is written by an astrologer, this does not show notability in the greater world per previous reasons. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Lantero is an independent, reliable, secondary source that further confirms Zane's role as a pioneer in his field. I have three questions: 1) Please clarify what you mean by the "dates on the letters and the dates of that book don't add up". 2) Can you cite the guidelines that makes the publisher, Samuel Weiser Publishing founded in 1956 an unreliable imprint and 3) the guideline where it states that WP:AUTHORs must be bestsellers? Kooky2 (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on YOU to prove that the source is reliable. By default, it's not.

I could find no evidence on their website [[6]] that they take editorial responsible for the factual content of the books they publish, that they conduct any sort of fact-checking as serious journalistic editors do or any sort of editorial or peer review as serious scholarly publishers do. Nor could I find any evidence that they have a reputation for factchecking and accuracy outside of the fringe community.

As for Lantero, there's ZERO about her in independent reliable sources. According to her Amazon ranking, she's very far from a best-sellar. Outside the fringe community, she's probably been noticed even less than Stein has. As zero calling another zero a "significant author" does exactly zero to establish notablility.

Until you provide evidence of substantial and serious coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources that Stein is not a complete zero, he meets exactly zero of the criteria of any of our notablity guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are now more than enough reliable, independent secondary sources that confirm that Stein qualifies under WP:CREATIVE as a creative professional and author. Please answer my questions with reference to specific guidelines. Kooky2 (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' as per Kooky2. This discussion does seem to have wandered into a real lack of civility all round which isn't helpful for either side, though. StuartDouglas (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. Can you summarise what your reason for the keep is, showing reliable sources where applicable. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that policy thanks, but it's a guideline only and besides I find Kooky2's notability arguments to be comprehensive. Astrology is absolute bunk imo, but the argument against this person seems to be based on arguing that that matters in terms of notability. Which - again imo - is nonsense. YMMV. StuartDouglas (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has not been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" (required by WP:BASIC), or "received a well-known and significant award or honor" (WP:ANYBIO—emphasis mine). Miniapolis 15:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dominus and Miniapolis. Appears to be a minor astrologer. II | (t - c) 17:56, 28 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, _→AzaToth 22:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whoof -- there are certainly people who are very powerfully invested in interpreting Wikipedia notability guidelines to squeeze this fellow through. For all the repeated -- and oft-shrill -- exhortations to read WP:AUTHOR, I question whether the editors did themselves. For one thing, they are ignoring a critical element of notability policy: that all such notability guidelines are subordinate to the GNG -- meeting their criteria is considered (officially) to presumptively pass the GNG. The entire "Additional Criteria" section holds that "meeting one or more [of the subordinate criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
Beyond that, though, editors such as Softlavender and Kooky2 repeatedly maintain that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR, but proffer no evidence from reliable, credible sources for the same beyond their own unsupported assertions. Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. Ravenswing 06:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, could you be more specific regarding failure to meet WP:GNG with reference to three sources: Kempton-Smith, Professor Lewis and Dr Lantero and which particular guidelines do they fail to meet? Kooky2 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the Astrologer Debbi Kempton Smith's "Secrets from a Stargazer's Notebook: Making Astrology Work for You"? Astrologer James R. Lewis's astrology book? etc, these are all published in-universe by unreliable publishers. The guideline they fail is WP:RS/Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reliable_sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline in WP:Fringe Theories refers to the notability of fringe theories to demonstrate whether an idea is sufficiently notable and not to basic biographical information, which does not require peer reviewed, University Press or equivalent sources. In this context Bantam Books (part of Random House), Visible Ink Press publisher of Lewis' Encyclopedia and Weisers are reliable publishers. Kooky2 (talk) 10:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of those publishers take editorial responsibility for the content of these books, and none of them carry out any form of academic review or journalistic fact-checking. They simply publish these books for entertainment purposes only. They are as reliable as comic books. No more. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite policy. Kooky2 (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS qualifies this with "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." In my view, you are setting the bar too high for the context: the publishers, the authors, the content and the statements being made. Kooky2 (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That bar has pretty much been set, by consensus, for a long time now. As far as your interpretation of WP:Fringe theories goes, you seem to have left this out of your calculations: "Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents. Attempts by such inventors and adherents to artificially inflate the perceived renown of their fringe theories ... is strongly discouraged." You're free to disagree, of course ... as it seems you've done, in exhaustive, tl;dr length. At this point, I'm minded of WP:KEEPCONCISE. You've stated your case, and now it's time for others to state theirs. Ravenswing 16:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't like to weigh in on AfDs to vote delete as an inclusionist, but this AfD seems to have a gotten a bit off track. The subject does not meet WP:GNG, its not even a borderline case in my opinion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the general notability guidelines, nor the ones for authors. It is completely irrelevant what the Amazon sales rankings are as we do not use them to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the merits - I'm not convinced that the subject meets the GNG. That said, it might be a case of NOTYET as opposed to NOTEVER. Usual Caveats apply. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:49, 1 August 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revival – Exclusive Bonus DVD[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this music DVD, which was only released on Walmart's website. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search doesn't show any coverage. News search returns 0 hits. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simple but very good production, and historic for the main CD.LanceBarber (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That has nothing to do with WP:N. SL93 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sort of coverage in independent reliable sources like reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 21:59, 31 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 Withdraw. Since votes continued after my withdraw comment, I might as well make this official myself. SL93 (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reformed Presbyterian Church – Hanover Presbytery[edit]

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

I found nothing to show that this church organization is notable. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - denominations, even small one, are generally notable, because there are directories and encyclopedias that list them and provide significant coverage. This one, for example, is listed in The Reformed Family Worldwide: A Survey of Reformed Churches, Theological Schools, and International Organizations, published by Eerdmans. St Anselm (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is also listed in Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions. -- 203.171.196.14 (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike individual churches and parishes, denominations are notable. WP:NONPROFIT is met in this case by the source listed by StAnselm. -- 203.171.196.16 (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Incubate~~ Keep There are no references in the current article. The article cannot stay in mainspace, as WP:V and WP:Deletion policy override the notability guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep as the article is no longer unsourced, and denominations are wp:notable as per the "worthy of notice" definition. Unscintillating (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see nothing in Wikipedia:Deletion policy to that effect. Generally, we keep articles on notable subjects even if the article content needs work (WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress). In any case, the article does have references. -- 203.171.196.14 (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Denomination with nine congregations. Note, it's hard (but not impossible) to find third party references. JASpencer (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are quite a few Presbyterian denominations, just as there are quite a few LDS splinter groups. However, the present system of (possibly short) articles linked by infoboxes seems to work well, and this article is part of that system. -- 203.171.196.14 (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I withdraw this due to the keeps. The incubate comment should be ignored. SL93 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OUTCOMES; we usually keep denominations and dioceses with at least a half-dozen churches. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the practice of regarding denominations as notable seems sound. This is a case where the issues are best fixed by sourcing and editing. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:57, 29 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 under criterion G7: the only substantial contributor to the article blanked it. —C.Fred (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding Wrestling[edit]

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

Not notable, only source is a forum post. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:27, 28 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. Secret ^account 03:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The X-Men (band)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:BAND. Koala15 (talk) 18:59, 28 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 28. Snotbot t • c » 20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local group. Not charted, not on a major or significant indie label. Opening for notable acts does not confer notability. Possibly redirect to The X-Ecutioners, since that better-known group was first called The X-Men before they had to change their name. — Gwalla | Talk 19:00, 31 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. This is a borderline case and may be better off being redirected to her band article; this, of course, is not an issue for AFD. Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Angel Holt[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources to show that Holt meets the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for actors. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gong show 15:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gong show 15:30, 13 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) 04:40, 20 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, Improving it seems a better choice. - →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my reply to User:Pseudonymous Rex. (Not much about her & doesn't seem to pass GNG IMO.)

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: She doesn't have enough of a career to achieve notability through WP:CREATIVE, true, but being in a band that scored a single charting on the UK charts is enough (barely) to qualify under WP:BAND. Ravenswing 06:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello. Thank you both for joining the discussion.
@Davey2010: I haven't seen the coverage needed to pass GNG. I see what seems to be an interview that requires a subscription to view, but most of what's out there is user-generated. If you see more, better sources, could you share them? Thank you.

@Ravenswing: I agree that the group, Frank (band), meets the BAND guideline, but I don't think that she personally does. Per WP:BAND point 6, if she had been in two independently notable ensembles, then she'd surely pass. As it is, maybe the page should redirect to the band's article.

— Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 04:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseudonymous Rex: - I've found this & this but that's pretty much it ...Apart from what you/I linked there's nothing.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to interject here that WP:BAND isn't applicable to this person, as she can't inherit notability from a band per WP:NOTINHERITED and the caveat at the end of WP:BAND: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." --Batard0 (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Hayley is Hayley Angel Holt since November 2012. Previously Hayley Angel Wardle.

Search google for these names now and tell me she is not an established actress. It's almost laughable if this is down to Wikipedia "rules", to say that she MAY only qualify as a musician due to the band 'Totally Frank' when this was actually derived from the Channel 4 TV series which Hayley was the lead in and that ran for 2 seasons with 12 episodes each... Hayley has acted with Tom Hardy (in The Take) and Faye Dunaway (in Flick)... and she doesn't qualify to be on this website? Please, let's save any further embarrassment.

Please find the links below as references including the Sky website.

The Take http://sky1.sky.com/the-take-hot-cast-pics/29

Totally Frank http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/totally-frank/cast/472309 http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/813625

Flick http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482147/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(film)

Departure Lounge http://one4review.co.uk/2008/08/departure-lounge-by-dougal-irvine/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhycoco (talk • contribs) 19:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done a bit of work tidying up the article. It seems to me that there is enough here to constitute notability, particularly her lead role in Totally Frank (ran for 2 seasons on major UK broadcaster) and in terms of the associated band Frank (UK top 40 single). She doesn't quite meet WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSIC, but close on both seems enough together and all those TV appearances she did in 2006 promoting Frank, I feel, count towards WP:GNG criteria. (And she's Jah Wobble's daughter! OK, OK, I know notability is not inherited...) Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: Thank you for cleaning up the article a bit. I very respectfully disagree about meeting GNG, though. The reliable sources say only that she played such-and-such role in such-and-such production. If she met GNG, there would be more significant, detailed coverage. In the absence of such coverage, I don't think she meets GNG. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - Reply My point there was that appearing on Richard & Judy and T4 etc. constitutes examples of GNG because those are significant media sources, albeit ones not archived on the Web. Bondegezou (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseudonymous Rex: If the subject in question does not constitute being an actress, would all Wikipedia pages that mention the subject then also be incorrect? (eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_(film)) Please also explain why the subject was on Wikipedia to begin with and for a number of years had no issues, only until her surname changed recently this is now being raised for deletion.

source around Sky TV Series with Tom Hardy http://warnersisterstv.com/drama/the-take/ which is available to view on Sky website now... British Film Institute mentions primary sourced information http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2bd6b92c1d. The Evening Standard (Londons largest newspaper) ran an article regarding Hayley including an interview. http://www.questia.com/library/1P2-2652120/watch-out-for-hayley-angel-wardle#articleDetails. I've found on an old Channel4 broadcasting channel website about Totally Frank http://web.archive.org/web/20070525123408/http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/T/totally_frank/the_cast_2.html. A review from Jack Smith (Whats On Stage) referring to Hayley Angel Wardle in Departure Lounge. Another source: http://www.broadwaybaby.com/listing.php?id=1456. Also mention here and photo of subject in blue dress: http://www.todomusicales.com/content/content_english/2136/luke-kempner-and-niamh-perry-in-love-with-musical-theatre/ "'Totally Frank' actresses (from left to right) Helena Dowling, Bryony Afferson, Lauren Blake and Hayley Wardle pose in the press room at the T4 Poll Winners' Party 2005 With Smash Hits at Wembley Arena Pavilion on November 20, 2005 in London, England." - http://www.wireimage.co.uk/celebrity-pictures/Totally-Frank-actresses-Helena-Dowling-Bryony-Afferson-Lauren-Blake/56245335?cc=GBR&language=en-GB Subject at film premieres: http://www.spokeo.com/Hayley+Angel+Wardle+1/Aug+08+2006+London+Gb#17324151:31985121 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhycoco (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sugarhouse http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/662698/Sugarhouse/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.213.236 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think we're meeting the WP:GNG or any more specific criteria, including WP:NACTOR, WP:MUSIC or WP:BAND. A search under both of her names reveals only trivial coverage, passing mentions and listings in credits: nothing, in other words, that a reasonable person could call significant coverage independent of the subject in reliable sources. Here's a review of the sources and arguments that have been presented so far as establishing notability:

http://sky1.sky.com/the-take-hot-cast-pics/29 is a picture of Holt with no commentary. This can't constitute significant coverage.
http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/totally-frank/cast/472309 is a TV Guide cast listing with no individual coverage of the actors.
http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/813625 is another listing in a film database.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482147/ is an IMDB listing with no significant coverage of the actress.
http://one4review.co.uk/2008/08/departure-lounge-by-dougal-irvine/ is a short review that only parenthetically mentions the actress as part of a listing of cast members.
http://warnersisterstv.com/drama/the-take/ is a brief mention in credits.
http://explore.bfi.org.uk/4ce2bd6b92c1d is another database listing of credits.
http://www.questia.com/library/1P2-2652120/watch-out-for-hayley-angel-wardle#articleDetails is about as close as we're getting to significant coverage, but it's a short interview with her answers to a series of stock questions. I don't think in itself it's sufficient to establish notability under the WP:GNG. As an interview, it's primary material and thus not independent of the subject; the parts that aren't primary are brief.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070525123408/http://www.channel4.com/entertainment/tv/microsites/T/totally_frank/the_cast_2.html is a brief cast listing on the website of the TV show's broadcaster. It's not independent of the subject.
http://www.broadwaybaby.com/listing.php?id=1456 doesn't mention the subject.
http://www.todomusicales.com/content/content_english/2136/luke-kempner-and-niamh-perry-in-love-with-musical-theatre/ only mention of the subject is in a picture caption in a story about someone else.
http://www.wireimage.co.uk/celebrity-pictures/Totally-Frank-actresses-Helena-Dowling-Bryony-Afferson-Lauren-Blake/56245335?cc=GBR&language=en-GB doesn't load, but appears to also be an appearance in a photo.
http://www.spokeo.com/Hayley+Angel+Wardle+1/Aug+08+2006+London+Gb#17324151:31985121 are red-carpet photos of the subject.

I think it'd be hard to reach a reasonable conclusion that this coverage meets the WP:GNG. A contention has been raised above that the fact that a band she was in is notable may make her notable. WP:BAND and other guidelines specifically preclude this. I haven't been able to find evidence of significant coverage; unless new evidence appears that such coverage may exist, I think deletion is the correct decision under the guidelines. --Batard0 (talk) 17:34, 6 August 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. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nspluginwrapper[edit]

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

No indication or claim of notability. I couldn't find any third-party sources discussing this software in detail. Psychonaut (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gong show 15:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Nspluginwrapper is found in multiple Linux distributions. I personally have used it to wrap x86 plugins for x64 usage and GTK2 plugins so they work in GTK3 web browsers. But as a glue library most users do not know about it unless they absolutely have to use it.
There are a few older external articles on it that could be referenced, such as [7] and [8]. But since it is a program which only needs to be started once to solve a user's problem and may never be seen again as it works in the background, I think it may be hard to make this article more than a stub. Cerlyn (talk) 19:02, 17 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) 19:06, 20 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, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:24, 28 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) 04:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Women Titulary in Ancient Egypt[edit]

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

This article is really just an essay (as shown by the sentence "This paper will be examining two royal women and their titles, Sobekneferu and Hatshepsut; and the God's Wife of Amun and her titles") that throws separate topics together without stating how they're connected. Hatshepsut and Sobekneferu took pharaonic titles, which can be covered in ancient Egyptian royal titulary as well as in these female pharaohs' respective articles. There is a separate article on the God's Wife of Amun.

The article was proposed for deletion last year. Although the prod was stopped, I fully agree with the reasoning User:DoriSmith gave for that proposal: "I can't even clearly tell what the article's subject is: Titles of all royal women? Titles of just those women who became pharaohs? Some titles of some women?… That is, it's not clear what this article's criteria are for inclusion/exclusion… It's this lack of clarity, imo, that makes this article unencyclopedic. If there's an over-arching thesis, then it's original research and should be deleted. If there isn't, then it's a random non-notable mess and should be deleted." A. Parrot (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and as WP:SYNTH (not that I'm clear what it's trying to get at) and WP:CONTENTFORK of 4 separate, mostly unrelated articles. Ansh666 23:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Delete: About as incomprehensible as this article is the deprodder's decision to deprod. DoriSmith's assessment is dead on: either this fails WP:SYNTH/WP:ESSAY, or it's just a turgid, unsourced mess. In any event, this was the SPA creator's sole activity on Wikipedia, and he's not now around to ask what the heck was in his mind. Ravenswing 06:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not even a well-written essay. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per proposer, per me. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very strange article. The article's creator made 3 edits on this article and then left wikipedia forever. I'm not sure I can rely on this creator's contribution here in this case though it may have been done in good faith. Are the titularies of two women who ruled at different times even relevant here? --Artene50 (talk) 01:57, 4 August 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 Graham Cluley. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacaranda Jim[edit]

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

Self-published college project WP:MADEUP, with no independent secondary sources WP:SIGCOV. RecallZero (talk) 18:42, 28 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) 19:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—no reliable sources currently present in article. Searching Google News archives and Google Books with search term "Jacaranda Jim" retrieves nothing of relevance, just false positives. Use of the custom Google search provided by WP:VG/S shows that Jacaranda Jim has an entry on Russian gaming site Absolute Games, but there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage. CtP (t • c) 01:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Huh. I wrote some computer games in BASIC for the UMass mainframe in the mid-80s ... do "Die In A Pit" or "Death Race UMB" get articles too? No, I don't think so, because they fail the GNG going away, and so does this. Ravenswing 06:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In its time, this was one of the better-known British text adventures - the computer games industry was small enough at the time that good self-published games did get noticed. Having said that, any in-depth coverage in reliable sources is likely to be at least twenty years old and (judging by a quick search) almost certainly offline - the best I have found are these passing mentions. While these certainly don't justify a standalone article, Graham Cluley, the game's author, has had a subsequent notable career as a computer security expert and, in the absence of known better sources, a redirect to his article is, I think, justifiable. PWilkinson (talk) 13:35, 3 August 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 G60 Shanghai–Kunming Expressway. Boldy redirecting the article to G60 Shanghai-Kunming Expressway as outlined in ATD-R. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A8 expressway (Shanghai)[edit]

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

A8 is the former provincial designation for the now G60 Shanghai–Kunming Expressway in Shanghai. Article on the latter present expressway exists, so this stub is a duplicate. Former designation and current designation shown on Expressways of Shanghai article. Source (in Chinese): [9]. The web page clearly shows the new name, G60 Shanghai (上海) – Kunming (昆明) replacing the former A8沪杭高速 (A8 Shanghai–Hangzhou Expressway) Heights^{(Want to talk?)} 18:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As per WP:ATD-R. STSC (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. GotR ^Talk 22:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per above. Dough 48 72 00:24, 29 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) 00:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Counter (album)[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not exist; the article was based on information posted online as a hoax (and is additionally a recreation of previously deleted content Test piggy (talk) 06:33, 21 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 21. Snotbot t • c » 06:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk) @ 09:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable, limited release, no coverage by reliable sources. Info in article is a combination of OR and based on highly unreliable sources. Adabow (talk) 07:08, 22 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) 17:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Why hasn't this been tagged for G4 yet? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:53, 28 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlezone[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable business which organizes wrestling matches and wrestling tuition in Scotland. I can find no evidence of any significant independent coverage of this organization, apart from these two PR type articles when the company was starting up [10], [11] (at least I assume it's the same company). This article had been speedy-deleted 3 times and was recreated within two months of the last deletion. It was almost immediately prodded, but shortly thereafter the notice was removed without addressing the concerns. Even if this were a notable company, the article's style and content are so wildly inappropriate for an encyclopedia that it would need a complete rewrite. It is also clearly being written by people associated with the company. [12], [13].

Note that this organization and its website are not to be confused with the wrestlezone.com website which is owned by CraveOnline. Voceditenore (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NiciVampireHeart 12:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After my searches, an attempt would be futile anyway. The evidence to support notability from independent reliable sources simply isn't out there. Voceditenore (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links of coverage in the press about WrestleZone and other articles. -

http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3262949 Aberdeen Evening Express - 03/06/2013 http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/3255985 Aberdeen Evening Express - 28/05/2013 https://www.kompany.co.uk/p/uk/sc421520 Registration with Companies house in 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.165.157 (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your third link is simply a company listing, showing that it exists. It does nothing to attest to its notability. The other two are reports in a local newspaper about the same event, one before it happened and one after. Wrestlezone is mentioned in them as the organizer of the event. These do not constitute the kind of significant coverage of the company itself required by the criteria at WP:ORG. Voceditenore (talk) 18:02, 24 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) 17:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT THE FREAKING EARTH: Enough is enough; if this GNG failure keeps getting recreated, let's see to that. Ravenswing 06:56, 29 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) 11:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sanatana Dharma ideal[edit]

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

I could not all these ethics bundled together as a "Sanatana Dharma ideal". The article uses primary references to associate all instances of the term "Sanatana Dharma" as one concept. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doublure of Hinduism & Satya; original research. it's another instance of Hindu inclusivism. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 2#Category:Dharmic_religions & Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dharmic_religion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:04, 15 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, czar · · 18:38, 21 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) 17:01, 28 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) 16:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goose Kallunki[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Yankees10 suggested that as a "consensus All-American and finalist for the Dick Howser Trophy makes him notable". I proposed adding college baseball All-Americans to NSPORTS in February 2012, and that was rejected. Being a finalist for a major award likewise does not confer notability. Only sources can, and in this instance, I think they are insufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason I removed the PROD.--Yankees10 23:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. No sources that establish notability.. This individual played one season in the low minors and has played the last several years in the independent leagues. His college awards did not lead to coverage in multiple sources as all I can see for him is routine game coverage. Spanneraol (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While I'd agree that I'd like to see notability better established, he technically fits WP:NOTE as I've found at least three reliable sources that feature this individual as the focus of an article and include major biographical pieces of information. That sort of contradicts the assertion by Spanneraol, as it does have widespread coverage. On the other hand, he is a minor league player and the coverage is mostly of a local nature. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you have found three sources, but they are all from a single event. I think WP:BLP1E applies here. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 18:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a tough one. I vote to delete based on a straightforward application of WP:BLP1E. There are three conditions that, if met, mean the individual is not notable enough to have his/her own article. The first condition is that reliable sources cover this person in the context of one event. I believe this is true; all reliable sources seem to cover this individual in the context of him being drafted into the minor leagues. The second condition is if the person is likely to remain a low profile individual. I believe his move from the minor leagues into independent baseball organizations makes it likely that he will remain a low profile individual (it does not appear that he plays in the minors anymore, see his stats for 2013: http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=kallun000goo). It would be different if he were a top prospect. The third condition is that the event is significant. While significant for this individual and his family, I do not believe being drafted into the minor leagues is a significant event, as it does not receive anything but local news coverage. Because all three conditions of WP:BLP1E are met, consensus says that the individual is not notable and I vote to delete. Note that WP:BASEBALL/N, is not helpful here, as this player is not a major or minor league player. I will note however that when this player was a minor league player, he did not meet the notability guidelines of minor league players. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 18:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His notability was mostly based upon his college career, where he did achieve some local fame. That he sort of flamed out in the the professional teams is more or less the problem here. Both WP:BLP1E and WP:BASE/N suggest a potential merger might be in order if there are some reliable sources but not sufficient for a full article. A twitter post (from Kallunki's own twitter account) suggests that he is returning to his Alma Mater to coach... but that gets into WP:CRYSTAL area that I didn't want to get into with this article. Perhaps a merger into Utah Valley Wolverines, as that seems to be where his notability is derived? --Robert Horning (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the only alumni lists on the Wolverine's article are those who have played at a national level (i.e. NBA, MLB, etc). I think it's probably an open question whether alumni who are drafted into semi-professional organizations (minor leagues, etc) are notable enough to list. The fact that he doesn't play in the minors anymore makes it even more difficult. That question is about content though and doesn't need to be worked out through the AfD process. People can hash it out on the talk page of the Wolverine's article. I'd be fine with a delete/merge. -- Sailing to Byzantium _(msg), 16:48, 28 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) 16:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An up and comer how never arrived. Coverage is local. -- Whpq (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a succinct summary from Whpq StuartDouglas (talk) 12:22, 5 August 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) 04:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Er Rafik[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article because the footballer Er Rafik was highlighting the Differdange 03, and I think he will play in a professional league soon. David —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Luxembourg National Division is confirmed as not fully pro at WP:FPL, and what he may or may not do in the future is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above guidelines. Fenix down (talk) 14:11, 2 August 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) 04:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Haque Bhatti[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography with no notability claims under WP:ACADEMIC. Kolbasz (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Professor Abdul wahid bhatti? Most probably they are same person or this is a co-ordinate spam? The Legend of Zorro 16:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly the same person. I have redirected your link (which was BLPPRODded, incorrectly, as the subject is not living) to the subject of the AfD. If/when this article is deleted, the redirect can be too. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible A7 speedy deletion — I don't generally like speedying articles about academics, because generally one can say something about even the ones with the weakest records that rises to the level of a claim of significance, but there is absolutely nothing of the sort in the article, let alone anything that would pass WP:PROF. The common names and variable spelling don't make it easy to search but I didn't find anything elsewhere either. At least in this case we can rule out WP:AUTOBIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In Google search no any sign of notabilty of the subject. I suggest deletion per WP:AUTOBIO.Justice007 (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain how you think someone dead for eight years wrote an autobiography? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete No WP:RS given to establish that he passes WP:GNG --Artene50 (talk) 02:17, 4 August 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2013 (UTC) I discovered this article, (Marino Alfonso) some time ago, then lost it, and just rediscovered it. There probably is a wikipedia article in here somewhere, but this, (opinion) is not it. Carptrash (talk) 16:11, 28 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 17:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian haze[edit]

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

This article is redundant. There are already existing articles, such as 1997 Southeast Asian haze, 2006 Southeast Asian haze, 2009 Southeast Asian haze, and most recently, 2013 Southeast Asian haze. Although these articles mainly talk about the individual hazes (the more severe ones), but just by reading any one of the 1997, 2006 and 2013 articles, then the readers would already know the cause of the annual haze. Just to emphasise again, there does not seem to be a real need for this article. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator. The discussion will end as Keep, and anyway, I'm convinced by the disambig thingy. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As the nomination says, there have been multiple hazes, covered in individual articles. If those annual hazes share elements, have a shared cause, it should be covered in an article that summarizes all the hazes. If, on the other hand, there are unique aspects to some or all of the hazes, that too should be summarized in an article about all the hazes. Geo Swan (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if nothing else, useful (and I would say, necessary) as a disambiguation page. Ansh666 23:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An article that is a summary of notable events can, in this case, also be considered notable. It can show the general causes of these hazes and the general history. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This really should be a slam dunk. People are far, far, far more likely to seek out a generic article -- which deals with a perennial issue -- than to decide they're going to type in random years. This is a highly notable phenomenon of worldwide impact. It's not a well-written article, but that's a content issue. Ravenswing 06:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Serves well as a disamb page, even if content should be removed. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Dab or full article, it's notable. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep excellent prime source article, specially for lesser events that can be listed here rather than have separate stubs with notability issues.. and as others say it serves as a useful dismabig page as well... sats 14:25, 2 August 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 deleted G11 by Bbb23. GB fan 17:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shalu (Drama)[edit]

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

With no reliable source asserting importance/notability, this clearly fails WP:GNG. SMS ^Talk 11:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 11:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 12:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as part of a spam campaign to pretend notability for one of the participants. Non notable. Fiddle Faddle 21:05, 31 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jsmboinick[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur movie. Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; no evidence that this comes anywhere near WP:NFILM. (The perils of not having speedy deletion criteria for creative works, including films shot by a group of teenagers and uploaded to Youtube.) AllyD (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, CSD is lower standard than is WP:N, and as there are (rare) instances where amateur films have been found notable, not having speedies for films is a safety net that acts to prevent errors, however well-intended. My own delete rationale is below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Finding zero coverage in reliable sources; fails the Reliable sources section of WP:NF. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SNOW - acutely and terminally non-notable. Stalwart111 12:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only sources that report in depth on this at all are unreliable. Maybe transfer to Wikia? ^King Jakob _C2 13:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a complete failure of WP:NF. The existence of the 9 minute film, apparently made with a digi-corder owned by one of the yougsters, is verifiable in that the film itself can be viewed on YouTube. Creating one's own Wikia film page does not show any notability. That said, the film itself is what might be expected from a group of youngsters with too much time on their hands. And fails the applicable notability guideline by having no reliable sources discussing it in any manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete—non-notable amateur project, WP:SNOW, no sources anywhere, etc. ad infinitum. The odd name, however, did make it quite easy to quickly search for sources nonetheless. CtP (t • c) 17:52, 28 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) 04:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conner Versetile[edit]

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

Not notable, only released mixtapes and the studio album being released is self-released. Insulam Simia (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thesmartone434 10:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)This Article should not be deleted because it has been edited and this person is partially notable. The reasons that the article was submitted for deletion was corrected, so therefore it is no need for this article to be deleted

I'm sorry to tell you that you have not fixed the problem. Do take a look at WP:BAND for the notability guidelines. Insulam Simia (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero references, and I can't find any. "Partially notable"? Is that like partially pregnant? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent WP:RS to establish subject's notability. --Artene50 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 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) 00:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Premier ETF LQ-45[edit]

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

The prod was removed. This is non-notable. SL93 (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The information in this very short article is already contained in the Indo Premier Investment Management article and does not deserve an article of its own based on lack of notability. Ochiwar (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DGG seconded my prod and said that this would not be an appropriate redirect. SL93 (talk) 19:00, 11 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, czar · · 05:06, 21 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^{*Let's talk!*} 06:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SL93 and Ochiwar - there just doesn't seem to be a need for a separate article to cover this until it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources in its own right. Stalwart111 12:44, 28 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) 00:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Tarantin[edit]

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

TOW talk 07:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 09:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 09:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question User:Tow: as nominator, what is your rationale for deletion? Ansh666 19:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure at all here but I think the subject does not meet the notability guidelines for people. -- TOW talk 20:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's what I expected. Even if you're not sure, it's better to put something so that someone doesn't speedy keep it since there's no rationale for deletion. I don't usually comment on WP:BLP AfDs, so my work is done here. Thanks, Ansh666 21:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR. His one self-published book doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:BKCRIT. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:39, 23 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^{*Let's talk!*} 06:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTHOR and others. Basically a promotional page on a Youtuber with a self-published book. Harry the Dog WOOF 07:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason that I have also recommended deletion of the article about his book: a complete lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Not notable, despite the Larry King name-dropping. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:59, 28 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Your Darlings (magazine)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PERIODICAL Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Originally nominated for CSD A7 but withdrew due to contested deletion on talk page, speedy delete seemed a bit hasty at the time. Still, does not seem very notable. — kikichugirl ^inquire 06:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found two references that provide a bit of notability for this magazine. First, it was highlighted in the Emerging Writers Festival this May at Victoria University. Second, it was described in the "Books + Publishing" website. I found the magazine mentioned no other times. However, there are many entries under the title "Kill Your Darlings" for several unrelated books and a DVD. I'm not certain what I found provides enough notability to warrant a 'keep' decision. If someone finds more supporting items for a 'keep' vote, I would vote such. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominating articles for deletion because they don't meet the criteria set out in an essay is generally not a good idea, especially when you don't set out how the article fails to meet the criteria. The most relevant widely-accepted notability criteria is probably WP:BK, which states that books are notable if they've been the subject of multiple and non-trivial articles, including reviews. Issues of this magazine has been reviewed at least twice in significant journals: [14], [15], as well as in newspapers [16]. In fact, if you go through the list of issues of this magazine at the Austlit database here many of them have received serious critical reviews (Issue 1 received four reviews). I think that this level of coverage is also sufficient to meet WP:GNG and notability is established. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It appears for most of your footnotes one would need a sign on to access the information, which means it cannot simply be pulled up and examined. However, you added one easily accessible, and good, reference with the citation from Overland. This makes at least three valid independent sources supporting this magazine. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added three references to this article that have come to light from this AfD discussion. Bill Pollard (talk) 06:42, 31 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. Notability guidelines set down by a WikiPrjoect do not trump our wider guidelines and policies, hence I have not taken these comments into account; on that basis there is consensus that GNG is not met (yet). Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Mansfield[edit]

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

No indication that this sporting club is notable, cant find ANY reliable sources that cover the club (other than results) in any detail. LGA _talk^edits 06:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find any sources like the nom, google news search doesn't pull anything up other than their own news Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 07:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ignoring their own website as a source there are some references to be found on their local papers website here, here and here. I'm undecided as to their overall notiblity but there are reliable sources. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets the notability criteria set down by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force due to the club participating in the FA Vase.(Rillington (talk) 09:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep This article will meet the notability criteria set down by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force as the club will be participating in the FA Vase.Babylon77 (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment meeting a WikiProject guideline is not sufficient (see WP:CONLIMITED) to override the requirement of WP:GNG ; the club needs coverage in detail in reliable sources, the two links that are working above, are not sufficient coverage, all that it confirms is that they exist and that they are playing football, heck my local pub team has more coverage than that and is not notable. LGA _talk^edits 22:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a newly created article and there is scope for additional content to be added, including obtaining material sourced from other wbsites, and to answer your concerns I have now added two references from a site which is NOT the club's official website and as of now, there are three references from two websites independent of the club's official website. This should satisfy any concern about lack of independent sources. I created this article because AFC Mansfield now fits a notability criteria established a long time ago by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force. Articles have to begin somewhere and if everyone shouted delete because the first few drafts of any article only used one or two sources then a significant number of good articles would not be with us today. I hope that now I have added more references from other websites to this article, which addresses your principle reason for wanting this article deleted, that you will now withdraw your request for this article to be deleted and vote for this article to be kept.(Rillington (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Should wait until the club have actually compeeted in the Vase, we wouldn't accept an article on a player who was about to play in a FPL. Fenix down (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe but the FA Vase starts in a few weeks so your argument for this article's deletion will be not applicable by this time next month. Therefore it seems rather silly deleting an article only for it to be restored in a few weeks time.(Rillington (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  - Comment - Not really, if they get knocked out in the first round then their only claim to notability by the arguments presented here will be 90 mins in the Vase. I am not sure how that would trump GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment If that happens then sobeit but they will still have participated in that competition and by participating in the FA Vase the club is considered to be notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability - and this notability criteria was established in 2009.(Rillington (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Comment It does seem as though there is a serious determination to get my article deleted. The original two arguments for deletion - that the club is not notable and a lack of independent sources - have both been addressed but despite that yet another argument for deletion has suddenly been produced, which leads me to draw this conclusion. Surely it would be more productive to try to help improve the article rather than trying to find any possible reason to get this article deleted?(Rillington (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Having read the debate I'll come off the fence and say keep. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:28, 4 August 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) 04:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dig BMX[edit]

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

Unsourced article, seems a bit adverty, also doesn't appear to meet WP:PERIODICAL Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing I could find would rise to the level of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so I can't see how this would meet WP:GNG, WP:PERIODICAL or WP:CORPDEPTH. Stalwart111 12:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 29 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 deleted by User:Anna Frodesiak per CSD A7, "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Badenvilles[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:NMUSIC. My {{db-band}} was declined because one of the members (a poet) apparently has a Wikipedia entry; however, this still doesn't satisfy the notability requirement, which states "...which contains two or more independently notable musicians." A Google search reveals an assortment of videos uploaded a few hours ago and...not much else. Theopolisme (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No indication of significance. (The poet's bio has been speedily deleted under the same criterion.) —teb728 t c 05:17, 28 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. In the end of the day, we do not have a single source about the guy, and after adding and removing text from an unreliable source the whole article is '''Rai Ahmad Nawaz Khan Kharal''' ({{lang-ur|{{Nastaliq|'''راۓ احمد نواز خان كهرل'''}}}}), was a freedom fighter in the [[Indian rebellion of 1857]].. Deleted, no prejudice against recreation provided reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rai Ahmed Nawaz Khan Kharal[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. I've tried Google and JSTOR searches, including using alternate spellings (eg: Ahmad/Ahmed) and also the Urdu variant. All I get is thousands of mirrors and the odd blog post. Sitush (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Existence is proven fact and hence likely to have a cult following (street names, memorials etc. etc.) Since this man is of historical importance this much notability easily passes WP:GNG. The Legend of Zorro 00:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is rather easier to find sources with a shorter version of the name, though this does also pick up some rather more modern individuals - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Google searches give enough to strongly suggest that he is still regarded as a folk hero in the Pakistani Punjab for his local leadership in the Indian Rebellion of 1857 - unfortunately, the relevant sources that I have spotted all mention him in passing, though in terms that suggest that there should be more substantial accounts elsewhere. The question is whether these can be found (in English, Urdu, Punjabi or whatever) during this discussion. PWilkinson (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good spot, shortening the name. I'm not sure if you have actually ploughed through all those resuls but I'll dig through them and see whether there is anything more than the passing mentions. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. This source is better, I think: from Dawn : http://www.apnaorg.com/articles/shafqat-5/ -- Also: http://archive.org/search.php?query=subject%3A%22Punjabi+hero%22 Zananiri (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Lacking context; as per CSD A1, unless further new context is added from now. STSC (talk) 21:34, 20 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) 02:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete - CSD A1. There have been no attempts to improve the article. STSC (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have restored the content which was previously removed so that the article may be improved by regular editing. STSC (talk) 04:16, 22 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) 02:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are RS supporting the notability of the subject. STSC (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted you, sorry. APNA is not a reliable source, despite their highfalutin' name - Academy of the Punjab in North America. They are an advocacy group and are known for circulating copyvios, fringe theories/extreme pov etc. At best, they might just verify that the guy existed. - Sitush (talk) 07:36, 29 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) 03:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bachak[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There was no consensus at the last AfD but there was agreement that there are no useful sources for this clan. The sourcing situation has not changed but in the interval there has been a gradual deletion of similar articles, which appears to enacting a way forward that was mooted at the prior AfD. Sitush (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 15 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:31, 21 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) 02:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be part of an article or list, not a stand alone article. Fails WP:GNG Jason from nyc (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not verified. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 29 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. Secret ^account 01:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Chinnock[edit]

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

Non-notable writer, no real claim to notability. Has published a couple short stories, claims to have written a novel, but not sign at all that it's been published. Also leads a writer's group, but there's no sign that's notable either. PROD declined. Hairhorn (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 09:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (rap) @ 09:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 22 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) 02:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no significant coverage of this author or his work in any reliable, independent sources, and the only references now in the article are to a blog he writes, plus the two websites that published stories of his. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:18, 28 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 Brickfilm. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Portal[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:FILM as all the coverage listed in the article is WP:SPS or WP:PRIMARY, and it doesn't meet any of the "Other evidence of notability" standards. Doesn't appear to meet standards of WP:WEB either, although potential exists for merging or redirecting to brickfilm. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 05:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Brickfilm. Unless theres some independent coverage of this film the nominator or I haven't seen, we should include in the Brickfilm article that it was the first brickfilm ever made. It would still be notable to most people as the first Brickfilm, so I think its worth a mention, but not on its own article. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 16:58, 27 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) 02:48, 28 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) 03:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madeline Taylor[edit]

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

Per 24.146.211.221: First AfD in 2009 ended in Keep, but by a very slim 2-1 margin. There is still no evidence of this individual meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. So far, she has only had two supporting roles, three single-episode guest appearances, and two short film appearances (one of which is currently in production). None of these roles have led to any awards or recognitions for her. While she does have an official website, it does not show any fan base or notable contributions to the entertainment industry. She has no Facebook or Twitter account and searching her name on search engines comes up with a whole bunch of other people with the same name. [17] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 09:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (warn) @ 09:50, 21 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find enough coverage of this young actress. Passing mentions in some notable news articles/reviews and supporting/guest roles in a few well-knowm shows and films does not merit notability. We can always recreate the article if she becomes more notable in the future. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 13:10, 3 August 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 Juliet Marillier. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heart's Blood[edit]

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

Non-notable book, fails to meet critera of WP:NBOOK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keri (talk • contribs) 13:55, 21 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - abjectly fails WP:NBOOK. ukexpat (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I do not know if i should be writing here at all. However, since you say this is not a notable book, I will request you to check the book review site goodreads.com. This book is popular and there are people in favor of it. I read through the notability criteria, however if you guys do not put up a good book, how will people know about it? Secondly on the page of Juliet Marillier almost all books have some page on it, except a few like Heart's blood. Having a article on it with improve the page. bigjala — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigjala (talk • contribs) 04:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goodreads is not a reliable source because its content is user generated. The notability guidelines for books are at WP:NBOOK - do you have reliable sources that demonstrate that this book meets those guidelines? It is not Wikipedia's purpose to let people know about "good books", that's the publisher's job.--ukexpat (talk) 12:49, 22 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) 02:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Juliet Marillier. Goodreads has never been considered a reliable source for the reasons above, as well as because it's been shown in the past that info there is easily manipulated. I think Robert Stanek has shown exactly how far someone will go to alter data on a site where users can submit reviews and/or edit data, so any site that allows users to alter data will be incapable of showing notability. Besides, popularity doesn't equal out to notability. It makes it more likely that sources can be found, but that's not a guarantee. I think that in this instance a redirect to the author's page will be best. I also notice that her page is in need of some serious editing as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:23, 29 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) 00:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frankfurt School conspiracy theory[edit]

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

This article appears to be a WP:CONTENTFORK from Cultural Marxism.[18] The major flaw in the article is that it defines the "conspiracy theory" as one where the Frankfurt School of critical theorists advanced a version of Marxism known as "Cultural Marxism" which had an agenda of subverting traditional Western values. However, the article goes on to name a wide array of groups as promulgators of the theory, some of which attacked the Frankfurt School without mentioning "Cultural Marxism," and some of which attacked "Cultural Marxism" without mentioning the Frankfurt School. If the article were to be freed, therefore, from OR, it would be reduced to stub size, but I think that the most appropriate course of action would simply be deletion. It's a conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theory. Joe Bodacious (talk) 14:10, 21 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 21. Snotbot t • c » 14:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a fork but rather a fringe theory which has enough reliable sources to merit an article, and the article is in accordance with fringe rules. I just recently came across a Christian Apologetic book which dedicated an entire chapter to the Frankfurt School which effectively utilized this theory, so I don't think that it is WP:OR or conjecture especially with the number of secondary sources that are cited analyzing the conspiracy theory. To clear up the nominators confusion about the use of terms, Cultural Marxism is the cultural theory advanced by the Frankfurt school, so having a group mention one or the other as part of the conspiracy theory isn't a problem. The usage appears to be mentioning the "frankfurt school" when talking about the individuals, and saying "cultural marxism" when talking about the ideology. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article Frankfurt School contains no reference to "cultural Marxism." Joe Bodacious (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it actually contains one reference, and the Cultural Marxism article states that cultural marxism is an offshoot of the Frankfurt school's critical theory.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable crackpottery is still notable. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:52, 25 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) 02:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from footnotes showing. Very nice page on a far right conspiracy theory. Should not be merged to Frankfurt School piece (a recipe for undue weight problems and a content war). Carrite (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep very interesting well sourced article and not the same topic as Cultural Marxism so no basis for claim of fork.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 28 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 Meek_Mill#Dream_Chasers_Records. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Snupe[edit]

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

A 18 year old aspiring rapper who was signed to a not notable independent label. The only coverage he received in reliable sources was in his untimely death. If he had not died there is no knowing if he would have ever became notable. See WP:NOTTEMPORARY, "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Also the subject fails WP:BAND. STATic message me! 20:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The best coverage prior/unrelated to his death appear to be these pieces from April which discuss his getting signed to Meek Mill's label. Gong show 14:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that is basicly it, then the wide coverage of his death. But is it really going to be notable for years (WP:CRYSTALBALL) Notable enough to keep a biography on him? STATic message me! 16:29, 22 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) 02:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Meek_Mill#Dream_Chasers_Records where the shooting is discussed already. Sadly, despite being murdered, he's just not a notable artist. Beerest355 Talk 14:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I would be in more support of a redirect rather than deletion. I just knew if I redirected it someone would challenge it. STATic message me! 05:16, 1 August 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. Secret ^account 02:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Demo Reel episodes[edit]

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

Small list of episodes for a cancelled non-notable show. Beerest355 Talk 16:26, 21 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) 02:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; so long as the parent series is only covered in a brief paragraph at the host website's article (That Guy with the Glasses#Demo Reel), I don't see any basis for this level of detailed coverage. postdlf (talk) 19:25, 28 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 Ricky Jay. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay's Journal of Anomalies[edit]

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

Not a notable magazine. Beerest355 Talk 00:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough coverage about the Journal itself to warrant a stand-alone article. Redirect to Ricky Jay.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  03:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book compiling the issues seems to have been reviewed in a couple of publications. If it's not notable enough for its own article, then it certainly deserves mention at Ricky Jay. CtP (t • c) 18:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion is wrong since it could be merged to Ricky Jay. Independent notability is marginal, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ricky Jay, no independent notability is evident. --Randykitty (talk) 14:26, 29 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.