Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 November	15 November >

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 speedy deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mansfield[edit]

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

Deleted a month ago for "Run of the mill law firm. Nothing out of the ordinary indicated in the article or found in online searches. The significance of the "Law Society Excellence Award" seems somewhat minor, and other than a brief blurb in Law Society Gazette, seems only to be noticed in the firm's own press releases" - this version is somewhat similar, but shows nothing new. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 15 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perturbative geometry[edit]

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

No sources since last year, concept looks like a generic term rather than a subject covered by reliable sources. Paradoctor (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as containing no content. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. The phrase occurs 5 times in Google Scholar, so not a common phrase, either. -- 101.119.14.70 (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we find some good sources. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. For good measure, I double checked some other searches. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any descriptions of perturbative geometry as a topic in itself; the few uses I found were neologisms with no in depth discussion or references. It is of course possible to talk about the geometric aspects of perturbation theory, e.g., vector spaces of infinitesimal perturbations or variations in variational calculus, but no one seems to consider perturbative geometry as a separate topic of study. A redirect to perturbation theory would be OK, but the term is so rare, it may not be needed. --Mark viking (talk) 22:49, 19 November 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 & redirect to The Golden Girls#Recurring characters. KTC (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Webber[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. No independent reliable sources establish that the character is notable separate from the TV series in which he appears. Deleted once previously at AFD and the notability hasn't improved in the meantime. Should be speedy-able but bringing it here instead. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The page was deleted in 2008 for notability concerns, then recreated in 2013 with no attempt to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no assertion of notability. Sadly, the article was expanded enough to no longer fail CSD G4 in my opinion, and there is no speedy deletion for non-notable fictional characters. I was therefore forced to remove this tag when processing the speedy deletion request. If I had run across this, I would have used the prod template instead of AfD. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Golden Girls#Recurring characters. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 19 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Greendale Panthers season[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Unremarkable high school football team stat page, unsourced. WP is not a free webhost for sports statistics. See also similar, so far uncontested PRODs for Cudahy Packers Losing Streak, 2011 Greendale Panthers season, 2010 Greendale Panthers season, 2012 Cudahy Packers season. Acroterion (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete high school football programs are rarely notable, and that is even more true for single seasons at this level. In my search I found no coverage outside of the Milwaukee area and I do not see any reason to consider this to pass WP:GNG or any other notability measure. I encourage the enthusiastic editors to try another wiki that would be better suited.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Greendale Panthers season.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:26, 19 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Ng Yuk Tim[edit]

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

Unremarkable murder with no lasting effect. Fails WP:EVENT. Just a quick note the article has been blanked due to WP:BLP concerns. Click here to read it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No court has ruled that a murder took place - the title of this article violates WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the sheer implausibility of it not being a murder, the title does not warrant blanking the entire page. the title, in point of fact, is the only thing you haven't removed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I renamed it and removed every use of the term "murder" per Andy's objection.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still blanked. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - if you remove the word 'murdered', and leave in assertions that a suspect committed murder, it violates WP:BLP, obviously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, dude, do you need to blank the entire article to resolve that? If you think that instance should be removed or some other change be made, then make it. Deleting the entire article is an absurdly excessive way of handling such a concern and is not supported by BLP. Anyway, AfD is not the place for this discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't want your multiple violations of WP:BLP policy discussed here 'dude', you shouldn't have raised the matter in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per clear inability of commenters to establish a rationale for its deletion under Wikipedia policies. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a reason in my nomination. AndyTheGrumpy and The Devil's Advocate's BLP dispute is irrelevant to whether the subject passes our notability guidelines. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete just another tabloid headline. WP:NOTNEWS no indication of anything of significance .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violent deaths are all too common, and it is not our function to chronicle each of them. Here, allegations have been stated as fact by Wikipedia; the investigation is ongoing; and there has been no determination of guilt. Even if there were, we do not need and should not have an article on this unfortunate death. There is no showing of significance beyond the undoubted effects on the famiy of the victim, effects which can only be exacerbated by an article which collects lurid allegations from transitory local media and immortalizes them in a permanent international database easily accessible to all. Kablammo (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is simply a case of unlawful killing (I will keep away from the question of whether it is determined to be murder for legal purposes). As Kablammo says, there are a very great many of them around the world every year (and Wikipedia is concerned not just with now, but also the past). Most are reported in the media and some (particularly of young women) more extensively than others, but the extent of the coverage is not necessarily related to whether they are more gruesome, more distressing to the relatives, etc. Wikipedia has adopted a practice by consensus that such events are not covered unless there is something outside the mere facts of the case to make them notable. That seems right, and inevitable, and I see nothing here that creates such an exception. There are BLP and other objections to coverage especially prior to the conclusion of a trial, as well but those will not arise without the article. --AJHingston (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much trouble. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT, not notable.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no reason to believe this is any more than a routine, if tragic, news story. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Glaisher [talk] 09:52, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Significant coverage only lasted a few days. Hardly enduring significant coverage. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 13:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a police crime blotter. My condolences to the subject's family and friends. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 05:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. ukexpat (talk) 19:46, 18 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic flour[edit]

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

No reliable indication that anyone produces anything called "Arabic flour". This article talks about the availability of several types of Indian flour (namely maida flour and atta flour) within markets of Qatar, use to make Indian food that is popular in Qatar, but this does not make these products "Arabic flour". WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. The article makes a claim for two types of Arabic flour which are each similar to a type of Indian flour. That's a subtle difference than being the same as Indian flour. However, the article is unreferenced, and simply refers to two types of flour as "Arabic Flour #1", and " Arabic Flour #2". I could find no references to these flours as named, nor "Arabic flour" in general. If there are specific Arabic flours, they aren't known by these names, and in any case, would be covered in individual articles about the specific flour. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 19 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Kinsella[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of somewhere around 10 in a well-cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

KEEP Kinsella's work has, I admit, been surprisingly little cited in the scholarly press, but the wide adoption of her theories and practices (including their impact on the creation of Common Core suggests to me that she is important. Working in education, it's hard to pass very long without someone citing her. She's widely taught in education programs. Her work in teaching vocabulary is globally influential. I'm sorry I'm not grabbing sources right now, but, well, you know. Honestly, that her article is still so short after two years says more about the number of K-12 educators who edit Wikipedia than I cared to learn. Thmazing (talk) 06:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all very well but Wikipedia needs verifiable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry. Not a good time for me to engage in a discussion like this. Here are a couple thoughts on where to start looking. "kate+kinsella"+syllabus&oq="kate+kinsella"+syllabus&aqs=chrome..69i57.7069j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=93&espv=210&q=kate+kinsella+syllabus&safe=off 1, 2, 3. Sorry for not being here more. A couple weeks ago and I would have already rewritten the article! Thmazing (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also could find very little. As a matter of fact, a number of GS cites do not actually belong to this person, but to someone else of the same name at Dana–Farber Cancer Institute. Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of documented evidence of the impact needed to pass WP:PROF#C1. It doesn't have to be citations from other academic papers — but if she really is influential and widely taught, then we need reliable sources that show it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's an adjunct, not even a F/T teacher. Bearian (talk) 22:18, 19 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Hofer[edit]

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

Coulf find no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has a short film with 254 views on YouTube. Apart from that, a self-submitted biography on IMDB and social media links on Google, I can find nothing. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. AllyD (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Burghardt[edit]

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

A Marine who fails WP:SOLDIER. One bit of media coverage for an incident, but that was not lasting. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like a WP:BLP1E situation to me. Maybe there's a list he could be merged to? If someone suggests one, I would support that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No particular notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The photograph and IED incident was September 2005. Snopes called it an "iconic photo of the war".[1] Snopes is not reliable(?) but it's evidence we may be dealing with more lasting impact and to look more closely. The incident has been discussed in two books already (a chapter in one), plus later news stories. However not all of the sources are in relation to the photograph and IED event, most are, but Burghardt has other unrelated coverage so BLP1E doesn't apply since he is not a low profile individual. Sources by date:

Robert A. Simonsen. "Chapter 43: USMC Gunnery Sergeant Michael Burghardt", Marines Dodging Death: Sixty-two Accounts of Close Calls in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, and Afghanistan, McFarland, Jan 1, 2009
Brad Steiger. Real Miracles, Divine Intervention, and Feats of Incredible Survival, Visible Ink Press, Jan 1, 2009. Pg. 75-77
Jennifer H. Svan. "Notorious photo dogs Marine who was wounded in Iraq", Stars and Stripes, June 01, 2008
Blake Morrison. "Is the military blowing up key evidence?". USA Today, November 7, 2007
Bryan A. Peterson. "Marine Teaches Japanese Soldiers about IEDs", The Face of Defense (US Department of Defense), Sept. 4, 2007
Nick Schinker. "Shot of a Lifetime", University of Nebraska, Omaha, March 2006
Lowell Ponte. "The Hand of a Hero", FrontPage Magazine, April 27, 2006
Toby Harnden. "'They blew me up. But I flipped them one to say: OK, I lost this round but I'll be back'", The Daily Telegraph, 27 November 2005
Monte Morin. "Marine bomb expert shaken but not deterred by IED", Stars and Stripes, January 15, 2006
C. David Kotok. "Injured Marine defies attackers". Omaha World-Herald. p. A1. September 24, 2005

--Green Cardamom (talk) 02:02, 10 November 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) 18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The test for "one event" is simple; imagine if the event ever happened, would this person still be covered by reliable sources. It is clear here that if the photo opportunity never happened, Mr. Burghardt would be just like thousands of other American soldiers. Tarc (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Green Cardamom's sources are nice but they don't change the fact that this is in fact WP:BLP1E. If the photo is that iconic an article about the photo might be appropriate though. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 22 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sirohiwada[edit]

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

A google search for this place only turns up Wikipedia mirrors, so I think there is not (at least in English) any coverage in secondary sources. Taknaran (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 November 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) 18:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Lack of sufficient coverage, I couldn't trace sources others than this sole articles' mirror. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Does not meet notability criteria; perhaps it is a small neighborhood, but without any established notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching for sources throws up only circular sources. This appears to be a small colony/locality/neighborhood in Udaipur, unlikely to be notable as an independent geographic entity. Abecedare (talk) 01:42, 17 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zato[edit]

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

Fails WP:N for products. No relevant 3rd party sources can be found. Article is written like promotional material. This article is essentially a recreation of a previously PRODed article Zato ESB. HighKing (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 7 November 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) 18:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A promotional-sounding article; no WP:RS references in the article or found on Google, Highbeam, Questia. Fails WP:NSOFT. AllyD (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, no indication of notability of this software, and a search did not reveal significant RS coverage. Also, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 14:07, 17 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ojo Fatuo[edit]

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

Article looks more like a link-farm than an encyclopedia article. Notability per WP:ARTIST seems questionable. bender235 (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 7 November 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) 18:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Glaisher [talk] 09:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems the article is a pared down copy of the resume on the biography tab of this site [2]. This article would basically be an orphan if it weren't for Frank Wow. I wouldn't presume to suggest that both articles were created by the DJ himself, in the spirit of selfpromotion, except they obviously were. -Haikon 12:40, 20 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Morgan (fighter)[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only 1 top tier fight.Mdtemp (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and the article shows no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG--just a link to his fight record and local coverage of his second MMA fight. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 21 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ednaldo Oliveira[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only two top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't yet meet WP:NMMA. If he gets a third top tier fight the article can be recreated. Papaursa (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G4) and salt. —Darkwind (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Slipchenko[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted via AFD, but it has been recreated 3 or 4 times since then. Each recreation beofre this was followed by a speedy delete. It seems like a good idea to bring this to AfD again and I would recommend salting the article if this AFD results in a delete decision. This is an autobiography about someone who claims to have won numerous amateur (IFMA) titles. However, WP:KICK specifies that amateur titles alone do not show notability. His second place WAKO finish was out of only two competitors (and it's also amateur). The main source is slipchenko.com which is certainly not independent. Other links are to organizational websites that don't actually mention him. He fails to meet WP:KICK or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salt with extreme prejudicePeter Rehse (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Subject doesn't appear to be getting any more notable and doesn't seem to meet WP:KICK. Using your own web page as your main source doesn't show you meet WP:GNG (no matter how many times you list it). I've never voted to salt an article before, but the recreation of this article every few weeks is ridiculous. Papaursa (talk) 04:42, 15 November 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—at least, that's the short answer. Long answer? There's definitely consensus against this standing as its own article; however, while the content exists on the parent article, the title remains a likely search term. So this will redirect to Jimmy Kimmel Live!#"Kill everyone in China" controversy for now. If that section is ever removed, or if more significant controversies are introduced into that article, it may be appropriate to revisit this at RfD. For now, coverage at the parent article appears sufficient such that there's no need for a merge. Since the page history will still be accessible, however, any editors interested in a selective merge may do so without invoking the wrath of the admin gods. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Kimmel Live! controversy[edit]

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

Silly "controversy" - an article is undue weight to a minor event. Could easily be compressed and summarized in the main article. Beerest355 Talk 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 16:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not the news. Pointless content fork of Jimmy Kimmel Live! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or very, very, very selective merge. No apparent reason this needs its own article, and the title doesn't seem like a useful search term, so no redirect is called for. But in light of the extensive short-term coverage and the Chinese government commenting on the matter, there ought to be room for a bit more than the single sentence now present at Jimmy Kimmel Live!. (By "a bit more" I mean a couple more sentences and a couple more footnotes, not a lengthy exegesis.)--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now -- if it comes to the point that Kimmel is fired, or the show is canceled because of the incident, it could be important. Also, if this becomes a lasting controversy with the boycott against Disney causing them substantive losses, it would be notable. If, on the other hand, everything blows over next week, deleting--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crystal applies here. We don't keep articles based upon what might happen in the future.Martin451 22:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - had a celebrity or other notable person said this, maybe it would make sense to keep it. But Wikipedia does not need an article on something a random kid said. Lettik (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is literally making a mountain out of a molehill. It merits a paragraph in the show's article, nothing more. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then vote merge, not delete. Just because this is AFD does not mean you have to feed into the inclusionist/deletionist insanity.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to add a one-paragraph summary of this one to the other one, fine. I wouldn't call it a merge, and this coatrack should be deleted in any case. My !vote doesn't prevent anyone from doing so before the AFD ends. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as this was originally a split from the article on the show it seems within reason to put it back there, where currently no mention remains. Should it really prove to be of sufficient controversy to warrant its own article we can restore this page easily enough.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV content fork for a careless six year old child mistake that deserves one sentence at most. Secret ^account 00:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:BLP to say the least. This is something nobody is going to remember media-wise years down the road, and this kid's life need not be haunted with the help of WP for something stupid he did as a small child. --MuZemike 00:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. Kablammo (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary content fork that is already covered in excruciating detail at the parent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP; another media circus created by the Disqus/Facebook/HLN grumps that didn't even that much attention before they flagged it out and fanned the flames. Yes, a very stupid comment, but the show isn't going to get canceled because of it. Mountain out of a molehill, indeed. Nate • (chatter) 04:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an unnecessary content fork for some mistake someone did as a small child. StevenD99 ^{Contribs Sign} 05:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jimmy_Kimmel_Live! it's already there, see Jimmy_Kimmel_Live!#.22Kill_everyone_in_China.22_controversy. The controversy provoked protests of Chinese Americans, which suggests it is a notable incident, no matter how stupid it is. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revert the split, remove any BLP-violating garbage, and redirect to Jimmy_Kimmel_Live!. Significant coverage exists, a couple of paragraphs at least are merited. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there was no mention of this (that I heard) outside the U.S. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. James^x12345 20:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply untrue. The case has received significantly coverage in China and Hong Kong. The South China Morning Post alone has published multiple articles on the incident: [3]. -Zanhe (talk) 23:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only referring to what I heard. It completely passed by the UK media, and whilst it could be a diplomatic upset, predicting that it will have any lasting impact seems like speculation. James^x12345 18:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mirror November 12, 2013, page 14: "'Kill Chinese' remark fury."; The Daily Telegraph [4] -- Jreferee (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, this is just the type of thing that the screaming headline tabloid would cover. a story in the Mirror is all the more evidence that its not appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or weak Keep - notable incident that has received widespread coverage in multiple countries, but may not be enough to justify a standalone article. -Zanhe (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete just a blip in the news cycle WP:NOTNEWS; no indication of WP:PERSISTENCE; already covered thoroughly enough in the main article. TheRedPenOfDoom 12:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The nomination states plainly that this "could easily be compressed and summarized in the main article" and so is arguing for merger, not deletion. This seems to be a significant diplomatic incident which has been reported internationally and which has resulted in a formal protest by the Chinese government. There is significant tension as China threatens to replace the USA as the dominant world power and even young children seem to have picked up on this. The issue therefore passes WP:GEOSCOPE. Warden (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this issue IS already covered in the main article and so a deletion of duplicated content is entirely appropriate option.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just a blip in the news cycle WP:NOTNEWS. The article topic additionally would need to qualify under spinout from one of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, 80-20 Initiative, American Broadcasting Company, Jimmy Kimmel, but does not. MuZemike BLP point above is clear and direct - "this kid's life need not be haunted with the help of WP for something stupid he did as a small child." Any information that can be merged already is in their respective articles, so there is nothing for the closer to do in this regard. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The actual phrase uttered, which the media parsed, was "shoot cannon all the way over and kill everyone in China", which sounds more like a six year old than "kill everyone in China". The Kimmel Live Kids Table segment is called a skit, but it is unscripted "Jimmy Kimmel Live is getting a lesson in what happens when a guest goes off script." "Host Jimmy Kimmel, who often uses children on his show for comedic effect on adult issues, asked a group of four children during a non-scripted segment how the United States should pay back the $1.3 trillion it owes to China". The segment was pre-recorded, so Kimmel Live could have cut the segment, but chose to air it. I think it can be covered in the Jimmy Kimmel Live! article (not to the extent it currently is[5]] but I do not see a basis for a Wikipedia:Summary style article in view of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question How many people participated in these marches at the various locations? Was it just a dozen or so people, or did you have thousands? Dream Focus 16:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or extremely selective merge per Arxiloxos. Risker (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Largely per WP:NOTNEWS. Merging is needless at this point as the subject is already covered sufficiently in the parent article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jimmy Kimmel Live Just a blip on the TV show. No TV show, no notability p b p 14:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident, meets WP:NEVENT. Some refutation of above delete arguments (quoted):

an article is undue weight to a minor event. - WP:UNDUE applies to content balance within an article, not to individual articles. And rightly so: a notable topic, even if it is a tiny part of a much bigger whole still can deserve its own article.
Wikipedia does not need an article on something a random kid said. - Not an argument. If what the random kid said is notable and generated a notable controversy, it may need it, instead.
POV content fork - What POV?
there was no mention of this (that I heard) outside the U.S. - Apart from having been thoroughly invalidated in subsequent comments, it does not matter where something is notable, what matters is notability in general.

In general, the event had a serious international impact and sources cover it continuously after it happened, so it is not a mere routine news blip - it meets WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:PERSISTENCE. While calls to a merge are understandable, I feel the incident is significant and notable enough to deserve a full detailed coverage. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS, and this barely qualifies even as "news". Little kid said dumb, little-kid-like thing while on silly TV comedy show. Nobody will give two shits in a few months. I wouldn't even merge it to the main article as UNDUE. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not warrant an article. Bearpatch (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonsense Mugginsx (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - original author has accepted this nomination. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Smolović[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy deletion was declined on the grounds that the content of the article was sufficiently different. However, the subject is as un-notable as it was two weeks ago, the last time it was afd'ed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the same reasons it was deleted two weeks ago. It would be useful if G4 criteria of CSD was expanded to include cases where the original case for deletion still stands, as there is nothing "sufficiently different" in terms of the reason it should be deleted again as it was deleted before. C 679 16:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet the applicable notability guidelines.--Talain (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In replay to C , why not delete millions of other players with similar careers which are approved ???? I put a valid evidence of Ivan Smolović career ( soccerway profil, soccer punter , FA Montenegro national site , Sport1.de and others ) ! I expect you to approve Ivan Smolović ,and I assure you that this will be your good choice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cicimau (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

he fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as mentioned in his last AfD. According to these criteria we decide if a player is sufficiently notable. C 679 22:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:21, 15 November 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 non-consensus, without any objection to renominee. WP:NAC Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Ziegler[edit]

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

My redirect was undone, claiming that simply being a main character in The West Wing is automatically notable. This is not true. This character fails WP:GNG. Merely appearing in a notable work isn't enough per WP:NOTINHERITED. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The West Wing characters as per WP:GNG and Pokemon test. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News search shows multiple sources, some paywalled, that appear to discuss the character in independet, non-trivial fashion. Agreed that the current sources are all primary, but I see no indication that a decent search per WP:BEFORE was conducted. Jclemens (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed all those hits, too. However, they looked to be discussing the actor, not the character. Do you have any specific links that discuss the character? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - long running major network shows commonly have separate pages for their main characters - Bobby Ewing from Dallas, William Riker from Star Trek TNG, Doug Ross from ER, and on and on. Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I note, for one, that the Ross article has a reception section that establishes notability. The others, I'm not really sure about. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:58, 8 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 15:26, 14 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

José Flores (pitcher)[edit]

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

Non notable minor league baseball player Spanneraol (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 17:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player.Alex (talk) Alex (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:01, 7 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable – Muboshgu (talk) 18:31, 15 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable upcoming film, the independent project of an unknown actress. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems the film is still in production and while it does seem it's going to star Evelyn Rei, IMDb says it's still "rumored". Google News searches and other searches failed to find anything substantial aside from a movie blog (and even the blog says "in production"). Nothing to add or improve the article. No prejudice towards a future article if notable. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 7 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. No evidence that the film has even begun filming. With a budget of only £500 as well it's hardly Star Wars. Betty Logan (talk) 17:40, 20 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Galilee modal haplotype[edit]

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

Cites only primary sources all by the same author and all more general than just this haplotype. No indication of the slightest independent coverage that would make this particular haplotype notable. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham modal haplotype.Agricolae (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Are you wondering why this haplotype is notable? this haplotype was representive of arab palestinians. it was later found to representive of all arabs , representing the rab expansion of the 7th century since it was found in yemen and north africa in addition to palestine. it is part of the Cohen modal haplotype cluster, it is found in majority of arabs with j1 haplogroup, who j1 arabs are the majority of arabs of the arabian peninsula (arabian peninsula Y dna project at FTDNA the major dna geneological haplotype studies of the world.Viibird (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what. The benchmark for notability is not whether someone's favorite ethnic group happens to have it or whether FTDNA has put up a web site. It is whether it has received significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Any page that can only be cited to the primary papers of a single research group fails this test. Agricolae (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added 2 more studies that mention galilee modal haplotype, all three studies from Pub Med (notable) mentions the galilee modal haplotype represents Arab ancestry. there are more studies too. the data those scientists rely on are usually from FTDNA results or from the researchers who run FTDNA like hammer, nebel behar and others who made the studies on cmh and J1Viibird (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if 2 more studies "mention" it. Occasional mention is not what is meant by "significant coverage". And it doesn't matter int he least where their data come from. Agricolae (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have discussed how the article and its studies are notable according to wiki Notability criteria. the four studies are major studies in dna genealogy and the galilee modal haplotype is a main discovery of all articles as refering to arab ancestry, nebel 2000 nebel 2002 semino 2004, and the newly added nebel 2001. nebel 2000 named the haplotype as marker of palestinian arabs (the article main was about the relation of galilee modal haplotype to cohen modal), nebel 2001 found the haplotype with dys388=>16 is specific to middle east (the main finding of the article is about the haplotype), nebel 2002 found it represent arabic ancestry from yemen to north africa (the study is soly about this haplotype), semino 2004 major finding that galilee is in the j1-ycaii22,22 clade that is representive to arabs/ as to contrast to ethiopians etc.Viibird (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All primary. Agricolae (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

all studies are master studies and each of them cite over 30 previous studies. Nebel 2000 thesis is that palestinians and jews are related by comparing Galilee modal haplotype with cohen modal haplotype (same as hammer 2009). Nebel2002 thesis that arabs of three distant locales morocco yemen and galilee are of the same stock. semino 2004 main thesis is about the neolithic migration of agriculturalists to eeurope J haplogroyp. his findings that the j1 remnants in Europe are of the J Neolithic migration not the recent J1 arab expansion migration. Nebel2001 found galilee mh is unigue in having dys388 high and to be used as forensic dna marker.all studies revolve around galilee mh and the other studies refed like Bosch2001 (discontinuty of arab genes (galilee mh) between morocco and spain), semino 2000(impact of arab genes (galilee mh) on the mideterranean basin)Viibird (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't exist to report every researchers theses. It doesn't exist to report every split along every branch of the human family tree. The question is whether this term has gained sufficient notability outside the specific researchers who coined the term to be notable, and how that is concluded is by significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. That people use Arab DNA markers in population studies and that this is an Arab DNA marker do not, in and of itself, make this particular haplotype notable. Science, Nature and the New York Times have all reported on the Y-chromosomal Aaron haplotype - significant independent coverage by reliable secondary sources. None have reported on the Galilee modal haplotype. Agricolae (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how about this slide from anthropologist dr Schurr at the museum of Penn univerity [6] slide p58 which summerize p58 subhaplogroup as having galilee modal haplotype. should i add this too? so far nebel 2000 discovered gmh, bosch 2001 and thomas 2000 discovered it in moroccon arabs and yemen and syria. nebel 2002 confirmed it as evidence of arab expansion, semino 2004 confirmed gmh of 2002, capelli 2006 used gmh specifically to detect arab ancestry in the mideterranian basin, being indicative of arab/cohenmh and not europpean or aramaeic or ethiopian j1 haplogroup, recent studies also chiaroni and tofanelli found it not in chechen j1 or anatolian or ethiopian where chiaroni have a huge excel document showing all haplotypes from ethiopia, arameans anatolians chechen not having it. and the FTDNA huge database of J1 project and arabian peninsula showing gmh is specific to arab names and residents of arabia. there are many studies of course use gmh in their studies.Viibird (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schurr mentions the GMH on one slide (#24, by the way, not 58) out of 50. The grand total of the description consists of the words "Galilee Modal Haplotype: Also in NW Africans, Yemenis". It is not even the only haplotype mentioned on that slide. That is a brief mention, not significant coverage. That there is a particular cluster of STRs and SNPs that are found in the population in which the Semitic language group originated is a curious and interesting result. This haplotype is a useful tool in evaluating such populations. But science is full of curious and interesting results and useful tools. They are only notable if they have received significant independent coverage in reliable secondary sources, and this hasn't. Agricolae (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this is notable by our criteria. This may change in the future if other academics adopt this terminology, but it isn't our role to be part of this adoption. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and please stop this editor from creating non-notable articles about haplotyes and such - perhaps a topic-ban if he doesn't get the messages soon. This isn't a science journal, it's an encyclopedia of notable topics ES &L 12:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there seems to be a problem with this editor. The Abraham article mentioned above is now deleted, this was almost certainly will be also. Dougweller (talk) 18:58, 22 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis Cossart d'Espie[edit]

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

After the first sentence, the entire remainder of the article is an extended quote from the cited reference Duoduoduo (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The quoted source is authored by a Cossart. One other geological source in Google Books also unreliable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:06, 15 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hash Brown On A Bun[edit]

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

Non-notable recipe; PROD removed by creator. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. May qualify for speedy deletion via WP:G5. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. This article was created by Liam88674 <talk> on the 12th November. The account Liam88674 was created on the 12th November just 1 day after Liamsport <talk> was blocked for operating a vandalism only account. Liam88674 was autoblocked shortly after as it was operating from the same IP address as Liamsport and was created to evade a block. Subsequent discussion on the talk page confirms that they are the same user. 86.150.65.49 (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article deserves to not be deleted. I have 500+ people at my school that want to keep the article. I am willing to write a petition if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.32.199 (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete The primary reference is a blog post dated October 15, 2013, by the dude who made up the item. News and book searches turn up nothing other than this article. It's just made up and thus my !vote for snow delete. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The food has been apart of my school canteen(St Paul's College Kempsey) for over 10 years. My whole school is in support of the page, and wee the school community are willing to sign a petition to show our support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.128.86 (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool and everything, but see WP:ILIKEIT. You could find a billion supporters and march on Wikipedia headquarters, but it would still need reliable sources establishing notability. Instead of wasting time on a petition, join forces for good, and stage an event which gets the media talking about this snack. Then try here. It's not impossible. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a cookbook; Wikipedia is not for made up things either. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it Every bit as notable as the time I put ketchup on a pancake. Splicing the leads from two articles doesn't make it twice as encyclopedic. Especially since paragraph 2 is unsourced to start. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 21 November 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) 01:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind turbines[edit]

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

(Case from unregistered user reproduced from article talk page verbatim)

This article is nothing more than a long list of every wind turbine likely to be encountered. It is also totally unreferenced (it fails WP:RS) and thus every entry is liable to deletion on that ground alone. It is far too long and unlikely to be of interest to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers (i.e. it fails WP:NOTABILITY).

If the wind turbine spotters want a spotters guide then they should set up their own web site and not blight Wikipedia like they have blighted the countryside.

Note: No notification has been left on user pages as most of the contributions seem to be from a small clutch of unregistered IP addresses. As these addresses seem to be dynamic, it is more than likely that the number of contributors (and hence interest) is very small. It is the changing addresses that make the contributors appear a little more numerous than they really are. There is no point leaving a notification on a dynamic IP address talk page as the past user is highly unlikely to see it.86.145.140.153 (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather inclined to agree, that the subject is only likely to be of interest to a very few readers (probably able to count them on one hand?). In any case, the article is devoid of references and fails notability on this point alone. I B Wright (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unreferenced is a reason for article improvement, not deletion. We should welcome the contributions of IP editors, so the identity of editors is not a reason for deletion. The article serves the encyclopediac purpose of keeping a long table of statistics out of the main wind turbine article. "Boring" is not a policy-based arguement for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the editor who has waged an almost constant battle against 'anonymous editors' as you regularly describe them. If you consult the deletion criteria any non notable article is ripe for deletion. A totally unreferenced article is considered non notable. I B Wright (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in my case for deletion did I claim that the fact that most (if not all) of the article has been contributed by IP address editors was the reason for deletion? The only reference to IP editors was in the explanation of why the authors had not been notified, not in the case itself. Indeed, if I were to have used that as a criterion, it would be nothing short of hypocrisy given that I too am an IP address editor, being 86.150.65.49 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously all the entries need to be sourced, but lists of factual information are very much within scope. This is a tightly associated list of a particular sort of industrial equipment. Wikipedia includes appropriate reference material as well as encyclopedic material. The correct response here is to improve the article.--Talain (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a valid list with clear criteria for inclusion. Sure there are issues but improvement not deletion is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/a8WEDjY_460sa.gif. Oh, and as you'll want a policy based discussion, it's trivia, it's cruft, it's not encyclopedic, there is content missing that can't or won't be added, ever. It can't ever consider itself complete, not every wind turbine will be measured, the list of record turbines won't ever be accurate, true or correct. It's no more encyclopedic than a list of electricity pylons, telegraph poles or lamp posts. Nick (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire, this is the perfect example of WP:NOT#INFO as we are not a factory manual and completely arbitrary while there is no reasonable chance of improvement without doing massive WP:TNT, and even then its very hard to argue if the a list of individual wind turbines is notable. Also just because its "factual information" doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia, read WP:EVERYTHING Secret ^account 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for clarification, this isn't a list of "every wind turbine likely to be encountered". At least the first part of the article has lists of commercial scale wind turbine models. The number of different kinds of commercial models is a relatively small number. This list is in principle no different than a List of aircraft engines or a List of automobiles and can potentially become a fine article. The main question is of sourcing: can these models be linked to WP articles (or sections of manufacturers' articles) describing them or can they be sourced to reliable references? I agree with the talk page opinion that the list of tallest wind turbines doesn't belong in this article and should be removed. --Mark viking (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking each wind turbine to a Wikipedia article is unacceptable because Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference to support any article.

Similarly, linking to manufacturer's web sites or data does not conform to Wikipedia's requirements on referencing as these would be primary sources. Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable secondary sources to support any material within an article. Basically put: if there are no secondary sources to support the material in the article, then clearly this is evidence that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. -I B Wright (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, linking each entry to a Wikipedia article is one common way of creating stand-alone list-based articles. Please see the manual of style page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists for details. Both List of aircraft engines and List of automobiles are stand alone list articles of this type. Under the Common selection criteria section of the above MOS page, the first criterion states Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. I am not claiming that List of wind turbines meets that standard; at this point, clearly not. But well-formed list-based articles are a perfectly valid sort of Wikipedia article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the stand alone articles do not exist in the quantity required to support this list, your point is entirely moot. The MoS that you quote also states, "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as notability guidelines". This article fails on the underlined requirements in the worst possible way. The example lists that you cite are serving as indexes to a series of articles. The subject article is certainly not an index as it serves to contain the very information that should be in the linked articles. 86.150.65.49 (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The comparison with List of aircraft engines and List of automobiles is completely invalid. Both of those articles are simple lists that link (or are intended to link - in the case of articles yet to be provided) to a full article on the individual entry. List of wind turbines does not even purport to fulfill that role. It is clear that the list itself is intended to contain the technical details and even an illustration of each and every wind turbine in existence. I have made an attempt at trying to find secondary sources to support some of the details in the list and singularly failed. The apparent total absence of secondary sources, is clear evidence of the lack of notabilty of the subject and that no one else cares. I also note that the list contains several in-line URLs which are not permitted in articles. I assume that these are a half hearted attempt at providing some references, but being primary sources, they do not really qualify. This article is thus unlikely to ever be properly referenced and should be deleted. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list is rather confusing and of little possible use to any reader. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest wind turbines and delete everything above that. -Haikon 13:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and that list would also be up for deletion on exactly the same grounds. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the same grounds: that wind turbines "have blighted the countryside"? (to quote the nominator that ironically attacks the article for being authored by "a clutch of unregistered IP addresses" on the article's talk page)? I disagree that the page is a perfect example of WP:NOT#INFO, but all the other attacks on the list are valid; it is crufty unverifiable junk that few readers care about, but based on a cursory perusal of how articles in the 'Category:Lists of tallest structures' (which I am too inept to link to) seem to be organized, and considering that one of the tallest structures in the world is, indeed, a wind turbine, it seems like we should have a tallest wind turbines article. It'd be great to have a list of the most popular/common/widespread wind turbine types as well, but that seems impractical. -Haikon 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the article to List of tallest wind turbines and delete everything above, as Haikon suggests, doesn't make sense at all, see Talk:List_of_wind_turbines. There are at least (!) several hundrets of wind turbines with a total heigth of about 199 metres, because nearly every modern low wind turbine on a hybrid tower is designed to stay just below 200 metres. And with construction going on there will soon thousands of such turbines within short time. So if you don't want to count 10-20 different turbine types, each with hundrets of turbines built, then such a list doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to have a article List of the fastest cars and then have thousands of Ferrari 458 Italias (or a different type of car) listed there either. Wind turbines aren't some kind of individual buildings or something like that, they are industry products build in mass production. Andol (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor who cannot comprehend English. Show me where in my nomination that I attacked the article for being authored by a clutch of unregistered IP addresses? The only reference to unregistered IP addresses was solely in the justification for not notifying the principal authors - nowhere else. Show me where my criteria for deleting the article included wind turbines blighting the countryside? They do blight the countryside and I may have said so, but nowhere in my proposal was it a justification in itself for deletion. 86.162.113.26 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest wind turbines, as per Haikon's suggestion. The things that are of significance can that way be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aibara (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you do to solve the problem that only a very small part of the existing turbines of the range higher than > 180 metres is (and can be) listed here? If you read that list, you would suppose that these turbines are some kind of rare and special turbines, which they are not. But everyone wo reads this article and doesn't know the background would suppose these are special turbines. Do you really want that? In the whole list, there are exactly THREE special turbines, the two Nowy Tomyśl Wind Turbines with 210 metres and the single Fuhrländer Wind Turbine Laasow with 205 metres. Every other turbine is a turbine made in serial production. And don't underestimate the sheer number of wind turbines built. Every year about 40.000 MW of wind energy capacity are newly installed, so this means, there are roughly 20.000 to 25.000 new wind turbines every year. If just 10 % of them are tall low wind turbines, you have to add 2000 to 2500 turbines in that list. Every year. Nobody can do this. And it wouldn't make sense either. Andol (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we already have a list of large wind power stations, which to which unique wind turbines like the tallest or most powerful can be added. This article is the equivalent of a List of steam turbines or List of hydroelectric turbines. Industry catalogs belong in industrial sources. If there is a community of turbine-spotters like there are planespotters or trainspotters, then perhaps a wikia project would be better suited. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 23 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Warren[edit]

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

This page has multiple issues. I believe there are copyright issues although I cannot say which article came first. Material is found at the University of Windsor site, the Smiles Are Everywhere sit and at the Arts and Health Australia page.It appears to be a resume and as such is similar to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Peter Spitzer which is, or was. his fellow practitioner. This would be more appropriate for a social media site. I leave it to the community discussion. JodyB_talk 12:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG. The National Review Medicine source is good but not enough alone. The other sources are less reliable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Is there anything else? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:03, 16 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Frontier Touring Company[edit]

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

Advertising. Declined AfC (by Anne Delong) that was move into article space after adding not the requested reliable sources but more advertising and promo. The Banner talk 11:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this Duplication Detector report: [7] . —Anne Delong (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been significantly improved. *Delete - The article has some good information and it's obvious they promoted alot of well-known and notable people but that's basically what they touring companies do and are most likely notable for. Not as much notability on their own. Google News search found alot of results for their clients but not much in-depth about them aside from that they're big at what they do in their country and internationally. This briefly mentions that they're based in Melbourne and another brief mention a donation of theirs here. It's nice that they're the largest concert promoter in Australia and New Zealand. The "Oz Touring Awards Honor Sound Relief, Gudinski's Frontier" reference currently used in the article mentions an award but it doesn't seem to be much and it's brief. The list of clients ('80-'13) is nice and large but, in terms of verifying, it would be alot of work. I don't mean to be a bubble burster but, again, companies like tour promoters and record labels don't get that much attention about themselves and are more behind-the-scenes. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep incredibly hard to google find dedicated articles that aren't just brief mentions, because there are so many brief mentions. However, now that I've removed the laundry list of every band they've ever brought to Australia, you can see that there are some refs, and I think enough to pass WP:GNG. And the book on the company's 30 years, whilst it appears to be self-published (which when you consider the company is a promotions company, makes sense, why would they outsource it) is held in many major libraries in Australia. The-Pope (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a tricky issue where hair splitters might have a field day, but for an on-going major player in the Australian music industry, that is in itself an element of notability that some might not accept, but has to be acknowledged. Still needs some work on it regardless satusuro 02:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"for an on-going major player in the Australian music industry" do you have sources to back that claim? LibStar (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read the article and the refs. Biggest or 2nd biggest promoter in the country over past 2 years and 16th biggest in the world this year, 50th biggest last year. The-Pope (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You call it hair splitting, I still call it advertising. The Banner talk 03:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business that are in the promotions industry rarely do anything that isn't advertising. Still can be notable though. The-Pope (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When they want to stop paid editing, they should start with disallowing promo-vehicles like this. But I have decided to use the axe to see if there was a notable company hidden under the blahblah, promo and unrelated events. And yes, it might be the case although I am not really convinced. Some events are still unsourced, making it difficult to judge the value. The Banner talk 21:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this. Too close paraphrasing or copyvio? Not realistic to start bickering about it now, but it proves the promo intent of the original author. The Banner talk 12:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment since the original nomination by The Banner several editors, including myself have worked at improving the article and providing independent verifiable references to establish something we all knew - the articles notability. All I have seen since then is The Banner's repeated attempts to try and justify his original nomination even though the article had been significantly changed, even going so far as removing some of the additional references provided by the above editors. It is time this farce came to a conclusion. Dan arndt (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to hurry, mr. Arndt. Giving reliable sources without cleaning out advertising and promo is a useless exercise. You guys do your best, that is true, but you have yet failed to convince me at all points. The Banner talk 14:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

luckily enough we don't need to convince you. However next time you delete swathes of an article make sure that you don't remove referenced factual information in your efforts.Dan arndt (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There a numerous independent verifiable references, including several books: The Promoters: Inside stories from the Australian Rock Industry by Stuart Coupe, Hey, You in the Black T-Shirt by Michael Chugg, and Rock Dogs: Politics and the Australian Music Industry by Marcus Breen which document the signficant impact the Frontier Touring Company has had on shaping the Australian musical scene. Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

although I do think Dan arndt would have found this AfD himself, I don't think notifying him to come here was necessary. [8]. LibStar (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the notification was entirely about how we could improve the article by finding better (non-first page of a google search) sources, which is not only entirely allowed and appropriate, but also should be the reason all of us should be editing. The-Pope (talk) 01:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar I think that it is apparent that I would have had a look at this AfD even if The Pope hadn't have brought it to my attention. Notwithstanding that it should be about improving articles not deleting them out of hand.Dan arndt (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - stupidly famous - David Gerard (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – notability established by numerous recently added sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - however now that the nominator has removed referenced sections of the article, I suspect that we are now into a very strange space where blahblah needs to be asertained as to whether we are dealing with the article as amended by the nominator, or before. Removing contextual information has rendered the possible discussion on this afd into another territory. Surely the nominators edit requires further discussion now. satusuro 02:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I agree that removal of material, which provides context for the article's subject, is curious. Note that this includes removal of references supporting such material and adding to claim of notability. Those changes may adversely bias other editors' opinion in this AfD.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting enough you caled my edot a bad faith edit just before re-adding stuff like "Frontier was behind Kylie Minogue’s record breaking 2001 On a Night Like This Tour which went on to sell out twenty dates across Australia's arena venues. Without doubt the tour launched Kylie to super stardom levels in Australia.", sorry, but this is plain promo. And this piece of clear promo 2004’s overwhelming success story of the year was The Eagles farewell tour with 15 concerts selling out across Australia, verifying the bands legendary status yet again and securing them the record of Australia's highest grossing indoor tour to date. or this piece: 2005 saw the sudden shock postponement of Kylie's 20 concert Australian Showgirl Tour after she was diagnosed with cancer. Determined to complete the tour, Kylie announced rescheduled dates for her revamped Showgirl Homecoming Tour just 12 months after her diagnosis, much to the delight of the tens of thousands of fans who had held onto tickets. ^[1] The relevance of those three pieces are absolutely zero but just prove that as many names as possible are mentioned to attract traffic. The Banner talk 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Que? – Where did I call your edit a bad faith edit? Where did I re-add stuff to the article? Could you please substantiate your accusations about my editing? I disagreed with wholesale removal of material during an AfD and I disagreed with removal of references. I now find your attitude to be unduly confrontational and argumentative: I'm try to reach a consensus here not attack someone who disagrees with me with false claims.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - FYI – I have returned one of the refs previously deleted by the nominator, who then asked for a citation needed for a fact which the ref provides: Curiouser and curiouser!.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if, and I emphasis if - this was a good faith nomination on its own merits, (1) they should start with disallowing promo-vehicles like this - would not have been made, as to infer that the subject is not a valid subject has not been made convincingly by the nominator (2) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Frontier_Touring_Company&oldid=581825606 edit during the afd has the edit summary of clean out of blahblah, promo and unrelated events show both bad faith in the Afd process, or otherewise misunderstanding of it. Blah blah is not a policy guideline. (3) I have reverted the edit in W:AGF on the assumption that the removal shows little understanding of the subject in the first place.

If we are to proceed, now each part of the reverted edit now needs to be examined, as to simply render an article almost meaningless from a pruning edit as was done, cannot be considered as a whole. To do otherwise is hijacking an afd where inadequates consideration of details removed by the nominator, now places the afd in a review option. satusuro 02:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Nice attack, but I have reverted your edit. Promo is just not allowed in an encyclopaedia. Please adhere to: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion. The Banner talk 02:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable organisation - it's one of the biggest touring promoters in Australia, and as is now clear, appears in many independent secondary sources. Orderinchaos 02:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this article is kept, it will need to be carefully rewritten to be sure all the copyright violations have been removed. I believe that it is completely acceptable to make improvements to an article which has been nominated for deletion in the case where the topic is notable but the article has flaws (okay, many flaws). The closing admin doesn't just count the votes, but weighs the arguments, so if some of the earlier comments no longer apply, he or she will take that into account. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:36, 17 November 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. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woodson Farmstead[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTE and WP:NOTDIR. According to the reason to remove my PROD for deletion, being part of the National Register of Historic Places is supposedly reason to have an article. From the NRHP wiki page: "Of the more than one million properties on the National Register, 80,000 are listed individually. The remainder are contributing resources within historic districts. Each year approximately 30,000 properties are added to the National Register as part of districts or by individual listings." So going by that logic we ought to have a million articles on obscure and old local buildings in the USA with no assertions of any notability or significance. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. Yes there are "citations" in the article to "cite" the description of the building, but there is nothing to assert significance. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For a property to be listed on the National Register, a nomination form must be submitted explaining the historical significance of the property, complete with a bibliography. The federal government must then approve the nomination and designate the property as historically significant, using a higher standard than Wikipedia's standard for notability. If a property is significant enough to pass the standards of the National Register, it is certainly significant enough to pass the WP:GNG. (In the case of this article, see page 9 of reference 2 for an assertion of the significance of the property.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 11:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see nothing but "Water is Wet" statements in its assertion of notability. Half of the filing is an autobiography of the family, nothing about the historical significance of the place. Some mentions of "Agriculture" significance is because supposedly it was a farm for 150 years. I'm sure there have been tons of farms that have been around for 150 years. Heck, many many buildings in the Northeast or even Europe are 100+ years. Pretty much every house in my town when I lived in Massachusetts was over a hundred years old. we'd might as well make an article for them, except for the fact that those people didn't think to file something to the NRHP. Then the filing goes to say it is notable because of it's "unique" Victorian eclectic style housing, which is unusual for the area, but then contradicts itself by saying it has historical significance as it's architecture (which the NRHP lists earlier on the form as the only claim it accepted) "exemplifies" the typical farm through the eras. How something can be unique and exemplifies the area astounds me. OF COURSE old buildings "exemplify" their times, because they were built during that particular time, and there are COUNTLESS such buildings in the US, to say of the world. Again, there are OVER A MILLION houses in the NRHP, of which over 30,000 get added every year. I sure didn't know that 30,000 old houses in the US suddenly became notable every year just because someone filed them. Only a SMALL portion of the NRHP are considered landmarks, and I'm fairly certain that imho, only a small portion of that million have any significance or notability. Might as well just create a bot job to parse every entry in the NRHP database and create an article if that's what's considered "notable". I guess WP:NOTDIR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't matter anymore, or undue weight on US old houses for that matter since being included in the NRHP, which is a US listing, supposedly qualifies one for notability. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator may be confused about the process for listing a property. It's an exacting process that involves historians and architects who are experts in their field. Not sure why nominator is concerned about WP:NOTDIR: I fail to see how this article about a single property is a directory, which necessarily has multiple entries. Not sure why nominator is concerned about WP:INDISCRIMINATE, because being listed on the National Register of historic Places is by definition discriminate. --GrapedApe (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the filing, I saw water is wet statements, explained as above. If you feel that it is notable because it is "in the NRHP", then so be it. So is millions of other places, and I guess if Wikipedia policy has changed to such a point, then someone ought to write a bot program to just copy data from NRHP and other registries because those millions of places are all obviously notable just like countless other old houses that have been around for 150+ years and oh, just happen to have architecture that represents the era they were built in (aka pretty much any old house). It'll be a great day for wikipedia since you'll have a million new articles. Whatever, I'm re-retiring from Wikipedia. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 12:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't think an encyclopaedia should have articles on buildings considered notable enough to be individually (not as part of a group) listed on a national (not local) list of important buildings? Interesting. What do you think we should have then? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think maybe there may be some misunderstanding of how the NRHP works and the difference between an individually listed structure and a contributing property in a historic district. I've never seen anyone say that every contributing structure in a historic district should have their own article and in fact, I believe the consensus has been that they should not unless they are notable in some other way on their own or are also individually listed. There are NOT over a million individually listed structures on the NRHP - and the number given of "yearly additions" clearly indicates that it is not the number of individual structures, but includes those in historic districts. Ultraviolet (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if this past week and the week before are representative, then there are about 25 listings per week, for about 1300 new listings per year (rather short of 30,000). And we have relatively few articles that are simply contributing properties (Ben's Chili Bowl is the only one I am immediately aware of). Chris857 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Property is listed on National Register of Historic Places, a designation of significant importance that speaks to the historic nature of the building.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "So going by that logic we ought to have a million articles on obscure and old local buildings in the USA with no assertions of any notability or significance." No, not at all, since this is one of the 80,000 buildings with an individual listing. We do not generally have articles on buildings that are simply listed as part of a district. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreeing with Necrothesp right before me I would just add that it makes no matter for WP how many articles might be created or not. WP has tens of thousands of articles to baseball, basketball, hockey, soccer, tennis, and many other sports players inclding lower and semi-professional leagues, for instance, or tens of thousands of article of politicians most of us never heard of. It just is as it is. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. There has been some discussion at WT:NRHP (and elsewhere) about the viability of very short stub articles that do little more than name an NRHP-listed property and provide a bare reference to its NRIS listing. This article is not one of those, however; it provides context and direct links to supporting material that demonstrates the notability of the subject. The long, consistent consensus is that such articles should be kept (see recently, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sackville House), and that consensus is right. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, especially as the family history appears to have been removed. NRHP listing confers notability. (A listing on the National Register of Historic Pine Trees, on the other hand, would conifer notability.) (Sorry.) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep WP:NOTDIR applies to content within an article, not to articles themselves. By the nominator's logic on that, every Wikiproject and the entire categorization system would be null and void. Notability is shown by the existence of reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic in detail. An NRHP nominating document fits that. I see no reason to continue this and would ask that the next uninvolved editor that comes by close it as a keep. John from Idegon (talk) 21:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Arxiloxos, I expected this to be a substub that never should have been created in the first place, and while this isn't great, it cites multiple reliable sources and has (in the bibliography of the NRHP nomination form) listings of further reliable sources. This clearly passes WP:N and would even if it hadn't gotten a historic designation. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A property has to have some notability BEFORE it's even considered for listing in the NRHP. There is a very stringent vetting process at both the state and federal levels before a property is listed. Einbierbitte (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:54, 15 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnam Raju Gadiraju[edit]

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

Seems to be self promotional (user name is the same as the youtube channel link), makes a bunch of claims that I feel are very hard to be substantiated, a look at Rubik's cube wikipage shows the speeds aren't that notable, just notability in general. Wikipedia isn't a collection of every person who has been in a Rubik's cube tournament. Maybe a list or something, or an article on the tournament itself if it is notable (seems to be some University tournament), but for each person? ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG 78.105.28.140 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is not a notable individual. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:38, 15 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Bowerman[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN LibStar (talk) 10:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A man with a job and some minor positions in local political organisations, but none that appear to meet the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 15 November 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) 17:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of sites on the Queensland Heritage Register in Toowoomba[edit]

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

as per WP:NOTDIR. This is simply a list of mostly non notable buildings that can easily be found on the heritage register website.. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, easily found elsewhere ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My understanding is that this list was created so that the Toowoomba page wouldn't be filled with a list and that sites on heritage registers are notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Heritage Register is notable but no policy says lists of mostly non notable buildings are. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - valid split from an overlong article. Nominator has made the fairly basic error of concluding that if the items in a list are not individually notable (and I am not even conceding this - most, if not all of these sites would have enough historic sources available to sustain an article to meet GNG), this somehow means the topic of the list (i.e. Historic buildings in Toowoomba) therefore becomes non-notable. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also note the nominator did not notify the creator of the list (i.e. me - as a split from Toowoomba) about this nomination on my talk page. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you found this AfD in any case. LibStar (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seem to include heritage property lists in Wikipedia. For example List of heritage buildings in Vancouver. Or master list List of heritage registers. Anything on a register is likely notable, by definition ("heritage" is a general way of saying notable - buildings of historic note). Not that being a heritage property is automatic notability, but good chance would be found notable if researched, thus the red link is justified. Probably do more harm than good to delete an article of heritage properties. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. The Vancouver article has quite a few notable entries and detailed descriptions. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but de-redlink the buildings. The article is harmless, but I do not think we could allow an article on every historic building. Perhaps rename to Buildings on Queensland Heritage Register in Toowoomba. This may encourage someone to write a sentence or two about each building and discourage the creation of two dozen or so useless stubs, most of which will never become more than stubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 16 November 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) 01:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind turbines[edit]

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

(Case from unregistered user reproduced from article talk page verbatim)

This article is nothing more than a long list of every wind turbine likely to be encountered. It is also totally unreferenced (it fails WP:RS) and thus every entry is liable to deletion on that ground alone. It is far too long and unlikely to be of interest to the vast majority of Wikipedia readers (i.e. it fails WP:NOTABILITY).

If the wind turbine spotters want a spotters guide then they should set up their own web site and not blight Wikipedia like they have blighted the countryside.

Note: No notification has been left on user pages as most of the contributions seem to be from a small clutch of unregistered IP addresses. As these addresses seem to be dynamic, it is more than likely that the number of contributors (and hence interest) is very small. It is the changing addresses that make the contributors appear a little more numerous than they really are. There is no point leaving a notification on a dynamic IP address talk page as the past user is highly unlikely to see it.86.145.140.153 (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather inclined to agree, that the subject is only likely to be of interest to a very few readers (probably able to count them on one hand?). In any case, the article is devoid of references and fails notability on this point alone. I B Wright (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unreferenced is a reason for article improvement, not deletion. We should welcome the contributions of IP editors, so the identity of editors is not a reason for deletion. The article serves the encyclopediac purpose of keeping a long table of statistics out of the main wind turbine article. "Boring" is not a policy-based arguement for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the editor who has waged an almost constant battle against 'anonymous editors' as you regularly describe them. If you consult the deletion criteria any non notable article is ripe for deletion. A totally unreferenced article is considered non notable. I B Wright (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in my case for deletion did I claim that the fact that most (if not all) of the article has been contributed by IP address editors was the reason for deletion? The only reference to IP editors was in the explanation of why the authors had not been notified, not in the case itself. Indeed, if I were to have used that as a criterion, it would be nothing short of hypocrisy given that I too am an IP address editor, being 86.150.65.49 (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously all the entries need to be sourced, but lists of factual information are very much within scope. This is a tightly associated list of a particular sort of industrial equipment. Wikipedia includes appropriate reference material as well as encyclopedic material. The correct response here is to improve the article.--Talain (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a valid list with clear criteria for inclusion. Sure there are issues but improvement not deletion is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/a8WEDjY_460sa.gif. Oh, and as you'll want a policy based discussion, it's trivia, it's cruft, it's not encyclopedic, there is content missing that can't or won't be added, ever. It can't ever consider itself complete, not every wind turbine will be measured, the list of record turbines won't ever be accurate, true or correct. It's no more encyclopedic than a list of electricity pylons, telegraph poles or lamp posts. Nick (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire, this is the perfect example of WP:NOT#INFO as we are not a factory manual and completely arbitrary while there is no reasonable chance of improvement without doing massive WP:TNT, and even then its very hard to argue if the a list of individual wind turbines is notable. Also just because its "factual information" doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia, read WP:EVERYTHING Secret ^account 21:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just for clarification, this isn't a list of "every wind turbine likely to be encountered". At least the first part of the article has lists of commercial scale wind turbine models. The number of different kinds of commercial models is a relatively small number. This list is in principle no different than a List of aircraft engines or a List of automobiles and can potentially become a fine article. The main question is of sourcing: can these models be linked to WP articles (or sections of manufacturers' articles) describing them or can they be sourced to reliable references? I agree with the talk page opinion that the list of tallest wind turbines doesn't belong in this article and should be removed. --Mark viking (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking each wind turbine to a Wikipedia article is unacceptable because Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a reference to support any article.

Similarly, linking to manufacturer's web sites or data does not conform to Wikipedia's requirements on referencing as these would be primary sources. Wikipedia requires reliable and verifiable secondary sources to support any material within an article. Basically put: if there are no secondary sources to support the material in the article, then clearly this is evidence that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion. -I B Wright (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, linking each entry to a Wikipedia article is one common way of creating stand-alone list-based articles. Please see the manual of style page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists for details. Both List of aircraft engines and List of automobiles are stand alone list articles of this type. Under the Common selection criteria section of the above MOS page, the first criterion states Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. I am not claiming that List of wind turbines meets that standard; at this point, clearly not. But well-formed list-based articles are a perfectly valid sort of Wikipedia article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the stand alone articles do not exist in the quantity required to support this list, your point is entirely moot. The MoS that you quote also states, "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as notability guidelines". This article fails on the underlined requirements in the worst possible way. The example lists that you cite are serving as indexes to a series of articles. The subject article is certainly not an index as it serves to contain the very information that should be in the linked articles. 86.150.65.49 (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The comparison with List of aircraft engines and List of automobiles is completely invalid. Both of those articles are simple lists that link (or are intended to link - in the case of articles yet to be provided) to a full article on the individual entry. List of wind turbines does not even purport to fulfill that role. It is clear that the list itself is intended to contain the technical details and even an illustration of each and every wind turbine in existence. I have made an attempt at trying to find secondary sources to support some of the details in the list and singularly failed. The apparent total absence of secondary sources, is clear evidence of the lack of notabilty of the subject and that no one else cares. I also note that the list contains several in-line URLs which are not permitted in articles. I assume that these are a half hearted attempt at providing some references, but being primary sources, they do not really qualify. This article is thus unlikely to ever be properly referenced and should be deleted. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this list is rather confusing and of little possible use to any reader. Rebeccalutz (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of tallest wind turbines and delete everything above that. -Haikon 13:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and that list would also be up for deletion on exactly the same grounds. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the same grounds: that wind turbines "have blighted the countryside"? (to quote the nominator that ironically attacks the article for being authored by "a clutch of unregistered IP addresses" on the article's talk page)? I disagree that the page is a perfect example of WP:NOT#INFO, but all the other attacks on the list are valid; it is crufty unverifiable junk that few readers care about, but based on a cursory perusal of how articles in the 'Category:Lists of tallest structures' (which I am too inept to link to) seem to be organized, and considering that one of the tallest structures in the world is, indeed, a wind turbine, it seems like we should have a tallest wind turbines article. It'd be great to have a list of the most popular/common/widespread wind turbine types as well, but that seems impractical. -Haikon 21:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the article to List of tallest wind turbines and delete everything above, as Haikon suggests, doesn't make sense at all, see Talk:List_of_wind_turbines. There are at least (!) several hundrets of wind turbines with a total heigth of about 199 metres, because nearly every modern low wind turbine on a hybrid tower is designed to stay just below 200 metres. And with construction going on there will soon thousands of such turbines within short time. So if you don't want to count 10-20 different turbine types, each with hundrets of turbines built, then such a list doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to have a article List of the fastest cars and then have thousands of Ferrari 458 Italias (or a different type of car) listed there either. Wind turbines aren't some kind of individual buildings or something like that, they are industry products build in mass production. Andol (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor who cannot comprehend English. Show me where in my nomination that I attacked the article for being authored by a clutch of unregistered IP addresses? The only reference to unregistered IP addresses was solely in the justification for not notifying the principal authors - nowhere else. Show me where my criteria for deleting the article included wind turbines blighting the countryside? They do blight the countryside and I may have said so, but nowhere in my proposal was it a justification in itself for deletion. 86.162.113.26 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of tallest wind turbines, as per Haikon's suggestion. The things that are of significance can that way be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aibara (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you do to solve the problem that only a very small part of the existing turbines of the range higher than > 180 metres is (and can be) listed here? If you read that list, you would suppose that these turbines are some kind of rare and special turbines, which they are not. But everyone wo reads this article and doesn't know the background would suppose these are special turbines. Do you really want that? In the whole list, there are exactly THREE special turbines, the two Nowy Tomyśl Wind Turbines with 210 metres and the single Fuhrländer Wind Turbine Laasow with 205 metres. Every other turbine is a turbine made in serial production. And don't underestimate the sheer number of wind turbines built. Every year about 40.000 MW of wind energy capacity are newly installed, so this means, there are roughly 20.000 to 25.000 new wind turbines every year. If just 10 % of them are tall low wind turbines, you have to add 2000 to 2500 turbines in that list. Every year. Nobody can do this. And it wouldn't make sense either. Andol (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we already have a list of large wind power stations, which to which unique wind turbines like the tallest or most powerful can be added. This article is the equivalent of a List of steam turbines or List of hydroelectric turbines. Industry catalogs belong in industrial sources. If there is a community of turbine-spotters like there are planespotters or trainspotters, then perhaps a wikia project would be better suited. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:29, 23 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Taylor (public servant)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (The Cyclopedia of New Zealand is vanity publishing). One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article manages the absolute bare minimum necessary to avoid A7, but nowhere near what is needed to support notable BLP.--Talain (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty obviously non-notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. It's a hard name to search for (e.g. there's a NZ rugby player with the same name) but he was only ever a senior official in a regional tax department, which is nothing like a notable position. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 15 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Garner[edit]

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

Not notable. No sign of significant roles in multiple notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. This article also appears to be a very close paraphrasing of this source so maybe it should be deleted as a copyright violation. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable run-of-the-mill actor. Stage actors get a lot less press than movie or TV actors, especially in small markets. His agent's page[9] suggests he hasn't received wide press attention. He's not originated any significant roles or won any important awards. Although there are published interviews[10], something that's purely a transcribed interview doesn't count for WP:GNG. Presumption must be that he's not out of the ordinary and not the subject of significant critical comment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:00, 15 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Brajkovic[edit]

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

Not notable. He has played for Croatia [11] but They are not a High Performance Union and it wasn't in the men's rugby world cup finals. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NRU (relevant sportsperson notability guideline) and no evidence of significant press coverage (even searching purely for Croatian sources gives nothing beyond teamsheets). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Colapeninsula. 23 editor (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no apparent proof of standalone notability. I could only find a smattering of mentions on a couple of Croatian rugby club web sites, a listing on rugbyworldcup.com about 2014 European Nations Cup - Division 2A which in turn doesn't have a Wikipedia article, and a single mainstream media article in Slobodna Dalmacija that briefly mentions that he joined the national team for the first time in 2010. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: he is a member of the Croation national Rugby team.Rick570 (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Sufficiently identical to the previous version. Jujutacular (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Hawkins (author)[edit]

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

This article is a relisting of article David R. Hawkins which has been deleted 5 times previously and salted. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is lacking in claim to notability and barely referenced though with a stack of External Links to articles in what do not look like WP:RS. Without being able to see the name-variant article deleted through AfD in September 2012, this seems unlikely to be a significant improvement on it. I have also tagged the present version as CSD G4. AllyD (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last version contained the description "disaccredited and closed (1997, 2000)" against the awarder of the PhD (and references for this), but didn't mention Orthomolecular psychiatry. It also contained a longer list of (mostly self-published) books. In neither version do I consider the references (barring the disaccrediting ones) reliable and independent. Fringe stuff can sometimes be notable, but I can't see any signs here. There have been five previous articles with restorations. Peridon (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to G4, to my mind that's a moot point. The essence of the article is the same, but the trappings differ. Peridon (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:27, 14 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fang Zong-ao[edit]

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

Article is a mess, stylistically and content-wise. The person does appear to be verifiably notable, but the Chinese Wikipedia article provides even less information than this messy article, and therefore there is no path to "clean up by translation." I don't think the current article is salvageable as such. I would suggest Delete (and hope that it would eventually to be rewritten properly, by someone who is knowledgeable in the subject — although that's not going to be me, as I am not an expert in that era of Chinese history). Nlu (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. It appears that the article was originally created, and most of the content written, by a grandson of the subject, and therefore also has conflict of interest problems. This, again, I think, militates toward deleting (and hopefully, at some point, someone else starting over). --Nlu (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is a mess, but that's not a reason for deletion. COI problems are also not a valid reason for deletion, tag the article with a COI template instead. Brief reading through this suggests two likely notability passes: "Acting Minister" is Chinese government, and educational activity. We will probably need Chinese speakers to look at the sources; ping me when more information is found and I'll rereview this discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than sufficient claims to pass for notability. Stylistic problems are only very exceptionally grounds for deletion and this article is comprehensible - the style is similar to that adopted in many biographical dictionaries. We also need to be tolerant of articles written by people about their ancestors. It is often a family connection that prompts contributors to research and write about notable people of the past. This may be a particular issue in the case of examples such as this, for reasons that should be obvious from a glance at his career. To exclude him from WP because he has largely been ignored in China in recent decades would be to introduce a POV bias which is highly undesirable. --AJHingston (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But disagree with AJHingston about introducing POV bias. The guy is a minor official in the Reformed Nanjing Government (aka Japanese puppet). Just because he isn't featured in ZH wiki doesn't represent any bias. ZH wiki is incredibly underdeveloped, I often find more information on a person from Baidu wikis for MUCH more notable people (I had to do considerable research on Chinese ministers between 1914-1950 before). ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:26, 14 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Chislett[edit]

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

Journalist with no real evidence of notability . The three books of his that are in Worldcat have 11, 11, and 4 library holdings http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3A%22David+Chislett%22&qt=results_page DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found two reliable sources but not enough for GNG. Sources: Mahala Magazine, Rolling Stone (South Africa). If more are found I'd consider to change. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:09, 15 November 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) Randykitty (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary McGraw[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability standards, except that he is sometimes interviewed or quoted in his role as a spokesperson for his company. CorporateM (Talk) 13:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noted computer security author. Per WP:AUTHOR #3 "multiple book reviews".

Ben Rothke. "Software Security: Building Security In", Security Management magazine
Radu State. Review of "Software Security: Building Security In by Gary McGraw", ACM Queue 4(7):44 (2006)
"Software Security : Building Security In", Palizine, Issue #18 February 2006
Robert Bruen. "Software Security. Building Security In", Cipher (IEEE magazine), Jan 5, 2006
Alen Prodan. "Exploiting Software: How to Break Code", Help Net Security, 21 July 2004
A. Mariën. Review of "Exploiting Software: How to Break Code by Greg Hoglund and Gary McGraw", ACM Queue, 3(4):60 (2005)
Robert Bruen. "Exploiting Software. How to Break Code", Cipher (IEEE magazine), January 13, 2004
Aleksandar Stancin. "Building Secure Software: How to Avoid Security Problems the Right Way", Help Net Security
Robert Bruen. "Building Secure Software. How to Avoid Security Problems the Right Way", Cipher (IEEE magazine), January 9, 2002
Diomidis Spinellis. "Book review: Building Secure Software: how to Avoid Security Problems the Right Way", ACM Computing Reviews, 43(4):103–104, April 2002.

Will find more on request. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I had just cleaned up a lot of promotion on the Cigital page and only did a quick Google News search. I just did a rough cleanup of some of the promotion and added your sources. CorporateM (Talk) 12:30, 8 November 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, v/r - T P 03:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Green Cardamom. Never heard of him, but seems to be prolific author. scope_creep talk 23:38 20 November 2013 (UTC)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jafar ibn Ali[edit]

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

The sons, followers etc of Ali who died at Karbala (see List of casualties in Hussain's army at the Battle of Karbala), without having done anything independently, are a textbook example of WP:ONEEVENT. For some, including Husayn's six-month baby, there is considerable coverage as they became important figures in the Alid tradition, but most are simply generic "martyrs" of the type "XY followed Husayn and was killed at Karbala by WZ". Constantine ✍ 10:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A casualties list amounts to a historic WP:MEMORIAL marker. Probably best to list them, if at all, in the Battle article. Rarely do we list such things, however I am not familiar enough with Islamic traditions to know how significant keeping a list of martyrs is for encyclopedic purposes. It might come down to cultural differences of what an encyclopedia is for. Maybe this is a case where the Arabic or Farsi Wikipedia has these articles but the English does not. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:38, 9 November 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, v/r - T P 03:32, 14 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Jennings (photojournalist)[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One decent piece in The New Zealand Herald but that's it. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Graeme Jennings is a common name so it's difficult to search. The photographer's website doesn't give much guidance, says "award winning" but not which awards, and no "in the media" section. Very little shows up in a Google search ("Graeme Jennings" site:.nz). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:22, 9 November 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, v/r - T P 03:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:27, 14 November 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) 12:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Graham[edit]

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

Non notable writer. Minor awards and nominations only. The book claimed in the article to be a "best seller is not even in worldcat . The only books of his there are: , Darkroom, in only 74 libraries. Beyond Justice, in 16 DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Even worse, his awards are from USA Book News, a vanity award. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found one PW review.[12] Much else, but under the radar of Wikipedia reliability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:57, 15 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Nuttall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Ward councilor doesn't meet the notability criteria (Note: This appears to be a different guy to the first AfD, so I didn't speedy as recreeation of an AfDed article) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 November 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, v/r - T P 03:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule, for a city councillor to pass WP:POLITICIAN he or she has to serve in a city on the order of Toronto or Montreal (population in the millions, international "world city" fame, etc.) — a councillor in a place the size of Barrie just doesn't clear the bar. Additionally, the writing tone here is really promotional and résumé-like ("has been instrumental in moving the City of Barrie forward" has become one of my new favourite achievements in content-free biographical feelgoodism), so while I can't actually prove anything it's really pinging my WP:COI radar. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Bearcat points out, we do not normally have articles for ward councillors. Indeed, recent precedent is that the most prominent politicians in local government areas with a population of a few hundred thousand or fewer struggle to pass unless they have come to national attention. Mr Nuttall has worked hard at giving himself an internet presence, but the only thing that stands out otherwise is a controversy over his attempts to get himself selected as a candidate for the Ontario elections and that was a local matter. --AJHingston (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's suspicious taht the article doesn't mention claims Nuttall rigged an election[13]. However regardless of POV issues, he doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. One of the article links (to cottagecountrynow.ca) doesn't work for me and the simcoe.com link is a brief mention, so we're limited to coverage in the Barrie Examiner, which is only a single source and hardly the New York Times. Local councillors get routine coverage in local media; that doesn't make them notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:56, 14 November 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt "Skitz" Sanders[edit]

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

Not individually notable. No sourcing on him proper. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At bare minimum, Sanders meets WP:MUSIC bullet 6, and existing sources verify both his eligibility as a member of two or more groups and his prominence in the scene (perhaps also meeting bullet 7). Chubbles (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I dePRODed this article, I'm working on its refs and content. It was poorly referenced and structured but the subject is notable per WP:MUSIC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Shaidar cuebiyar's comments - concur that subject is notable.Dan arndt (talk) 14:29, 15 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Cricket World Cup Semifinal: India v Pakistan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article was originally prodded with the reason, "The lasting significance of this match has not been proven. Coverage at the time of the game was nothing more than routine, and there is nothing here to suggest that the match has transcended into cricket lore." PROD was removed with the reason, "Notable match among arch-rivals in the world cup, had significant coverage, attended by premiers of the nations." As I have noted above, the match did receive coverage, but that coverage was nothing more than routine for a match between India and Pakistan, of which there have been hundreds. This match has not had any lasting consequences, and in the two years since it happened, there has been no indication that it will be looked back on as a cricketing classic. – Pee Jay 01:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary and I fail to see how an event that was watched by roughly a billion people and received extensive media coverage (and I don't just mean scorecard and match report, as is true for every international cricket match) does not easily pass wikipedia's notability bar. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to keeping the article but it really needs to be rewritten and improved – the opening "summary" paragraph is longer than any of the other sections, and the match itself is covered in just two and half lines. We should be wary if every match in future between India and Pakistan in a major cricketing tournament is considered a "notable" event worthy of its own Wikipedia article – that would pretty much confirm PeeJay's assertion that this match was not anything out of the ordinary. Richard3120 (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Would reply to every sentence as mentioned by the nominator. 1) Coverage: What do you mean by routine?? India v/s Pakistan matches once used to be amongst the most watched in any sport game. As the time passed, the significance came down. However, this time, it was a world cup, held in the home country, against the rivalry country and a fight to reach the final match. Coverage and notability was the highest and the references proves that. B) "This match has not had any lasting consequences": Who remembers this match on your daily routine?? Give a chance and rewind some moments of Cricket world cup, this will be remembered as one of the epic matches in the world cup. It was indeed notable, and many officials attended this match, including the Prime Ministers of both the countries and many other politicians, many actors and other top celebrities along with thousands of people in stadium and millions of viewers alone in India. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument to point B is in direct contravention of WP:CRYSTAL. There is no evidence that this match has any lasting notability right now. If that changes, of course the article should be recreated, but at the moment we should not have an article based on the possibility that it might become notable in the future. I'm sure famous people attend Indian cricket matches all the time, I really don't see what was so important about this one. – Pee Jay 13:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To address your query about, "what was so important about this one.", see for example

India-Pakistan World Cup semifinals match goes way beyond cricket Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani are watching the match together in what is being referred to as an example of 'cricket diplomacy.' As Pakistan takes on neighboring India in the semi-finals of cricket’s World Cup today, much more is at stake than just bragging rights for the billion fans expected to tune in. Pakistan’s cricketers have not played a match in India since the Mumbai attacks in 2008, which Pakistani officials have admitted were partly planned on their soil. Dialogue between the two nations resumed only last month, and the countries remain locked in a bitter dispute over the Himalayan territory of Kashmir, over which they have fought three wars. For something approaching a comparison, think: the United States vs. the Soviet Union in the 1980 Winter Olympics ice hockey match dubbed “Miracle on Ice.”

An encounter to stop a subcontinent Interest is at fever pitch across the region. India's parliament is shutting up shop at 2.30 pm. A large screen has been erected in the halls of debate. Mumbai's taxi drivers are taking the day off. Companies are asking their employers to arrive at 7am, promising to stop work in time for the first ball. They, too, have put up screens in offices and on factory floors. Otherwise no one would turn up for work. The Melbourne Cup might stop a nation. India versus Pakistan in the World Cup stops a subcontinent.

See also, the Guardian, and the New York Times on the topic. (I am not even bothering to quote media from India and Pakistan). If after reading these links you are convinced of the match's notability, I'd suggest withdrawing the nomination. If not, we can wait for others to weigh in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If the match itself was really that historically significant, then that needs to be made clear in the text. To be honest, all I'm seeing is an overblown extention to the India–Pakistan relations article. Perhaps there needs to be a merger here. – PeeJay 15:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merge to what? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        To India–Pakistan relations, of course. – Pee Jay 12:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Won't it be odd to write that 3 people died of shock after Pakistan lost the match; and that Tendulkar nearly missed getting out multiple times in the Indo-pak relations article? Coz that has nothing to do with diplomatic relationship. Also the huge viewership count would make no sense in that article. I suppose anything that 150 million people worldwide decided to watch is worth some bytes on Wikipedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        There are plenty of events that have reached similar audiences yet don't have articles on Wikipedia. Tendulkar nearly getting out is irrelevant to the reason why this match is notable (if it is notable at all); people dying of shock at the result isn't relevant either. The thing this match might be notable for is that it helped bring India and Pakistan closer together in the wake of the Mumbai bombings; anything else is just fluff. – Pee Jay 16:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but concur with PeeJay's comments the article does seem to need a bit more on the context to fully evidence its significance. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Notability is unquestionable. Fixing the article is a separate unrelated issue, AFD is not Cleanup. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:56, 21 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Athens Ohio Halloween Block Party[edit]

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

Local event--absurd detail--local references DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Since the topic passes WP:GNG, and also because the article has potential for a possible merge. As a comparison, if this was a Halloween block party in NYC that received significant coverage in local reliable sources, would NYC coverage be dismissed as local? At the very least, in lieu of deletion, information from this article could be merged to Athens, Ohio, which only has two sentences about this event. Also, the topic has received some national news coverage: [14], [15], [16], Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of independent coverage. You can expect to have local coverage for this sort of thing too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:30, 14 November 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. KTC (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthin Craft Centre[edit]

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

Local centre with only local references DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep - though the BBC news source is indeed local-ish, the architecture of the new building has attracted a great deal of publicity and recognition - for example winning the Dewi-Prys Thomas Prize 2009 [17], shortlisted for the Art Fund Prize 2009 [18], singled out by the Welsh Government's Design Commission for Wales [19] and profiled in at least one of the architectural magazines [20] and a 2010 book [21]. Sionk (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Sionk above, which architecturally amounts to a strong keep! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly 'keep'. Sometimes I'm cagey about being too much swayed by my interest in modern architecture. Sionk (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 14 November 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al (Allen) Schwartz[edit]

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

Autobiographical article with no references except IMDb. In a Google News Archive search I found many mentions of his work as a producer, but nothing substantial. Pretty much all of the biographical information is unverified Original Research. I believe he does not meet our notability standards. MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - One Primetime and 3 Daytime Emmy Award nominations is good enough for inclusion even if the nominations were shared as "Producers" rarely get singular nominations..--Stemoc (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sourced. Although the subject may have the awards cited by Stemoc, they are not attributed to reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Move to Al Schwartz (producer), strip out the cruft. one, two,three (full), four, five, six (Schwartz named to the board of Chicago's Museum of Broadcast Communications), seven (full), [22], etc. Information about his Doublemint Twin wife Jayne: [23][24]. -- Jreferee (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, some of those sources look promising. And I did find a listing for an Al Schwartz, "also known as Harry Tessi", married to Jayne Boyd; this must be our subject. (There are multiple Al Schwartzes listed at that site.) It lists him with three daytime and one primetime Emmy nominations.[25] Maybe we can clean up this article. I have been contacted by the subject asking for help; if the article can be fixed I will fix it and withdraw the nomination. (Not going that far at this point.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This subject passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include: ~~[26]~~, [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta be careful. Some of those sources are for the earlier Al Schwartz, who was also a writer and producer, but died in 1988.[32] --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I've struck one of the sources in my !vote. After a careful review, the remaining sources appear to be about this subject. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Wow, great cleanup job, Jreferee! Still need to get the Emmys into the lead, and add additional references like those you supplied above, but there is no question at this point that he is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question How should it be renamed? The current format is not acceptable. ~~The trouble with adding (producer) is that the earlier Al Schwartz (1910-1988) was also a producer as well as a writer.~~ Any thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move Al (Allen) Schwartz to Al Schwartz (producer), move Al Schwartz to Al Schwartz (writer) and make Al Schwartz a DAB page having

~~A. R. Schwartz (not sure if A means "Al". need to confirm)~~ Turns out his name was Aaron
Al Schwartz (producer)
Al Schwartz (writer)
Alan R. Schwartz, lawyer
Alan Schwartz, executive
Albert Schwartz, swimmer
Allen G. Schwartz, judge
Aloysius Schwartz, priest
Alvin Schwartz (children's author)
Alvin Schwartz (comics)
make Alvin Schwartz DAB page redirect to Al Schwartz DAB

Link to Schwartz (surname) from DAB page Al Schwartz. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is a good plan. I did a little more research and found that the earlier Al Schwartz was primarily a screenwriter and only occasionally a producer or director - whereas the current subject was almost entirely a producer. (I added info to the earlier guy's article to make that clearer.) So these designations are accurate and I support them. --MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out the earlier Al Schwartz (the writer) was named Albert and the current subject (the producer) is named Allen. We could make those the article titles, but I don't think it would be a helpful identification since both were universally known as Al. Besides, there is already an article about another Albert Schwartz. Those Schwartzes sure are notable! --MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Nauru relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. there is no real notable aspect to these relations except diplomatic recognition (which does not confer automatic notability). having non resident ambassadors or visa free travel is common place. the only source talks about planting a tree. most countries have very little relations with Nauru given it is so small. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Nauru is one of the closest allies of Israel, and as far as Nauru diplomacy goes the relationship with Israel is certainly important and notable, see http://books.google.com/books?id=vNb5VkyxDlYC&pg=PR18 . There is plenty of coverage on Nauru's actions in the UN in regards to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some additional links: [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. --Soman (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Several of the sources provided by User:Soman demonstrate that this topic passes Wikipedia's notability test. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two have full diplomatic relations at Ambassadorial Level, that is notable enough on it's own. Nauru always supports Israel at the United Nations General Assembly and always votes in Israel's favour on Israel-Palestine related issues. Nauru is a key ally of Israel at the UN. Why do island nations like Palau and Nauru vote with Israel at the U.N.? Israeli aid has something to do with it. Also Soman's sources prove the nomination for deletion wrong. IJA (talk) 09:44, 14 November 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.

^ "Kylie Minogue diagnosed with breast cancer". Retrieved 2013-11-14.

[1] "Kylie Minogue diagnosed with breast cancer". Retrieved 2013-11-14.

[1]