Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 July	7 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 keep. At the current stage, I don't see that there is a consensus to delete. However as time goes on, it may become more obvious that this is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Adam Chesser[edit]

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

Routine coverage of a person who is notable for making some terrorist threats. WP:NOTNEWS. There is no long-standing notability here, just basic coverage on events. Beerest355 Talk 23:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per substantial coverage in reliable sources and involvement in several significant episodes including the threats to South Park. Covered over quite some time in various media sources and books as an American terrorist. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search on the subject shows it is still covered by widely varying sources, including senate.gov. Thundermaker (talk) 12:57, 8 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) 09:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

40tude Dialog[edit]

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

Unless I'm missing something, this article does not have a place here. I am unable to find any sort of significant coverage from any reliable third party sources. The software product was developed to beta and then discontinued, and the official website is now offline. I do not believe this product will ever attain post-humus notability. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see an indication of notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, it might have turned into Humus by now? Makes me hungry for Hummus :-) W Nowicki (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I like your sense of humur. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 07:41, 8 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) 02:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno and the 45[edit]

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

Completely non-notable children's book. Googling turns up nothing but scrapes and facebook pages, and a yahoo profile. TKK ^{bark !} 15:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. the publisher is noted as Central Books. Assuming this is the right publisher, there is a chance this is a self-published book as Central Books provides both traditional publishing and publish-on-demand services. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no indication of notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence found that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Gong show 21:45, 8 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sámi Walkers[edit]

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

Non-notable webshow without significant coverage. Article also has a highly promotional tone. Andrew³²⁷ 17:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or merge as a cheap and easy fix to Sami language#Written languages and sociolinguistic situation. Interesting, but clearly not notable, at least not yet. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose merge. There is absolutely no coverage in reliable sources for this web series which does not even exist yet as the "estimated release for the first episode is in January, 2014. The [samiwalkers.webs.com offcial web site] hosted on webs.com is bereft of any meaningful content. This appears to be somebody's idea for a web series which has yet to go beyond the idea stage. There is no sourced information to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 21:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are too many unknowns to even attempt to justify notability. Director unknown, several actors unknown and the release date is only estimated. The article can be recreated if the series becomes famous. Malcolma (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP. A bad faith renomination by a possible sock puppet account with trollish tendencies. Jehochman ^Talk 17:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Garvey[edit]

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

Hi yes. The closer of the first AFD kindly invited anyone that disagreed with the "no consensus" close to raise this issue again. Therefore I am raising it. The main issue on which we should concentrate, that needs consensus, is whether Garvey has received significant coverage in the sources cited, or just mere trivial or passing mention. Let's not worry too much about BLP1E or whether she's Jimmy's wife, but just lets concentrate on the one unresolved issue at bar. I say that the sources are mere "passing mention" type coverage, rather than significant coverage. Therefore, the article fails WP:GNG. Ann Bardrach (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Didn't we just have this discussion? Only just two days ago?[1] Two days is not enough time to re-open the exact same discussion. Let's wait a bit before re-opening this same discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Have you read WP:SOCK? Alternate accounts should not be used for deletion discussions. By the way, whose sock are you, anyway? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These issues need to be resolved. Better to do it now rather than later. Why wait? Ann Bardrach (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any issues, then they will not be solved by repeated AfDing until you get your way.Martin451 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the closer of the first Afd, I feel it is inappropriate to renominate at this point. A merger discussion would make more sense to me. (Speedy Keep) Mark Arsten (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep two days not long enough and the fact she was an assistant or whatever to a high ranking politician makes her wiki notable. That should be the end of the story. PumpkinSky talk 00:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same rationale I stated in last discussion. No new points have been raised to consider.TCO (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Give it some time, we just saw this circus at AfD. Marginal notability? Perhaps. But would we have an instant second AfD had this been anyone else? Are you seeing the POINT? Carrite (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quack quack, this listing was the third edit by the nominator. The first edit was blatant vandalism of a redirect of Chess.com to fisting. Bad faith nomination. This is a troll. Snow this fucker shut. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not independently notable of Jimbo. I, for one, believe that immediate renomination of a no-consensus close is perfectly acceptable, and I can find no policy that suggests otherwise. Let's set the "it's too soon" question aside and vote on the merits, shall we? p b p 04:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep We don't need to repeat the same AFD over again, just two days later. Don't game the system and keep renominating something until you get the results you want. Dream Focus 09:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, even though I voted deleted in the past discussion (and still think it should be deleted). Although I'd rather this article not exist, this is a very bad-faith nomination. The OP misinterpreted what the closing admin said: he didn't say you could just start another AfD if you wanted to, it was to start a merge discussion. This is something that should be proposed on the article talk page (and which I'd gladly participate in and vote to merge with Jimmy Wales), not by opening another AfD only two days after the last one closed. — Richard BB 09:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Opening a new AfD just days after the previous one finished is disruptive. It is like a child throwing a tantrum just because she did not get her way. Are we just going to have AfD after AfD until the proposer gets their way one this. Keep per rational used on the previous discussion.Martin451 (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Use normal editing to improve the article. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I speedily closed this already, to spare us further time-wasting, but User:GiantSnowman reverted this close. He seems to be upset about the reference made to his footballer stubs such as Adam Mitchell (footballer born 1994). That person "...won a call-up to the first team for the final game of the 2012-13 season, appearing as a late substitute against Spurs." It's quite laughable that someone who just appeared briefly in one event is held to be more notable than our illustrious subject here. There's no case for deleting this page on such subjective grounds. Warden (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all Warden, I fully accept that Garvey is considered notable. I simply reverted your extremely poor NAC close. Giant Snowman 12:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous discussion, User:GiantSnowman stated, "...this person fails WP:GNG...". Warden (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and? There was no consensus to delete, it apppears she's notable, so what? Giant Snowman 12:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just because an AFD closes as no consensus does't mean it's wise (or even acceptable) to nominate it again after literally a couple of days. If the article isn't improved in several months, renom it then. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. We just had an AFD on this! Seriously? Moncrief (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Waiting a few months would not have hurt. Anyway, I repeat myself from the previous AfD: Subject passes WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, not a WP:BLP1E nor WP-navel gazing (she was notable before marrying Jimbo, as correctly pointed in the previous discussion), article creator intent is irrelevant.-- cyclopia^speak! 15:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - And possibly a reprimand for Ann Bardrach for being a little pointy. NickCT (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep bad faith nomination. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:POINTy nom by SPA sock puppet. CallawayRox (talk) 17:35, 8 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) 02:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American Revolution, a global war[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this book. The author has no article which doesn't automatically point to him being non-notable, but it does make it a likely possibility. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Less than 100 Google Book hits, and as far as I can see from the snippets, only one source actually mentions it in passing as a work, rather than simply citing it in footnote or bibliography, and that simply to say that the position it presents is the position of most European works on the subject, so no claim to being influential by presenting a novel way of looking at the conflict can be made. Google scholar only has 7 hits, all citations. None in Google News or NY Times. None of the authors have a Wikipedia page (yes, there are 3, not 1) although the first author is referred to as a "noted military historian" on the page for his son). It is an orphan, and nobody except the page creator has made a single substantive edit since it was created a year and a half ago, when it was immediately PRODded only to have the creator remove the PROD. While it meets the threshold standards, it fails all of the specific criteria of WP:BK. Agricolae (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning towards delete, but I am finding some hits out there that are actually useful. I found a review from Kirkus from back when they were considered to be far more of a respectable source and I did find a review from an Oxford journal. I'll need more than that of course, but part of the problem here is that I think it did get more coverage but much of it probably never made it to the internet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I see where two people from the Journal of American History gave separate reviews for the book. I'll add those to the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This pdf from the "Center for the Study of War and Society, Department of History, University of Tennessee" (parentheses b/c I directly copied it) recommends it as far as books about the AR goes in a global perspective. Not exactly something I'd slap down on the counter as an "AH HA!" type of source, but it does infer that it's relatively well thought of as a book. The other thing I'm finding is where it's listed in the bibliography section of several history books. Other than the time period issues, I'm also running into the issue with the punctuation since the way the article is currently titled isn't exactly how it comes up in sources. Of course I recommend searching with "American Revolution" and "Global War" with one of the author's names, though. I got more hits that way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:54, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete, the article's subject seems to have vague to mild coverage, and so far the links listed in here does not seem to suffice both GNG and also fails its specific criteria: WP:NBOOK. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reviews meet WP's normal practice. "I don't like it" that WP editors write articles about non-fiction books when they should be writing about their topics and using the books as references. And/or writing about their notable authors. However there is not a policy about that, and I don't think there should be. Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- With two reviews in high level academic periodicals, I would regardf this as an important book, unless the reviews (which I have not read) are rubbishing it completely, for example as riddled with errors. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was riddled with errors it would be more notable. :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stout (one of the academic reviewers) said "Although it is marred by typographical errors which the most rudimentary proofreading should have caught, its style and brevity make for good reading" if that's what you mean. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion identifying substantial coverage in academic sources. No objection to merging with author's article if such eexists. Candleabracadabra (talk)
Comment - it would be even better if someone used the book as a source to expand American Revolutionary War#An international war, 1778–1783 or create a new article focusing on that topic. The book itself doesn't seem very notable qua book. Few citations on Google Scholar. groupuscule (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Technically speaking, the listed academic reviews allow this article to pass the notability bar. I am very disappointed to see that not much has been written about the book's author (R. E. Dupuy), despite how notable he was. True, this article is ugly and needs to be re-written. The subject is a rare book (WorldCat only lists one copy in a library in Göttingen) and the reviews admit this book is more general interest than specific historical study. I am an inclusionist, so I'd rather see this article improved than deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:29, 10 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. L Faraone 00:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Yaeger[edit]

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

Autobiography with no reliable third-party sources and no indication of notability. Taged for these issues for over a year without improvement. No sources found via Google News. Huon (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, sources are thin at best, and if I see one more {{infobox musical artist}} without the "background" field filled in, imma trout someone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage needed to establish notability. Note that I removed a section from the article which was copied verbatim from his about page. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article says "film composer" and lists a lot of blue-linked movie titles of which he did not composed the score. (Played an instrument at the recording?) Seems to be a clear case of advertising/spam. Kraxler (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Joseph-Dubois[edit]

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

Never made it further than the bench for Reading as confirmed by the official website and has never played in a pro league as per Soccerbase so fails WP:NFOOTY. T 88 R (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. T 88 R (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As proven from the BBC match report from that Reading-Liverpool match here it is proven that Pierre never played but was an un-used sub. There is also no other proof of him playing in a match that is fully-pro or with fully-pro teams so he fails WP:NFOOTY as well as WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not playing in a fully professional league. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:14, 8 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VADS (IT company)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability established. No (reliable) secondary sources to back the article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:25, 6 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. Based on the discussion, I believe a redirect to Electronic waste after the deletion would be appropriate. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-waste village[edit]

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

Second noimation; first was in 2009. Since, the article has grown none of the anticipated references or substantiation. This is transparently a neologism to create an extra page to draw attention to the BAN network page as Web searches for "E-waste village" reveal no viable hits. The only reference provided is to BAN, a secondary topic with a large subsection in this page and its own stand-alone page. The previous AfD suggested merging this content into Guiyu (town), which has a large Electronic waste section in addition to the standalone Electronic waste in Guiyu article. A redirect to the latter article or another one of the e-waste articles would be appropriate. Mikeblas (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The current article has managed to remove all references to Guiyu (town) and essentially has turned the article into a bad stub for electronic waste. This version is from the first AFD. The material is already covered in Electronic waste in Guiyu, and I don't see a lot of references to "E-waste Village" that would justify a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:21, 6 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) 22:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Drama Education[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. Could only find small mentions in Bosnian. And the article is based on primary sources. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 6 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 Public relations. The quality of an article at the time of redirecting, such as a lack of reliable sources, does not affect it's viability as a redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Press release agency[edit]

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

As far back as February 2011‎ this article was quite rightly proposed for deletion on the grounds "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". The PROD was removed without any reason being given. However, the reason still applies, and the article is still no more than a dictionary definition, well over two years later. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Redirect to Public relations. This is really a bad article. The topic itself, however, is a valid one -- notable and necessary -- and one that does relate to news and journalism in multiple ways, especially production. My rationale would be Write the article first, which would not stop someone from picking this back up when there is interest and posting it to main space in a developed form. I would rename such an article Public relations firm. I want that to be emphasized: valid topic, huge amount of sources, and the potential for a variety of content. But the nominator is right as currently it is only a definition and not an article. Crtew (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If someone makes a WP:Heymann effort, I will change my vote. Crtew (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see a reason to redirect this article because, not only it is a stub, there are no references found on this article at all; just blank without references or sources from my mind. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Naylor[edit]

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

Non-notable artist with no sources. A Google search turns up nothing except her own site and this article. Beerest355 Talk 18:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 18:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 18:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 18:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 18:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per above. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spümcø, as she was a co-founder of the company. My actual feel, is that she likely passes notability per WP:CREATIVE based on point 1, but I'm just not finding enough sources to establish this. IMDB is not a reliable source but there's little reason to doubt that she nominated for awards which is a form of peer recognition. Her work in character design is acknowledged here. And she is verifiably a cofounder of Spümcø. I'm going with a redirect as the sourcing just isn't enough for me to move to a keep. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As rightfully pointed out, there are numerous sources which discuss terms with negative connotations. Also note that NOTDICTIONARY is about individual words, and not list of words (a fairly important distinction). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of disability-related terms with negative connotations[edit]

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

This "list of terms" is complete non-neutral original research with one source. Utter mess that fails to prove why this list of supposed insults is noteworthy. Seriously, "potato"? Beerest355 Talk 19:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 19:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep many governmental authorities, educational systems and public bodies have sought in recent decades to require "politically correct" speech by banning previously common terms for various conditions, so an educated person in North America and in other English speaking countries is likely to be corrected if he uses "deaf and dumb, crippled, retarded, Mongoloid, crazy, insane, idiot" or several other term previously in official use. Official guidelines have been issued which can be used as sources, so the "one source" criticism does not justify deletion.It is not just a US issue, and any local focus can be corrected through the ordinary editing process. The "Non-neutral" argument does not justify deletion, since the list can properly be described as terms which authorities discourage, or which are generally no longer (if ever) viewed as socially correct. Other sources: National Disability Authority, Ireland, US Department of Agriculture, Office for Disability Issues, UK, Open Road Australia, quoting World Health Organization, Queensland Government, Australia, California State University, [http://www.ycod.yk.ca/Terminology/tabid/59/Default.aspx Yukon Council on Disability, Canada, BBC. There are great commonalities in the PC speech guidelines across continents, even if they lean toward wordy euphemisms. Edison (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sources and POV can justify deletion. Multiple concerns of this page have arisen before at the talk. The lists' words should be cited and why they are offensive. If the list solely presents random words and says "this is offensive because x" then it is complete original research that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Point-of-view is also an issue, too. The list claims words are "offensive" - not considered offensive, just offensive. This is the POV of somebody and it's not neutral. "Retard" is always offensive? If I call Joe Smith a retard, and he doesn't find it offensive, then it isn't always offensive. In short, this list will never be able to satisfy anything. Perhaps a wheelchair-bound man will be offended if I call him a photographer because it might refer to the fact that he can't be a photographer anymore. So what? Beerest355 Talk 20:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs some serious work. When considering a deletion proposal, one has to separate the issue of whether an article on the subject in question should be included in Wikipedia (which is what AfD is for) from the question of whether the actual article content that is here at this point in time is of appropriate quality (which is what cleanup and many other editorial processes are for). The nominator raises some very valid concerns about article quality, but I haven't heard an argument which convinces me that this whole subject does not belong in Wikipedia. As Edison argues above, there is widespread recognition that some words can have negative connotations, even if there are differences of opinion over individual words, and there exist many attempts to change the behaviour of users of those words. Thus the phenomenon of "words considered to have negative connotations" certainly exists, and easily clears the notability bar. The nominator makes a valid point about how there can never be a single objective list, so a change to the article title to "List of ... considered to have negative connotations" is a change I would support. There are precedents elsewhere on Wikipedia for this kind of list e.g. "List of films considered the best". SP-KP (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But eliminate all the nonsense. The South Park episode calling it Ass Burgers was not offensive to anyone was it? Also, why would "batshit" be considered offensive? We need to list the actual things that are listed in government documents or those by non-profit organizations dedicated to the disabled, and get rid of the rest. Dream Focus 20:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "WP is not a dictionary" should be enough policy to do that. Non-policy reasons would be that any list is going to have very little value due to the constant changes as neutral terms are used negatively and negative words are reclaimed and used positively. Besides that some readers might be offended reading the list, which is what it is intended to prevent. Or so it seems. Policy could also include "not a how-to" if the intention is to tell us what not to say. But regardless, "not a dictionary" is enough to delete. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Not a valid list, entirely subjective basis for inclusion or exclusion. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title of this article begs the question of whether there are any disability-related terms that don't have negative connotations for some people in some circumstances. I don't believe that there are - even the word "disability" itself is often used in a negative way. Context is what makes a term negative, not the term itself. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with trimming, sourcing and editing. The subject is notable, there are sources on what various organization/cultures consider generally offensive terms -yes, this may depend in every single case from individual context, but there are words that are generally (and verifiably) considered offensive. -- cyclopia^speak! 11:44, 10 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) 09:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Right Movement in Bengal[edit]

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

Loads of original research. Andrew³²⁷ 19:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless significantly wikified. There probably are abuses of the law and there evidently is a men's rights movement against them, but there is just too much questionable detail, POV language, sources that need better identification and verification, etc. Perhaps it needs to be merged as a section in some larger men's rights article. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal is not an appropriate geographical territory to use as the scope of such an article for anything post-1947, and it appears that all of the content that is actually about men's rights rather than women's rights is about recent developments. Maybe some of the content could be merged to an article covering men's rights in Bangladesh, West Bengal or India, but this should not remain as an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or possibly Merge a very small portion to the general Men's right movement article). The article has a lot of opinionated claims, like "Bengal is a hot bed of feminism, fanned by marxists" etc. (paraphrasing), but it actually has little adequately referenced stuff about a men's right movement there. An organization named Hridaya is mentioned, and that organization is mentioned in passing in the reference, but one mention in passing in one article is too little to pass WP:GNG. As the organization's name is so generic it's difficult to google it to see if there are more mentions (and I can only google English language articles), but the whole article with lot of refs, but not about the stated topic - men's movement - indicates to me that this isn't a notable organization. Associated blog "Save Bengali Family" and and homesite for Amartya Talukdar also gives the impression of being a small, private, non-notable effort. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Most of the content of this article could be merged with Men's rights movement in India since most of it concerns criticism of Indian laws. Theoretically a separate article could be created for Men's rights movement in Bangladesh, but I don't see enough material for such an article currently. Kaldari (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I additionally recommend to continue discussing the possibility of a merge on the article's talk page. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess Titans[edit]

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

Right now, it looks this article mostly covers the gameplay and features of this game. I going to have to say this, but the article is just not able to be here.

OK, say you want to say about this game being notable because it's included on a notable computing machine, but when searching for info about this game on Google News, all I could find were articles about Windows Vista mentioning the game. I wasn't able to find anything in-depth about this game (development and production etc.), critical reviews, or any sources that would suggest some type of cult following of this game. Just because it was part of a notable computer does not make the game notable, or at least make it eligible to have a Wikipedia article on it.

Whoever made this article needs to take a good read at ~~WP:NOTTEMPORARY~~ WP:NOTINHERITED. EditorE (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and comment what about the other Windows games? You could consider bundling some, such as Microsoft Mahjong and Spider Solitaire (Windows). I don't see WP:SIGCOV for these. Ansh666 20:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - WP:RS have been found. Ansh666 17:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeCell (Windows), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire (Windows). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't precedents - they have established WP:N individually, not simply inherited from Windows. Ansh666 23:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are precedents - this article satisfies WP:N individually as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - How? It has 0 sources. Ansh666 02:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesn't have any sources right now, yes. That doesn't mean there aren't any. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The nom searched for WP:RS but couldn't find any. I couldn't either. Ansh666 03:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've now added a WP:RS, proving that at least one does in fact exist. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs more in-depth info (like more history on this game), and some critical responses (which I think could be in some independent sources about Windows Vista mentioning the game), so I can withdraw this. EditorE (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's the nominator who needs to "take a good read at WP:NOTTEMPORARY". WP:NOTTEMPORARY cannot be a reason for deletion. It says that, once a topic has received enough coverage to be classed as notable, it doesn't need continued coverage to maintain that notability. (So, for example, a book that was widely reviewed in the 1970s doens't become non-notable just because nobody's said much about it in the last 30 years.) Dricherby (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually it's a good reason, because the fact that the Macintosh is a very notable computer does not make the game notable, and we wouldn't we need ongoing coverage of a Macintosh by making articles of computer games bundled with the computer. It's still a non-notable topic. EditorE (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept that notability of Windows doesn't make bundled software notable is WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NOTTEMPORARY has nothing to do with it. Dricherby (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: WP:GAMEGUIDE is an invalid reason for deletion in this case, since there is other content present. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What in the Devil's name are you talking about? Most content ~~(high score, Highest Scores, Winning Strategies and for getting a high score)~~ look all pretty much GAMEGUIDE to me, and there's very little other content that is present here, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. EditorE (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Dogmaticeclectic that GameGuide is not a reason for deleting this article. Quoting from that
    Video game guides... But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right ... Walk-throughs or detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on is also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.
    I don't think it violates wp:GamePlay. Secondly, it isn't really a video game in the usual sense - it is a computer implementation of a board game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 22:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the video game thing still applies, since this meets the definition ("electronic game that involves human interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device"). Ansh666 03:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The video in a computer chess game is superfluous. It is not an integral part of the game. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That would only apply if this were the article Chess. This article is not about the game being played, it is about the software. What that software does is not important as long as it passes WP:GNG (incidentally, what it does is chess! what a coincidence!) Ansh666 06:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        But the software plays chess. It is not a video game. The video is not essential. There is nothing about "specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, ". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 13:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That's from WP:GAMEGUIDE, eh? Those things do not define a "video game" - the definition at video game which I copied above does (and this passes), so it still falls under WP:NVG. The issue is really rather moot, in any case, since you weren't talking WP:NVG, but about WP:GAMEGUIDE, which it no longer passes. (I'd say, though, that traditional board or card games can also fall afoul of WP:GAMEGUIDE despite it saying "video game" in it.) Ansh666 15:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless it is a hoax then the information is valid, even if the article needs to be shaken and rewritten. The Big Hoof! (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If we had more info to make it long enough to pass the notability guidelines on Wikipedia, we could keep it, but that is not likely. EditorE (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article about the installed games on these windows builds. The sources are nowhere close to "significant coverage in secondary sources" to merit a standalone article, simply that the game exists in these Windows releases. Notably, the about.com and "for dummies" are simply instructions for playing the game (not secondary), the supersite review is one entire sentence describing the game, and the gamespot one just a bit more. No reviews or critical discussion. We can say the game exists, that it is a 3D representation of standard chess, and that's it. It's searchable, so deletion is not necessary. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vista alone had over two hundred million people using it, all of them having this game. Surely millions of them played it. I found only brief mentions in reliable sources like the New York Times so far, with Gamespot giving a bit more information. Searching the Wikipedia reliable sources Google search for games results in a ridiculous large number of results to search through. [2] Are there any Chess magazines that would cover this? Dream Focus 14:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "chess titans" is a name used commonly to refer to top chess players, ergo, any google search has to be selective to avoid the more common use of the term. I've looked through google news archive with the terms "chess titans" and "microsoft" and only get name drops as one of the pieces of software included in the OS release. Similarly, Google scholar on the same terms only name drops the program name as an OS feature. Notability is not equal to popularity or user-base size, and there's no indication that the size of the OS base (which is likely higher than 200 million) equals the number of players of Chess Titans. So this remains a notability issue. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from every GNG/non GNG quarrel: It is simply insane for whoever is not a Borg that a piece of software included in one of the most popular operating systems worldwide is considered "non notable". If our house rules make it so, then it is our notability rules that have to adapt. WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED are guidelines (even if an important one), that should be applied with a grain of salt, or even ignored if this is better for the readers and the 'pedia. One has ask herself, before nominating: what advantage to the readers does deleting this article accomplish? Is the encyclopedia and our readers' experience better or worse without this article? In this case I feel the answer is obvious: the removal of this article is of no benefit. Please remember we're here for the readers. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Just because it comes with the world's largest-installed OS doesn't mean the software component is notable, and the logic that so many people are using it means we should be documenting every software component that comes with the OS , including every DLL and text file, just because. The reason to merge (not delete) this article is that all this is a pretty chess game that came with Windows. Good enough for a sentence in an article on programs included with Vista, but there's no need for an encyclopedia to dedicated a poorly sourced stand-alone article to the game. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your reductio ad absurdum does not work, because people do not regularly directly and explicitly interact with DLLs and obscure OS text files, but they surely do with a game. This is something that millions of people experience directly. "A pretty chess game that came with Windows" makes it probably one of the most used chess softwares in the world. If our house rules fail to take this into account, there is something wrong with the rules, not with the subject. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If millions of people use it and no one bothers to write about it in a manner to write an encyclopedic article, then we don't have a standalone article on the topic. This is true across the board. Notice I'm not saying that we can't leave the redirect and a brief paragraph elsewhere because the existence of the game is certainly verifible. But all that can be said, using sources, is that it follows the rules of chess (documented elsewhere), it comes pre-installed on Windows, and it uses a 3D interface. There's no critical analysis of the game that is necessary to expand on that brief statement, ergo, it merits a line in a larger article but not a full stand-alone article. --MASEM (t) 13:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a larger parent article. It may not deserve an article of its own but it might help to cover this in, say, an article on games released in Windows OS packages. I think there may be a degree of notability, but not a substantial one. (Merging is fun!) LazyBastard Guy 19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has gotten over 20 thousand hits in the past 90 days. [3] No telling how many people have read it over the years. Dream Focus 13:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those hits have been from people visiting the article from the AfD? And besides, "it's popular" isn't a proper rationale. Ansh666 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About 77. It averaged 228 per day over 90 days and peaked at about 302-305 the day of the AfD. If you assume that all of the ones that looked at it that day above the average number were looking at it because of the AfD, that makes maybe 77. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking through previous months in different years, it got about this much traffic regularly. Dream Focus 01:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have no idea why people look at our articles and whether they found what they were hoping for. For example, Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has been viewed 111319 times in the last 90 days.[4] What does that mean? By any reasonably definition of an encyclopedic article it's just candy-floss, at best. But once a minute 60x24x7 someone browses to that article, so it obviously serves some purpose from their point of view. Maybe Chess Titans has value for some readers too. - Pointillist (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apulum (company)[edit]

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

Despite the article's claims of greatness there's no indication that this company is indeed notable. No secondary sources were added in the past five years, and I haven't found anything more reliable than a collector's blog post. Huon (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC) Huon (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 23:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (natter) @ 23:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - to be sure, "largest porcelain producer in Romania" is not necessarily the most impressive calling card, but this, this and this surely count as "significant coverage in secondary sources", while this, this, this, this and this may have some supporting material. If it were only local coverage, I might be more skeptical, but the fact that papers in the national capital (and all these links are from Bucharest papers) have given a fair amount of attention to a company in a fairly small provincial city does say something. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes WP:CORPDEPTH per the sources listed above by User:Biruitorul. Furthermore, searches for "Apulum" in Google News archive provides a great deal of coverage, much of which is significant (e.g. [5]). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep due to the notability displayed above - though it's local coverage, there's still significant coverage in secondary sources and quite a bit that shows up on a simple google news search Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purble Place[edit]

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

Similar to Chess Titans, this is a possible case of ~~WP:NOTTEMPORARY~~ (WP:NOTINHERITED). See the deletion discussion for Chess Titans on why I nominated this. EditorE (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Pointillist (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pointillist (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeCell (Windows), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire (Windows). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those aren't precedents - they have established WP:N individually, not simply inherited from Windows. Ansh666 23:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are precedents - this article satisfies WP:N individually as well. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - How? This article has no WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Ansh666 02:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesn't have any such sources right now, yes. That doesn't mean there aren't any. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I searched for and couldn't find WP:RS for it. Then again, I'm sometimes bad with searches. Ansh666 03:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I've now added a WP:RS, proving that at least one does in fact exist. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't find WP:SIGCOV. Ansh666 23:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep - there is one WP:RS now. Ansh666 17:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- @EditorE, please make your case for deletion here, rather than instructing us to see another discussion, without even having the courtesy to link to that discussion.
- @Dogmaticeclectic, apparently this article has no references, unlike FreeCell, Hearts, and Solitaire.
- @Everyone. Many, many computer articles do not have significant coverage in reliable impartial sources. Even the articles about the biggest games (e.g. Call of Duty) are mostly supported by inadequate references (e.g. otherwise non-notable magazines that simply catalogue new games without any serious review of them). Some of the articles about major Microsoft technologies rely entirely on references that cite either Microsoft or their press releases printed verbatim. If we seriously want to delete all inadequately referenced technology articles, we need a consensus like the one that prompted the big BLP cleanup a couple of years ago. I don't think it is appropriate to delete individual articles until the wider consensus is established.

- Pointillist (talk)

That is very false. This isn't an electronics or even a Microsoft discussion, it's a video game discussion. Video game pages are mostly referenced using specialized video game news and review websites, such as IGN or 1up. Ansh666 23:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to be false, in fact quite the opposite. No-one can deny there are some video game commentators who are recognized authoritative independent sources and there are others who definitely aren't. In my opinion, many of the sources for Call of Duty are in the second camp – or they're specifically reporting on units sold, which is a special case. Personally, I'd be quite happy to see all articles measured against referencing standards that are appropriate to their genre. The question is whether the games bundled with Windows should be referenced to satisfy conventional video games standards, or to "consumer/business PC citation standards" that are yet to be defined. I don't expect Purble Place would survive by either test, but the point I wanted to make is that AFAICS there is a vast amount of poorly referenced material around the world of Microsoft. If editors are concerned about that, I believe we need a wider discussion and consensus before embarking on a wholesale deletion exercise. - Pointillist (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge/Redirect if there's a proper target. Game is nonnotable, and most of the content is GAMEGUIDE. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point about the excessively detailed content. Hat tip to Dogmaticeclectic for finding non-Microsoft references for the article. What is it with finding secondary sources for Microsoft technology articles on Wikipedia? I just checked SQL Azure and it's got only four references: three citing Microsoft and one citing a self-published book. Likewise, Microsoft Message Queuing has seven citations to Microsoft and just one independent source, which is now a {{dead link}}. Well, there it is. - Pointillist (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the sources added, and arguably only one qualifies as a third-party RS. (about.com is considered SPS). And that's only to meet WP:V. WP:N still fails as there is no significant coverage of the game in these sources - in fact, the length of this article here far exceeds how much is covered in the given sources in the first place, a sign that there's a problem here. We can same the game exists, elsewhere, but the sourcing far fails the allowance for a stand-alone article. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"(about.com is considered SPS)" - Link to such a consensus? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about using about.com as a source can be found at Talk:About.com#Use_in_wikipedia_as_sources and by searching the Reliable Sources noticeboard. As about.com is a tertiary source, it is reliable only to the extent that it cites verifiable sources and/or is written by a recognized commentator. In this case the about.com source contains no citations and the author (Mark Baggesen) has no reputation. So Masem is right to reject it as a source. - Pointillist (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: WP:GAMEGUIDE is an invalid reason for deletion in this case, since there is other content present. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What in the Devil's name are you talking about? This looks like a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS-type argument to me. Most content look all pretty much GAMEGUIDE to me, and there's very little other content that is present here, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. EditorE (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Relies a bit heavily on those three sources but they prove its notability. The Big Hoof! (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Apart from the found coverage, with lends credit to the Wikipedia notability of the subject, it is simply insane for whoever is not a Borg that a piece of software included in one of the most popular operating systems worldwide is considered "non notable". If our house rules make it so, then it is our notability rules that have to adapt. WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED are guidelines (even if an important one), that should be applied with a grain of salt. One has ask herself, before nominating: what advantage to the readers does deleting this article accomplish? Is the encyclopedia and our readers' experience better or worse without this article? In this case I feel the answer is obvious: the removal of this article is of no benefit. Please remember we're here for the readers. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guideline pages say there are occasional exceptions, as does WP:IAR. Just common sense. Hundreds of millions of people have this on their computer, unknown millions have tried it, and nothing gained by deleting the article. Dream Focus 15:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Coming here from the Chess Titans discussion, I would say this could be merged into an article detailing the games released in this particular package. It seems to have a degree of notability to me, but not such that it deserves its own article. LazyBastard Guy 19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've tightened it up a bit (see this revision) and though there's some description of the games' objectives there's no guidance about how to play. It is now no worse than a lot of other Microsoft-related articles—at least it has some independent sources, which it didn't have when EditorE nominated it. BTW, I don't accept that "we're here for the readers" can be any excuse for inadequately-sourced material. If something fails notability after a good-faith search, it isn't notable. - Pointillist (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purble_Place has been viewed 14166 times in the last 90 days. [6] Not as popular as the other Windows games up for deletion now, but still a lot of hits. Chess Titans, Spider Solitaire (Windows), and Microsoft Mahjong are also at AFD now. Dream Focus 13:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those hits have been from people visiting the article from the AfD? And besides, "it's popular" isn't a proper rationale. Ansh666 18:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's popular" is interesting, but we have no idea what it means. Perhaps these page-hits were searches for how to play the game, which per WP:GAMEGUIDE shouldn't appear in the article. On the other hand, it could be that 14,000 people – that's 155/day or 6.5 per hour 24x7 – hoped to see a balanced synopsis of third-party criticism of the game. Or maybe readers just get curious about stuff and look it up, and Wikipedia is where they go to find reliable information. It all comes down to what sort of encyclopedia do we want to build? and I don't think it is efficient to debate this at the level of individual articles. - Pointillist (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the article has been improved since the listing, and I'm inclined to say this follows IAR. FreeCell, Hearts, Solitaire, Spider Solitaire, and others have articles. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Domenic Johansson custody case[edit]

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

I'm completing the nomination for an IP (68.0.215.230) that posted on the AfD talk page and the article's talk page. Their issue is that the article didn't pass several parts of WP:GNG, from what I can see, with the basic gist of the argument being "The notability is very questionable, there are virtually no sources that aren't primary sources or opinion sources, and much of the article relies on arguments of a single organization." I have no opinion on the notability of the subject myself, although I will say that the sources on the article do need a lot of work and I'm not pulling up a lot of hits to show that this really merits an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 03:13, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not finding much. There is some talk about this, but not enough to where I'd personally say that this passes WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. My personal opinion on this is that this should probably be userfied or deleted. There just isn't much out there. In any case, I've run down the sources on the article and the links in the EL section. My basic opinion is that there isn't enough to establish notability. There's a start and enough of one that I think it could be userfied and worked on in case it does pass notability guidelines in the future, but right now there just isn't enough. Most of the sources are either primary or on sites that aren't really considered to be RS per Wikipedia's guidelines. (The site is very strict.) Of the sources that I'd say could be used (about 3 of them), almost none of them are so overwhelmingly strong that I'd say that they could be used to show this passes WP:GNG. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[7] This is the Daily Mail, which is pretty universally considered to not be usable as a reliable source. I like the paper, but it's considered to be a tabloid as far as Wikipedia goes.
[8] This is a somewhat random magazine commenting on it. This just doesn't seem to be what Wikipedia would consider a reliable source. However the person writing it does have a journalism degree. It's just such a dubious source that I'd personally recommend against using it.
[9] This is an article by the Christian Broadcasting Network, which I'd consider to be usable. It's a little bit of an opinion piece, but I'd consider it enough of a RS to help contribute notability although I'd want it backed up with stronger sources. Of course some could argue that it's too much of an opinion piece in that it seems to have taken a specific stance on the issue. I'd use it, but I admit that this argument would really weaken the source.
[10] This is a PDF from the Alliance Defence Fund and not something I'd say would be a RS that would show notability, especially considering that they're involved with the actual case itself. This would be a primary source at best.
[11] This is a newspaper article from 2009 and something I'd consider to be usable.
[12] This is a Yahoo article, something I'd consider usable enough. However the fact is that it's a Yahoo article and not something in say, the New York Times or a strong Swedish newspaper.
[13] This is a page from a homeschooling advocacy association and not something that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. It's an opinion piece, pure and simple, but the stronger thing is that it's just not a RS by Wikipedia rules even if it was neutrally written.
[14] Another PDF from the defense fund that is involved with the case, making it a primary source.
[15] This is another page from the advocacy group and not something usable as a RS.
[16] This is a court document. This can be used to verify things, but it can't be used to show notability. No matter how bad it might seem or how noble or not noble the cause might be, the existence of something is not notability.
[17] This is something that I personally wouldn't use as a reliable source. It's better laid out than some of the other sites of its kind I've seen (non-mainstream news-type sites), but in the end it's just not something usable as a RS.

Keep and improve article. There have already been discussions on the article talk page, and the point being made, if I may put it like this, is that the case has attracted the wrong sort of attention. But it has attracted attention nonetheless. I have found another reference which I will add. St Anselm (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, for several reasons. Although many of the sources are from homeschooling organizations, nonetheless the case also ties in with the rash of incidents in Sweden whereby other immigrants from India (the mother in the Johansson case is from India) have also lost custody of their children for questionable reasons, often very trivial ones. This has led to charges of racism against Sweden's social services. These cases have also raised issues about the power of the State to take custody from parents, and how far that power can go before the State becomes oppressive. I've read about a lot of similar custody cases in Europe over the past several years, and it is in fact a legitimate issue that has wide political ramifications, and not just in Sweden (the UN has been pushing for a global policy that is similar to Sweden's laws on child custody). But even if the case isn't the most prominent custody case of all time, what is the point of deleting the article outright when Wikipedia has thousands of articles on every video game character, every soap opera character, and other dubious articles. At least this case has sparked controversy, has generated discussion about the degree of accountability of social services in many countries, and is certainly more important (and encyclopedic) than a bunch of video game characters. One way to improve the article and increase its relevance is to expand the focus beyond homeschooling (which is only one aspect of it) and tie it in with the larger political issues that are involved. Ryn78 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ryn78, thanks for weighing in on the matter. The issue here is that there are no reliable sources to substantiate the claims that this case is (1) significantly discussed in any public sphere apart from that of homeschooling organizations, or (2) part of a larger trend of incidents in Sweden or Europe as a whole. I would also like to respectively point out that the existence/nonexistence of other articles should not be a factor in this decision. Any article that cannot meet WP:GNG or similar guidelines should be removed. 68.0.215.230 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 68.0.215.230. I can look up the articles where I read about this case and related cases, but it's going to take time. The case is in fact part of a larger trend, and it's hardly obscure: even the Indian government has gotten involved, and the case was also submitted to the European Court of Human Rights, I believe. Others have presented media sources on the subject that pass RS guidelines, and non-profit groups like homeschool organizations would probably qualify as well (these aren't political action groups, I don't think). But here's a question: why doesn't anyone object to the endless numbers of articles on every minor Star Trek character and Lord of the Rings character, and the like? A few years ago, one of the featured articles was "Bulbosaur" from the Pokémon video games, which wasn't deleted (no, it was elevated to Featured Status). But articles about historical aristocrats below the rank of baronet are systematically deleted as "non-notable". I think this article is getting a similar treatment: people view the case as "non-notable" unless it meets a very high standard, and yet most other articles are never subjected to a similar litmus test. Wikipedia cannot maintain any credibility with such a process. Ryn78 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that such articles don't frustrate editors here on Wikipedia? I can't tell you how many times I've gotten frustrated when I've seen articles deleted because they didn't receive enough coverage in RS while you have pseudo-celebrities that get coverage just for barfing or going off the deep end. The problem with holding up articles that might seem frivolous or inconsequential is that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean squat when it comes to AfD. All it means is that the article in question either hasn't really been nominated for AfD yet or it meets one of the various guidelines for notability. If you want to nominate the Bulbasaur article for deletion, feel free to do so but make sure that you put in one heck of a good argument. There have already been several attempts to delete it, so I'd recommend reading over those AfDs first to familiarize yourself with some of the more common arguments for keep and delete as far as Pokemon stuff goes. In anycase, saying that this is a symptom of a larger trend doesn't really mean that much as far as this specific case goes for the same reasons. This might be part of something larger, but the issue here is the specific notability. Just having government involvement isn't enough. It's the coverage that matters. Now if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that laws were changed specifically because of this one homeschooling case, that'd help a lot towards notability but the problem is proving it with reliable sources. It's rare that governments are so obviously transparent in creating laws that people easily connect the dots between the law and the specific person. Caylee's Law is one of the examples of a law that was created based on one specific event. The thing about such laws is that they usually get passed when the person/event in question is so undeniably high profile that they get a lot of media coverage on its own. Now as far as the homeschooling things go, the reason that those can't be used is for two reasons. The first is because many of those are acting as advocates on behalf of the Johanssons and are directly involved with the case. The second is because they aren't considered to be reliable sources because we can't verify how neutral they are, who is writing the entries, their qualifications, and so on. Feel free to run them through the reliable sources noticeboard if you wish, but I can pretty much say that the consensus will be that they don't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete (or Redirect). Regardless of how important the homeschooling organizations make this case seem, there are virtually no objective, reliable sources that satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. Please recall that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:NOT). An article should not be used as a way of advocating a point. If charges of racism have been made, if this really is a case that is sparking a discussion about homeschooling rights and the role of the state in family life, then there should be reliable sources that discuss the issue and how it has sparked this discussion. But there are not. The only sources available are either (1) opinion pieces from non-neutral organizations, or (2) court filings by the parents. Neither of theses may be accepted as RS. If in the future there arises sufficient objective evidence, I would be very pleased to see the article recreated. Until then, however, the criteria for keeping an article are simply not met. 68.0.215.230 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.The article does not meets Wikipedia's standard for neutrality. It reads like an advocacy piece. If there are reliable secondary sources that comment on the case, then those sources should be used, but there do not appear to be any, and statements in the article are sourced from primary sources, from assertions by advocacy organizations, or simply not sourced at all. Eastcote (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Eastcote above. Had this been an article about an artist, it would probably have been deleted due to no notability... Le Lapin Vert (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Flaws in the article as written are no reason to delete: Deletion is not cleanup. This case has raised Swedish media interest (e.g. here) as well as very strong international interest, primarily among home-schoolers and among the Indian diaspora -- see here for British coverage, for example, and here for Indian coverage. -- 202.124.72.39 (talk) 07:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first link looks to be good (albeit a short magazine article), but the second one (the Daily Mail) can't be used as a reliable source. It's considered to be the British equivalent to the National Enquirer and that's probably one of the nicer comparisons I've seen people give it. This would bring it up to about 4 sources that could be used to show notability, so we're moving in the right direction. The main issue with the article that I would say keeps it from really passing notability guidelines is that the coverage is fairly light when you get down to it. I'm hoping that we'll get more sources as the AfD progresses, but offhand I'm heavily leaning towards redirecting this to Homeschooling_international_status_and_statistics#Sweden for the time being. I've written this up into a basic one paragraph summary for the case and placed it there. The main thing here is that there isn't really a depth of coverage in reliable sources. There's a lot of commentary, but not in places that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. Everything is either a non-usable blog or it's from a primary source such as the HSLDA. I do think that this should be mentioned somewhere, but maybe not in an article on its own. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree with that if it was only a homeschooling issue, but India is interested in the case for quite different reasons. -- 202.124.75.17 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to [18] Världen Idag is a conservative Christian newspaper, which makes it something of an odd duck in Sweden. Published three days a week, with 8 200 papers a day, it's also somewhat smallish. My daily paper is published seven days a week, with a circulation of 285 700 on weekdays. Le Lapin Vert (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Need more opinions to establish consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After ignoring all of the obviously unreliable sources, I don't see significant and lasting coverage of this event (from the cited sources or my own searches) that would make it notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability being the primary cause. Neutrality is close after, if someone would have wanted to rewrite the article it should have been done by now... Meaningful Username (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet WP:GNG. The India Today article seems like the only independent secondary source, and it states that Domenic is "allegedly being held" (italics mine). Miniapolis 15:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seni Jatuh[edit]

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

Notability has not been established Peter Rehse (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced article and my search didn't find significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't seem to find enough independent coverage. Just martial arts sites that only briefly mention it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:58, 11 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) 09:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ChilliSpot[edit]

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

I found no notability. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find significant coverage; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 21:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news search doesn't show any coverage actually. NN Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G11) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Paper Trader's Associations of India - FPTA[edit]

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

No third-party reference to establish the notability of the organization. Google search shows only 8 hits and none of them are from third party sources. Whatever claims are being made, are totally unverifiable. Shovon (talk) 15:47, 6 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) 02:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

German Design Award[edit]

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

Misleading title Thomas Maier (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A misleading title is a reason to move, not to delete. Major official award, and sources clearly exist - I just added one in the course of clarifying the misleading aspect, which is that there are now two awards and there has been some musical chairs with the names. I suspect the title is the clearest possible for English-speaking readers (although redirects from the official German name and the temporary name of what is now officially are desirable) and that the article had best continue to be about the official award but briefly explain about the new second one, as it does now. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and discuss the title on the article talk page. No argument for deletion has been advanced. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - 'Misleading title', the nom's reason for listing this article here, is no rationale for deleting this article about one of the top awards in the Federal Republic of Germany. The nom has evidently created a misleading AfD page. A discussion on the talk page of the article would have sufficed to effect a speedy name change if he was unsure about moving/renaming it himself. The German Wiki article on the award says it all:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designpreis_der_Bundesrepublik_Deutschland - --Zananiri (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by Reaper Eternal. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dilectio Dei[edit]

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

Blatant hoax and completely made up, however, a brand-new account contested the deletion, so I'm bringing it to AfD. Ish dar ian 14:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the least it's some homemade Christian cult that the creator is trying to publicize, and doesn't meet WP:GNG. It probably is that way (although I am leaning towards hoax). In addition, that "new account" is probably a meatpuppet of the creator, considering how he called himself a deian and called you racist. Don't be surprised if meatpuppets come in and vote keep. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 14:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 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 Suicide Season. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Smile[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSONG, as this song failed to chart. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 09:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS, just because a song is a single by a notable band does not make the song notable. STATic message me! 04:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Suicide Season. There isn't much of worth here, but it would be a valid redirect. --Michig (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - plausible search term but does not appear to warrant an individual article. Gong show 20:20, 7 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 04:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brah clan[edit]

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

Unsourced since creation in 2011 and I can find no reliable sources that discuss this clan. Fails WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks sources demonstrating notability, or that it even exists. Gamaliel (talk) 16:52, 1 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 · · 08:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not verified. SL93 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show notability, Google search shows no hits either, other than a Youtube channel Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Kovalak[edit]

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

notable and sensitive cause (human trafficking), but being a civil servant with RCMP working for the cause doesn't make her notable Hwy43 (talk) 07:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hwy43 (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of a group of WP:UNDUE articles by the same editor, full of items such as "she appeared on a panel in conjunction with a screening" and incidental items like who they like etc. This article is not isolated in its over-cited trivial-content nature. Probably superfluous wikiprojects on e.g. human trafficking have been added, even though this person is not a notable anti-human trafficking activist nor are human trafficker or traffickee. Some remain because they hold beauty pageant titles, but their articles are similarly full of unencyclopedic dross, and serve as demonstrations that WP:RS can be abused to create articles on non-notable subjects.Skookum1 (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few if any hits from google search, incl scholar and books. Article does not appear to make claim to notability beyond public appearances or statements that are a normal part of her employment.Canuckle (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty Resolutions[edit]

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

non notable organization. Neither the organization nor its film have any reliable sources up to the present The Huffington Post ref is a press release from when they started , but it didn't succeed in making them notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable run of the mill organisation. It should not have passed the AFC either. The Legend of Zorro 12:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:02, 6 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) 14:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pull platform[edit]

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

If this has any meaning, I cannot figure it out. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as well disguised but still non-notable neologism coined by Harry Katzan, Jr. and John Hagel - zero news hits, zero indication that the wider business world uses this term at all. Don't be fooled by the book search hits with this term, a closer look reveals they are published by ReadHowYouWant.com and iUniverse, both on-demand publishers. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Push–pull strategy. It seems to be the same concept. Merge any worthwhile cited material. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any worthwhile cited material, unfortunately. It looks like something two guys made up one day, to be honest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neoloy[edit]

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

Along with PRS-Neoweb, adjacent AfD , a pari of promotional articles. There may possibly be opportunity for a single article here, but if so, it should be started over, by someone without apparent COI DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Novel Polymeric Alloy - under the 'Novel Polymeric Alloy' name there are sufficient sources available to establish this is a notable enough subject. The current version of the article doesn't appear to have a serious conflict of interest problem. PhilKnight (talk) 02:07, 2 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 · · 05:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRS-Neoweb[edit]

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

Along with Neoloy, a pari of promotional articles. There may possibly be opportunity for a single article here, but if so, it should be started over, by someone without apparent COI DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename as Neoweb, and clean-up - searching google news and scholar for 'Neoweb' there seems to be sufficient sources to establish this is a notable enough subject. The current version of the article doesn't appear to have a serious conflict of interest problem. PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 2 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 · · 05:59, 6 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. With no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Risdall Advertising Agency[edit]

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

One of the larger agencies in the Twin Cities market with clients across the country and internationally. Also the same size as Martin Williams Advertising and Campbell Mithun^[1] . Jansenminneapolis (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regional advertising agency. No apparent importance DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:58, 6 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) 14:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convention panel[edit]

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

Not a specific term, a mere juxtaposition o two words: "convention" + "(discussion) panel". No evidence that such word combination attracted any scholarly attention. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 01:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dictionary definition. -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:52, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is a common format which we cover in other places too such as panel game and brains trust. Warden (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:DICDEF. Two random words together does not a subject make. No identifiable subject, no possible sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of sources: Panel Discussions, The Panel Discussion. The claim that there are "no possible sources" is thus refuted. Warden (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please care to notice that these refs are not for the article subject in question (as defined by the intro sentence). (e.g., does they mention "people sitting in chairs?" :-) The article is probably a well-meaning attempt by a pre-teen, but not salvageable. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dic-def. Notable convention panels should be mentioned at articles on the conventions themselves, not at this article p b p 18:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Racanelli[edit]

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

It's not clear to me that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. The sources that refer to him appear to be questionable at best. He gets one hit in JSTOR, because someone wrote an undergraduate thesis about him in 1972. He wrote a good number of books. Is that alone enough to make him notable? I have had little or no success in finding reliable mainstream sources that refer to him; but maybe that is my fault. I believe some discussion would be useful. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline/Neutral -- nominator has done a great job laying out a fair case. There are a number of books published by real presses, most held by top libraries, but none with a lot of penetration in Worldcat (most at 6-11 libraries), on the other hand some of the books have gone through four or more editions which suggests that there could be more influence than we're seeing with electronic catalogues. Italian journals are notoriously underdigitized so references to someone who published mostly in the 50s are hard to come by. A thesis written about him suggests some influence and the article seems fairly written. My sense is that he might barely not make the cut, but the encyclopedia is not harmed by having this article which is unlikely to attract self-promotion or puffery. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:51, 6 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 Mehmed Uzun. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Day from Evdale Zeynike's Days[edit]

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

no 3rd party references to indicate notability. Article is just WP:PLOTSUMMARY Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The actual name of the book is Ji Rojên Evdalê Zeynikê and I've changed the name accordingly, but left a redirect. I'll see if there's anything out there notability-wise, but offhand I'm leaning towards a redirect to the author's page. (Mehmed Uzun) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mehmed Uzun. I can find mentions of this book in relation to the author, but most of what I can find is brief. There is of course the issue of this book never having been released in English, so I know that language is a huge barrier here. It seems to have been released in what I think is Kurdish and Arabic, so there might be more coverage in other sources. With its current title it would be a valid redirect to the author's page. It's a little frustrating since I can see where there looks to have been more coverage, but it's all probably in another language and/or lost to the sands of time, since I know that a lot of foreign language sources from that time period never really make it to the internet as a whole. If someone can find those sources and establish notability then I have no issue with this being kept or recreated in the future, but right now there just isn't enough to show notability outside of its author. I'll see if the original author can find any of these, since he seems to be a native Kurdish speaker. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:50, 6 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) 08:54, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Presbyterian Church of Metro Detroit[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this church. Korean sources not being readily available is not an issue because this church is located in Michigan. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC) SL93 (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage about this church. The article provides no indication as to why this church is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Rasmussen[edit]

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

Non-notable author; I couldn't find anything on him and all the references in the article are to WorldCat which hardly establishes notability. TKK ^{bark !} 23:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find one review of a book co-authored by the subject (now referenced in the article) and there are also some passing quotes by him in articles about BI dashboarding, but in my opinion not enough to amount to biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:49, 6 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 Qt (framework)--Ymblanter (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

QTestLib[edit]

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

does not meet WP:GNG, WP:N or any other notability guidelines. I saw a lot of blogs and manuals but no WP:RSes. Perhaps a merge to Qt would be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:01, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Qt (framework) - I don't see how such a narrow feature of a software project can be notable. If any content is worth merging, do so, but a redirect would probably be more valuable than outright deletion. Chris857 (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Qt (framework) - as above, no indication of notability apart from that related to Qt. Dialectric (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unfortunately, there was no discussion, but there are no reliable sources in the article demonstrating notability, therefore it is deleted with no prejudice against recreation based on reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vasko Todorov[edit]

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

Non-notable performer; requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, nor found on Google News. Fails WP:GNG and WP:N. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 03:15, 6 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) 02:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godfrey Okoye University[edit]

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

Per WP:ADVERT Mlpearc (powwow) 01:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a Catholic-affiliated university in Nigeria, founded 2009, with a brick and mortar campus (not just some online effort), accredited by the National Universities Commission per [19], with programs leading to Bachelors degrees in many subjects, with plans to eventually offer Masters degrees and PhDs. The common outcome of countless AFDs has been to assume notability for such a university. It has had at least two instances of newspaper coverage accessible online: [20], [21]. The latter site says the school has now expanded to 1500 students and is building its permanent campus on a 250 hectare site. Although the subject appears to qualify for an article, the tone of the article is promotional and seems to be a possible copyright violation of the schools linked website, so stubbing and eventual re-write, perhaps including the articles as sources, is needed. Edison (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations. I have removed what I think you meant by "promotional" and added your link as suggested, thank you that. The universtity exists and I will add some pictures soon. Please keep the page.--LiaisonOfficer (talk) 08:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further references added --LiaisonOfficer (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I certainly understand the nominator's concerns and it does need a clean up, but that's really a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem, not an WP:AFD sort of problem. Perhaps one of the WikiProjects could help? Stalwart111 03:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Edison. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 7 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) 08:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Games API[edit]

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

I don't believe this is notable enough. Wikipedia is not an API reference manual Gbawden (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, and too transient to probably become notable in the future. W Nowicki (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there are a number of websites that mention Games API, such as this one, they do so only in passing, in the context of API in general. The first reference, duplicated in the body of the text, is from a blog and should not be regarded as a reliable source. The second reference does appear to be a reliable source, but this is insufficient to establish notability. Moreover, the phrase does not seem to be specific to Microsoft Windows. Here is a version by Betfair, and arguably one by Fupa. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 11 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) 00:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of panethnicities[edit]

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

Delete, Original research and WP:SYNTHESIS. Irānshahr (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research. All of the cited figures and information come from the linked articles about each panethnicity. Goodsdrew (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is textbook WP:SYNTHESIS, which is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. There are no references to WP:VERIFY that X, Y, and Z are "panethnicities". The term "panethnicity" itself is a neologism. So this is basically a WP:FORK of List of language families, List of languages by total number of speakers, and List of ethnic groups. Irānshahr (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references for all but one of the panethnicities. And the word "Panethnicity" is not a neologism. It has been in use since at least 1990--see, for example David Lopeza & Yen Espiritub, "Panethnicity in the United States: A theoretical framework," Ethnic and Racial Studies, 13:2, pp. 198-224, 1990. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodsdrew (talk • contribs) 16:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote the references to show that these groups are described as "panethnicities". I checked several and did not find the term used. If a source doesn't use the term "panethnicity", "pan-ethnicity", "panethnic", or "pan-ethnic" to describe a group, and you use it as a "reference", that constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. See the other points raised on your talk page. Irānshahr (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOR.--Stormbay (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references have been added, these are recognized panethnic categories--this is not original research.Goodsdrew (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quote the references to show that these groups are described as "panethnicities". I checked several and did not find the term used. If a source doesn't use the term "panethnicity", "pan-ethnicity", "panethnic", or "pan-ethnic" to describe a group, and you use it as a "reference", that constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. See the other points raised on your talk page. Irānshahr (talk) 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add proper references from independent third party sources in which the terms are properly named and used. The resolution of differences in opinion here can be resolved if such sources exist. Stormbay (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept of Panethnicity is itself so vague that I don't think a list can be encyclopedic, even if sources say a group is one. Going by the Panethnicity article one person could be an "Arab", an "Asian-American", and a "white person" all at once. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, keep the article Panethnicity. Improve it so it makes more sense to the readers, and has a more world-wide scope. Delete the list, but use the groups as examples in the article. No real need for statisics etc on each group. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think Kitfoxxe's point makes sense. The article panethnicity is not so long that information on how various groups have been considered panethnicities cannot be discussed there, without suggesting (as in this list) that they are non-overlapping, objective groups like List of language families. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Panethnicity - no need for this now and nothing to merge, but it's a viable search term. Ansh666 22:21, 6 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) 22:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of the Arab States of the Persian Gulf[edit]

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

Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT archetype and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Irānshahr (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - in its current form it shouldn't stay, but it could be repurposed into a general non-listy article...if anyone's willing to put in the work, of course. Ansh666 17:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, nobody has been bothered to put in the work in this case in more than five years. Irānshahr (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good outline article. More information could be added. More useful than any category would be. Dream Focus 20:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and WP:LISTCRUFT are relevant here. Irānshahr (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic is highly notable, covered in whole books [22], [23]. Vague references to policies and essays by the nominator are meaningless unless explained and justified -there is nothing "indiscriminate" in a well-defined notable topic. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has not been nominated here - the article has. There is nothing at all wrong with the topic; a proper article could be written on the topic if somebody was so inclined. The article in its present form (which hasn't been improved in over five years) is what has been nominated for deletion. So your keep vote based on notability of topic is irrelevant because the the merit of the topic was never questioned. Irānshahr (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for invalidating your own nomination, then, given that our deletion policy explicitly says that if an article can be fixed by editing then it should not be deleted. And you acknowledge it is the case. That it hasn't been done in five years is irrelevant, since we don't have a deadline. You can be bold and do it now, if you wish. Or we could wait. In any case, deletion is not cleanup. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your userpage explains all. You're an ideological "anti-deletionist". Well, I have different standards to you. I favour quality over quantity. Having no article is better than having a bad article. But it's clearly pointless to nominate anything with you around who opposes deletions by default. Irānshahr (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ad hominem, but no, while I am open on the fact that I am on the inclusionist side of WP philosophies, I do not oppose deletions by default. There is stuff that I fully agree oughts to be deleted from WP: hoaxes, things made up in a day, and unverifiable topics are the first that come up to my mind. We also have a notability policy that explains what is considered suitable for Wikipedia and what not -I may be occasionally at odds, personally, with it, but I respect it and I don't ask utterly unnotable topics to be kept. What I am "ideological" about is attempts to delete articles about topics which instead should not, based on our policies and guidelines. Now, I explained above that our policies require us, in general, to keep articles when the article can be fixed by editing. Your deletion rationale addresses problems that you acknowledge can be fixed by editing and improving the article. Therefore you just shown that your nomination rationale is invalid, according to our policies and guidelines. Make of that what you wish, but it has little to do with my "ideology". --Cyclopia ^talk 15:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the arguments made for deletion are not convincing. This is not an 'indiscriminate collection of information': it is the beginnings of an article, if a primitive one, about the culture of the Gulf Arab states. That's a legitimate topic, and even if the article doesn't have a lot of content at the moment, what it does have (essentially a list of links) is perfectly fine and violates no policies. This article should be improved, not deleted. Robofish (talk) 12:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - AfD discussions should always be about the topic not the article as it may currently be. Notability concerns the topic, of course, and in this case there can be no doubt it is notable with a rich history and many aspects - indeed, several of these such as the music or the food would themselves be notable in their own right. There's even a book about the culture of a single gulf company - Al-Jazeera. I've started a Bibliography. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination never had anything to do with the notability of the topic, and if you'd have read this page you'd have known that, because I stated so quite clearly above. It was nominated purely because it is an indiscriminate list with no encyclopedic value ie. WP:LISTCRUFT, and in more than five years nobody has cared to make an article of it. People voting to keep it should put some work into it if they care about it so much. Irānshahr (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read your statement. May I remind you of the need for civility at all times, and the policy of no personal attacks. Notability is however the key concern here, as it is in the overwhelming majority of AfD cases. Whatever your reasons, the fact is that this is a badly-written article on a good and notable topic. The article needs to be edited, which is our normal work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, definately a subject worth an article. Should be expanded, wikified and referenced properly, but not deleted. --Soman (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ "Advertising Agencies - Top 25". Twin Cities Business. Retrieved 2 July 2013.

[TCB-1] "Advertising Agencies - Top 25". Twin Cities Business. Retrieved 2 July 2013.

[1]