Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 November	23 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 merge to Mount Holyoke College. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of the residence halls at Mount Holyoke College[edit]

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

Delete. Obscure; not notable Kbabej (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mount Holyoke College. SarahStierch (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - Appears to be almost entirely backed up by primary sources, though there may be some content mergable to Mount Holyoke College. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Appears to be 90% links to the college's web site and therefore non-notable and not worthy of a stand alone article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 29 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) 02:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hilary Doctrine[edit]

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

An essay about a speech and an article about the speech. It's not an encyclopedia article, and I don't think it soon could be, unless it gains some significant scholarly attention. ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. As a side note, Clinton's first name is Hillary, not Hilary. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely original research, WP:NOT#ESSAY. Alex^{discussion ★} 07:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a couple of mainstream media articles about the "Hillary Doctrine" but while some of them mention this particular speech and its context, others use the term differently. So I don't think there's an established "Hillary Doctrine", which makes this WP:OR at best, and the contents themselves are about the speech, which doesn't meet GNG either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as non-notable neologism. There is no "Hilary doctrine" (sic.) outside of the original hook of some journalist selling a story to The Atlantic magazine. The speech itself was not a watershed worthy of encyclopedic coverage, per WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carrite. Even if it did exist, a better title would be the Clinton doctrine. Bearian (talk) 21:23, 25 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) 02:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of USA Today major-league baseball awards[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of independent coverage. This article is misleading: it is about USA Today's votes on third-party baseball awards, not actual USA Today issued awards. The newspaper's voting history for these awards is not notable. —Bagumba (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless this is the paper's representative in the BBWAA's individual vote, this is just a non-notable third-party opinion. Nate • (chatter) 20:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not actual awards; simply the newspaper's opinion on who should win the awards. Since it's not issued by USA Today itself, delete. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Carries no more weight than a particular writer's vote p b p 01:30, 29 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) 04:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murderball[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The very simple solution here is to delete this page so that Murderball (film) can be moved to this title. A hatnote to Wheelchair rugby is probably not even necessary since it's linked in the first line of the film article. Compare to Racialism, which was a very clumsy dab linking to Racism and Racialism (racial categorization) until I PRODded it to move the latter there. In this case, the only other items refer to possibly WP:MADEUP games that aren't mentioned at their target articles, so they're poor dab listings anyway. It's essentially a WP:TWODABS situation.

I would also not object to redirecting this title to Wheelchair rugby with a hatnote to Murderball (film). --BDD (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep

I have no idea where murderball came from and whether it's also an able-bodied tag game. But what we do clearly have here are at least two notable topics: wheelchair rugby and a film about the same subject. Both of these are notable beyond any credible challenge. So we need to do some disambiguation.

Yes, we could rearrange the pages as described and do it all with hatnotes. For only two topics, that would possibly be "simpler" _{(and remember that those servers are running out of bytes)}. However Murderball, the name location for the primary topic, would now point to what is obviously the secondary topic, the derivative film. The primary topic, the game itself, vanishes entirely except for a non-obvious piped link. Remember that we have to name articles to not only work as stand-alone names, but also to make for easily embeddable links. This is why we usually favour Murderball (disambiguation) and leave Murderball cleanly for, what is in this case obviously, the primary.

If we also have two additional related topics (I don't know, I don't know any able-bodied murderball players), then hatnotes fall to pieces.

Obviously these articles could have been constructed with hatnotes. Possibly that might even have been usefully simpler. However where we are now is that we have a disambig. It's a useful disambig with as much claim as anything to be the best way to structure things. So why on earth create work to remove it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that we would list murderball players on such a dab or hatnote anyway, any more than we would include famous footballers at Football (disambiguation) or in a hatnote (This article is about football. For famous football players, see Cristiano Ronaldo, Joe Montana...). --BDD (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I really don't understand the purpose of this PROD or AfD. There are clearly two notables, and several other "maybe's". Removing this disambig serves no useful purpose, while at the same time making work both now and in the future if someone demonstrates NOTE on any of the other definitions. As one that played murderball in class in school, I suspect demonstrating NOTE will be trivial on that one anyway. Can we please stop putting effort into removing things and spend that on making new content instead? We're here to write an encyclopedia, not deconstruct one. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, especially that last part. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took longer than I though, almost one whole minute: here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That only indicates "murderball" is an alternative name for Dodgeball (I've never heard of that, but ok). --BDD (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we should understand here is that when a reader ends up on a dab page, that usually indicates a failure on our part. WP:TWODABS recognizes this. If we really think these children's games are important enough to mention on a dab despite not being mentioned in their target articles—i.e., if we want to throw MOS:DABMENTION right out the window—then we could at least move to Murderball (disambiguation) and name a primary topic. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get where you're coming from but what's the "primary" topic here? The colloquial name for the sport or the film about the sport that used its colloquial name? Tough call. In the absence of an obvious primary topic, a disambig (even with only two topics) isn't a huge issue, surely? Yeah, it might be theoretically contrary to the TWODABS guideline but... meh. If it helps, we played dodgeball at school (in Australia) and called it "murderball" until a bunch of guys showed up and played an exhibition game of wheelchair rugby and showed us what "real murderball" was. Crazy stuff. Sure, I don't have a source for that colloquialism either, but we're trying to help readers find what they're looking for. Stalwart111 23:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the two "maybes" due to lack of a source for either. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added another entry to a character named Murderball in a film so this is no longer a TWODAB scenario. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and I added one based on this source and the Swedish variation, Killerball. With four variations and possible search targets I'm now quite convinced this should be kept. Wouldn't strongly object to it being moved to Murderball (disambiguation) to that Murderball can redirect to Wheelchair rugby. Stalwart111 00:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two entries with articles, one entry which meets [[MOS:DABMENTION] and valid see also. Boleyn (talk) 13:50, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Swain[edit]

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

Not notable. Her only claim to fame is serving as the medical consultant on a reality show. Unreferenced since 2009. I found nothing but passing mentions at Google News Archive. MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never heard of the show and can't judge if the role is significant for ACTOR purposes without reliable sources that provide context so fails GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:43, 15 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, KTC (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about her. This passing mention is the best source I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 02:29, 28 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 merge to University of Debrecen. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debrecen University Anatomy Scandal[edit]

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

This appears to be a minor scandal that received coverage for only about two weeks. Fails WP:EVENT because of the short duration of coverage. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

In lieu of deletion, merge and redirect to University of Debrecen, where it is currently not mentioned but should be. --MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 14 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, KTC (talk) 20:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 09:17, 25 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 no consensus. No predjudice against speedy-renomination. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Clough[edit]

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

Article is incredibly non-neutral and promotional, as well as the subject is only "notable" for 1 event. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 01:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2010. This is an appropriate outcome for losing candidates for national office WP:POLOUTCOMES. --Enos733 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite. The article needs to have Clough's 2012 election results added in, and information about his term as chair of the Franklin County Democrats and a candidate for Chair of the Washington State Democrats needs to be there, too. In terms of Eastern Washington Democrats Clough is one of the big names, which I realize is a big fish: small pond problem. RyanGrant (talk) 19:13, 23 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 03:04, 14 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, KTC (talk) 20:37, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nanyuki cottage hospital[edit]

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

Fails GNG, no sources, written like a promotion (possibly copied from website). Alex^{discussion ★} 17:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is badly written (it doesn't even say the place is in Kenya), but that's a reason for improvement, not deletion. The hospital is important enough to get a lot of mentions in news articles [1] - granted, mentions are not significant coverage, but taken together they do suggest a fairly high profile for this hospital. Give me a few minutes and let me see if I can make a sourced Wikipedia entry out of this mess. --MelanieN (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep OK, it is now a proper Wikipedia article. I admit its notability may be weak, but I'm inclined to give in the benefit of the doubt considering the lack of online-available news sources from Kenya. --MelanieN (talk) 22:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If kept it should be moved to Nanyuki Cottage Hospital - with capital letters. Let's not do it while the AfD is open; it makes things hard for the closing administrator. --MelanieN (talk) 22:50, 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, v/r - T P 03:09, 14 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, KTC (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 25 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) 04:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terminus (typeface)[edit]

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

I do not believe this typeface meets the Wikipedia definitions for inclusion, due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from third parties. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article looks nice but does not meet WP:N. No assertion of notability is made and the coverage which can be verified is trivial mention in lists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:15, 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 03:11, 14 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, KTC (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This typeface has some notability, showing up on a number of top-ten lists of monospace/programmer/CLI fonts. But in all cases, these lists were from blogs, which are considered unreliable. I could not find any reliable secondary sources discussing this typeface in depth. Unfortunately, the topic fails notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. --Mark viking (talk) 22:55, 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 no consensus. Feel free to renominate, if so desired. SarahStierch (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Habern[edit]

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

Unsure what to do with this article, therefore I am seeking consensus here. Habern was a highly-recruited football player out of high school, and had a promising career at Oklahoma that was cut short by injuries. He retired before playing in the NFL. I wonder now, whether he is notable or not per WP:ATHLETE. (On a sidenote, that article's creator Habe35 is a single-purpose account, and might be in a conflict of interest.) bender235 (talk) 16:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep passes WP:GNG with widespread news coverage. For example, Dallas Morning News, "OU’s Ben Habern has what it takes to make wise NFL decision"; ESPN, "Jamell Fleming, Ben Habern to return"; and USA Today, "OU's Habern, Lewis on preseason watch lists" are just three quick examples.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH.204.126.132.231 (talk) 23:15, 12 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 03:35, 14 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, KTC (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Secret ^account 15:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while his college athletic career may be over, he did generate enough coverage to pass the GNG while he was playing and especially as a result of his career-ending injury:1, 2, 3. As notability is not temporary, the end of his career does not negate the coverage he generated during (or even at the end of) it. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying he's notable because of the coverage he got for his injury sounds like BLP1E to me.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the comment is "he did generate enough coverage to pass the GNG while he was playing and especially as a result of his career-ending injury" so there's more than one event.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thank you, Paul. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:20, 26 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) 02:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Animation[edit]

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

Previously deleted article that has held a notability tag since 2011. I fear that it might just fail Wikipedia's long standing general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The only independent ref I see in the article is from Axiom Magazine, which doesn't seem notable. Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (web) otherwise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 14 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, KTC (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and as per previous deletion discussion. Fails WP:WEB. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:51, 29 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) 07:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Mahony[edit]

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

Not notable. Small district councilor only. Lacks any depth of 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) 07:33, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 11:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep: important early lawyer in Auckland; discussed in Portrait of a Profession (standard history of the new Zealand legal profession), edited by Lord Cook.Rick570 (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important according to who? Does the book mention or discuss him? What does that one page say? What other sources are there? duffbeerforme (talk) 02:38, 21 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, KTC (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Made contribution to early legal history of New Zealand and Auckland. Well-referenced to reputable source.Rick570 (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote twice. Just making a contribution does not make him notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails GNG, fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:18, 26 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Patterson (Auckland politician)[edit]

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

Not notable. Local counciller only. Lacks any depth of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. (The Cyclopedia of New Zealand : Auckland Provincial District 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) 07:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak oppose He was more than just a city councillor. The Auckland Star didn't just publish an obituary for anybody. Schwede 66 07:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep member of city council, political figure in colonial Auckland, discussed in the standard history of local government in Auckland, Bush (cited).Rick570 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That book is by the council about the council, not exactly independent. Is he discussed or mentioned? Is he just listed as a council member? Looking at the contents it appears those pages are in the appendix. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The references in Bush are just listings of his terms served and numbers of votes received in elections. He doesn't appear in the book's index so was presumably not considered more than one of many council members.-gadfium 22:21, 23 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, KTC (talk) 20:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was a Auckland City Councillor; is referenced to the Standard history of the council and took part in all council decisions during his term.Rick570 (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote twice. Just being a councillor doesn't make him notable. The history just lists him as being a councillor, no depth of coverage. How do you know he took part in all council decisions? duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite being one of a slew of articles, this one has some sources, particularly in papers past, including things such as this and this. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

neither provide any depth of coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:07, 25 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) 07:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmoor Badgers Protection League[edit]

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

clearly fails WP:ORG. Marked for notability 3.5 years ago. No significant sourcing. LibStar (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, advocacy group with 2 decades of history, turns up in some book searches. For example http://books.google.com/books?id=9G0TAQAAMAAJ p. 47; "A massive protest was organised resulting in the formation of the Dartmoor Badgers Protection League (DBPL),..." --Soman (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

one 1 line mention in a book is hardly significant coverage. If it existed for 20 years you'd expect lots of coverage. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I see there are several mentions of it on the Internet. One says that it became defunct in 2002. The others seem to be mere blogs. I suspect that this was a very small group of enthusiasts, and probably NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 14 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, KTC (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. —me_and 14:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. A passing reference in 1 book and some blogs may prove its existence, not notability. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:54, 29 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) 02:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Order (James Rollins)[edit]

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

This novel is more than adequately covered within the author's article, James Rollins and is no more notable than any of his other work. It does not justify its own free-standing article. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 22:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the author's article. It seems to fail WP:NBOOK and the article is no better than a placeholder. bobrayner (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:24, 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) 15:16, 14 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, KTC (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and Bobrayner. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:56, 29 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Rosholt[edit]

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

Not notable - has not even has one top tier fight much less the 3 required. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is finishing second at the NCAA national championships enough to show notability? Mdtemp (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although he is not notable as an MMA fighter (at least not yet), I think 3 top four finishes at the NCAA national wrestling championships is enough to make a case for meeting WP:MANOTE and/or WP:NCOLLATH. Papaursa (talk) 04:36, 17 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, KTC (talk) 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NCOLLATH for his accomplishments wrestling at Oklahoma State, as well as WP:NHSPHSATH for earning The Dave Schultz High School Excellence Award from the National Wrestling Hall of Fame in 2001

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Liu Hong Mei[edit]

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

Not notable murder. Coverage is all run-of-the-mill. WP is not crime blotter. WP:LASTING not satisfied. Beerest 2 talk 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 20:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sort of lasting coverage comes from the "10 most gruesome murders", and that's only a couple sentences and doesn't show a long term effect at all. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - neither the circumstances of the murder nor the means of disposal of the corpse are particularly unusual, and it has no lasting significance. --AJHingston (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a compendium of true crime stories or accounts of isolated awful events covered by newspapers as part of their daily business. My condolences to the family and friends of the victim. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 25 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 to Larry Santos#Album discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mornin' Sun[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for an album. A conflict of interest may be behind the choice to post this article; I note the connection User:Maitlandplace has drawn in a couple of articles created by that user with a Laurie Maitland, and Laurie Maitland's professional connection, attested on the web, with Larry Santos. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 15 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, KTC (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable album. Koala15 (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Larry Santos#Album discography. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Larry Santos#Album discography as per above. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:57, 29 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) 03:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Darren Ng[edit]

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

A murder of questionable notability. Beerest 2 talk 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 20:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Does not seem to satisfy WP:LASTING. Beerest 2 talk 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC) 20:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia does not, and cannot, have an article on every death that has happened in a gang fight. --AJHingston (talk) 10:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a compendium of true crime stories or accounts of awful isolated events covered in the course of normal business by newspapers. My condolences to the family and friends of the victim. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for both reasons given by AJHingston and Carrite. Sadly, there are many gang murders around the world, and while true, they are not all notable crimes. I would change my mind if evidence appeared that this murder caused the destruction of the gang, or resulted in a new penal law, or the family of the victim created a foundation to prevent such crimes. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 25 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) 03:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chiller (typeface)[edit]

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

Not a notable typeface. I found no significant coverage, and there is nothing which suggests a typeface is automatically notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find lots of mentions of the typeface, but nothing that would be considered signficant coverage. See [2], [3], [4] for some examples of the coverage that I could find. - Whpq (talk) 17:32, 19 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, KTC (talk) 20:07, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluid Friction Comics[edit]

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

Non-notable company. No significant coverage from independent sources. Zanhe (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This international company has actually received quite a bit of English coverage including this, Google News search (seven articles including one in Chinese) and from MTV and Variety. Unfortunately, the MTV and Variety coverage was the plans for a major movie which I'm assuming did not go as planned because it didn't seem there was any more news about it or Fluid Friction themselves. The company is international by having connections in the UK and China and apparently introduced in India as well which explains the amount of coverage. For the film adaption, I found additional news articles here (South China Morning Post), here (Coventry Telegraph), forbidden examiner.com link, here (Digital Spy UK) and here (Time Out Hong Kong). So, they got alot of coverage in the beginning for introducing DevaShard and even more for the major film adaption...and that's it. Another shot of notability was having British comic artist Simon Bisley on their team but that's pretty much it for that too. In addition, it seems DevaShard was their only and best known character. Not much for an article past all this. It seems the DevaShard website works but not the Fluid Friction website so Fluid Friction may have vanished hence the presumably cancelled movie and further production. I'm also not finding much for the "began operations in October 2006". No prejudice towards userfying or a future article should they return. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 13 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, KTC (talk) 20:00, 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. L Faraone 18:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen J. Crothers[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Fails WP:PROF and I cannot find any claim of notability that does not violate WP:FRINGE. He is just someone who doesn't believe in relativity, and that is not enough to justify a biography on Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity is not dogma to be believed, it is an incomplete theory to be investigated. No one has ever claimed it to be a ToE or GUT and theories exist to be challenged.
Crothers is a public figure who has made many public speeches and appearances and served as a reviewer for journals such as Progress in Physics. He is often cited in Cosmology debates as many of the world's foremost experts have personally responded to his criticisms revealing an intriguing discussion regarding the topic. I see no reason that a page about him should be deleted when it serves to inform those who may find themselves interested in the debate regarding Black Holes in which the world's most celebrated advocates of Black Hole theory have personally engaged.

Of course General Relativity will collapse against the reality of the real world - because it is an incomplete model - not a GUT or ToE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.16.140.31 (talk • contribs) — 199.16.140.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not sure yet~~ Mind made up Delete. Pure fringery with no reliable sources. A GS h-index of 10 (mostly in ~~non-mainstream~~ fringe publications) marginal for maths, low for physics. Fringers can be notable but this one isn't. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete appears to be massively WP:FRINGE, and fails WP:PROF. "independent researcher" = no university will give him a job. His achievements appear so far to be involved with "fringe" conferences, publishing "fringe" papers, etc. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Xxanthippe (talk · contribs) - please don't remove my vote Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that: a hiccup. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The Stephen Crothers entry involves a significant challenge to prevailing cosmological views regarding scientific issues about black holes. Crothers has peer reviewed papers that have not been scientifically refuted. It seems to me that removing this entry in the absence of an objective refutation (which I don't think will be forthcoming) would amount to a new and dangerous form of censorship, given the context of the Wikipedia system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.69.4 (talk) 05:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC) — 71.8.69.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just having peer reviewed papers does not make him (or his theory) notable, many of those papers have been in the same journal that 199.16 claims Crothers peer reviewed. If nobody has refuted them, it may just mean that they realise Crothers does not understand what he is talking about, however this by Dr Jason Sharples does refute the work of Crothers by claiming Crothers does not understand the maths he is using.Martin451 21:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sharples paper has an insight on the issue raised by Crothers that Newtonian escape velocity was injected into the Schwarzschild black hole solution: “Indeed, by imposing the additional boundary condition AT INFINITY, that THE SOLUTION BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PREDICTIONS OF NEWTONIAN GRAVITATIONAL THEORY, it is found that the constant α = 2m, where m is the mass at the origin.” (Emphasis added.) So relativistic space-time curvature needs to be rescued by Newton’s action at a distance? How does this strategy, even if it could win a “battle,” so to speak, against Crothers, not loose the war? Regarding the paper’s claims to invalidate Crothers’ work on other issues, it says: “A coordinate system is defined as a mapping φ (with certain properties) from an open set U of a topological space onto an open set φ(U) of Euclidean space.” However, it says nothing about the axiomatic validity of the coordinates necessary to the mapping vis-a-vis that Euclidean space. So even though, as the paper states, “[T]he metric length does not depend on the particular coordinate expression (line-element) representing the metric,” it does not follow that it does not depend on the foundational axiomatic validity. So how does the paper validly conclude: “The claims [of Crothers] appear to arise from a lack of understanding of the notions of coordinate transformation and metric (coordinate) extension,” when the paper says nothing about the role of the axiomatic foundational validity of the pertinent coordinate systems? And to the point for the topic of this discussion: is this a question to be answered behind the scenes at Wikipedia? --Reid Barnes (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)— Reid Barnes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Proponents of the subject's work should understand that physics is an experimental science. New theories are accepted as valuable only if they fit with observation better than old theories. And I might add that the debate here has nothing to do with whether the subject's theories are right or wrong. We only consider if they have been sufficiently noted. And they haven't. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

re: Reid Barnes, the claim from the IP was that Crothers has not been refuted, but the Shaples paper says otherwise. Wikipedia is not here to decide who is right, but what is notable, i.e. being discussed in third party literature.Martin451 23:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the contention that Newtonian escape velocity was inserted into the Hilbert solution has been refuted. Other matters may have been disputed, but that is not the same as refuted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reid Barnes (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — Reid Barnes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Off topic. The equations of general relativity are differential equations. In order to solve them one needs to impose boundary conditions. The boundary conditions should agree with observation, -Newtonian gravitation in flat space-time. See, for example: R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, "Coordinate Invariance and Energy Expressions in General Relativity," Phys. Rev. 122 (3), 997-1006 (1961). (needless to say this side-comment has no bearing on the notability of the BLP). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The different comments by the various SPAs here have convinced me that there is no notability here: Delete. --Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe that for fringe subjects we need coverage in mainstream reliable sources (not just fringe sources) in order to get a properly neutral evaluation of their fringe theories. We don't have such sources in this case and there is no evidence they exist elsewhere. So there's nothing to use as the basis for an acceptable article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject's views of his critics can be found here.[5] I admire the patience and forbearance of the latter.Xxanthippe (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This biography seems to be a trojan horse for the pushing of novel scientific interpretations. I rather doubt we have a pass under the SNG low bar for academics. A quick Google shows 80,000 hits but through six pages nothing counting to GNG. I'm dubious. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Coatrack and WP:Fringe. Crothers views do not seem to have gained widespread acceptance or even discussion. Quote from the article "and in years of debate I have never seen anyone able to refute him." yet given [6] (mentioned by Xxanthippe above) is it any wonder he has not been successfully challenged.Martin451 21:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain The article provides information about a theory held by an Australian Professor. If the information correctly describes his theory, regardless of whether the theory is correct or not, then the entry is a valid one and should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatRocket (talk • contribs) 08:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — CatRocket (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It does not matter whether the theory is right or wrong, wikipedia has an article on Invisible Pink Unicorn. The point is notability. A handful of people talking about the theory is not enough to warrant an article for something like this.Martin451 23:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it amounts to a count of people now? Lets count the people who are talking about this person? Mr. Crothers does not profess a theory regardless. The argument he levels against his opponents are that A. They can not prove that the Principle of Equivalence and Special Relativity can manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter, and B. Einstein’s pseudo-tensor is not a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols. Mr. Stephen J. Crothers claims that the Black Hole is the Invisible Pink Unicorn of astronomy. [7]Wavyinfinity (talk) 13:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Correctness is irrelevant to our criteria on notability, for which we do not have enough evidence. Dougweller (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stephen J. Crothers is a notable dissident of black hole/big bang cosmology. Notable as he has engaged in public debates outlining the issues and inconsistencies of black hole/big bang cosmology. He has engaged J. Sharples and Tom Bridgman on Tom Bridgman's blog here. [8] Wavyinfinity (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For interested parties involved in this discussion, it has already been made clear of the scientific fraud perpetuated by establishment because of vested interest. A quick outline of this is available on page 71 in this book: [9] "Santilli recommends the filing of class actions in U. S. Federal Court against federal funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy, jointly with representative institutions abusing public funds without proper scientific process."Wavyinfinity (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - And per WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia is not the place to Right great wrongs, (and nor btw, are blogs the usual location for scientific discourse in preference to peer reviewed journals). Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page creator Wavyinfinity cites Sharples and Bridgman for notability, but neither of these people have made it on Wikipedia themselves. This is fringe and not notable. I will also note the page creator, Wavyinfinity, has a history of pushing such topics on Wikipedia which are then reverted or deleted. Full disclaimer: I deleted one such edit myself. 24.218.115.184 (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. The attempt to insert this article in Wikipedia seems to be just an effort to manufacture notability and credibility for the incoherent beliefs of certain fringe advocates. We don't need Wikipedia articles on each and every anti-relativity kook in the world. Admittedly it's possible for a crackpot to be notable (or notorious), but I don't think Crothers has achieved the level of Notable Crackpot. By the way, even if he managed to achieve notability, it would be as a crackpot not a scientist (he clearly has ZERO notability as a scientist), and Wikipedia articles are supposed to focus on the notable aspects of the subject, so the article would have to focus on his crackpotism. But, again, I don't think he is a prominent enough crackpot to warrant an article. At most, maybe a mention in a "Criticisms of Relativity" article.Urgent01 (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: Crothers and his admirers have gotten kicked out of other online venues in the past, such as the old sci.physics.research newsgroup, where they have tried to peddle their nonsense. I hope Wikipedia does not have lower standards than Usenet newsgroups.Urgent01 (talk) 17:20, 30 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) 16:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kęstutis Smirnovas[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - essentially one non-local fight. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has had fights with at least six other notable fighters. IJA (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED and besides most of those were losses and none in top tier fights.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — He meets the minimum requirements of WP:NMMA, with 3 top-tier bouts (for Pride FC, Shooto in Japan and RINGS in Russia). Poison Whiskey 01:57, 14 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, KTC (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 04:57, 24 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 to PokerStars#Live_poker_tours. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Czech-Slovak Poker Tour[edit]

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

I admit this is an field where I am not familiar with the standards, but with only one season and almost no references except database entries, I don't see how this justifies an article. It's already mentioned in the article on its notable sponsor. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PokerStars#Live_poker_tours unless foreign sources prove otherwise. Based on Google News searches #1 and #2 in addition to a browser search, this was probably a one-time thing and it says "as of December 2012, there hasn't been a second season". I don't know about this year, but that's a good three/four years with no activity. I'm not that much of an expert in poker either but, as mentioned, it seems this was a one-time thing that didn't even have a legacy or much news attention. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to say I agree with SwisterTwister. It really doesn't seem very notable. Also, if the result of this discussion is to delete, could this article please be moved to my userspace? Thank you. The Million Rabbit 02:13, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 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, KTC (talk) 19:54, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greteman Group[edit]

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

Promotional article for small advertising agency. Promotional elements include: list of all executives, list of minor charitable contributions, list of non-notable clients, sourcing almost entirely from unreliable PR sources.

Unwisely accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree that it appears to be promotional in nature. Aside from that, the company appears to be fairly prominent in the Wichita area due to the large amount of local coverage. But if the company was truly notable for our purposes here, we'd find more articles in business journals outside of Wichita. Is there a "WichiPedia"?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

As a representative of Greteman Group, we greatly appreciate your feedback. We're working to update our Wikipedia page to address the concerns listed above.

Thank you, Rachel Groene Greteman Group — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.116.146 (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free web hosting service. Please understand that it isn't "your firm's page" but instead a page about your firm. If you work for the firm, there is a strong argument for conflict of interest as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:54, 14 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, KTC (talk) 19:51, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole de Carle London (Luxury lingerie)[edit]

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

Marginally notable article, created by an editor with a possible Conflict of interest, with only one good source I could find online - a single passing mention in The Telegraph. There is also a Daily Mail article about the same photo shoot. In such case, its exposure (pardon the pun) was once last year - in connection with the 2012 Olympics, thus implicating WP:NOT#NEWS. I found nothing reliable from a few different Google searches, but found some Pinterest hits. I am not certain about the reliability of Lingerie Insight as a source. It appears to be spam, but the company itself may be notable. If it is not deleted, then it perhaps ought to be moved or merged into Nichole de Carle Marine, the parent company? Bearian (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have considerable doubts about notability, without (for example) evidence of substantial turnover. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 14 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, KTC (talk) 19:50, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Tilford[edit]

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

Non notable advertising executive, not CEO of anything, nor any other noteworthy accomplishments . The references are not from reliable sources for notability , I wouldn't have accepted this from AfC DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - founded some companies with some industry coverage. Best coverage about Tilford himself is the Lawrence World-Journal article, but a single local interest piece does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 19 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) 19:35, 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 no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vedontakal Vrop[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional opera. No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this construct outside of the fiction from which it's drawn. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Many fictional concepts have wikipedia articles. Created by a respected member of WikiProject Opera, edited by other respected editors. Seems adequate. Worst-case scenario, merge material into Malcolm Bradbury. Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't alleviate the need for there to be reliable sources that discuss this fictional opera in real-world terms. Neither does the status of the article's creator or anyone who edited it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in WP:FICT that supports that something has to be discussed as you describe. GNG can be interpreted in either direction. I see this as an IAR situation, but at the very least, the extensive material should be incorporated into appropriate articles (appears to appear in two novels...hence why I suspect a stand-alone article was created. Montanabw^(talk)

Seriously? It's a bedrock principle of the project that for a subject to be considered notable that there be reliable sources that discuss the subject. GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please offer reliable sources that are independent of the subject that support that this fictional opera is independently notable. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bradbury is a notable novelist, whose work I have never read. If we were dealing with something that featured in one novel, I would suggest merging back to that novel. We cannot easily do that with two novels, unless one is a sequel to the other and we con merge the article on them. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good article, nice idea. Unfortunately the notability criteria for a standalone article is that sources discuss that topic. The sources would be third party (secondary). See WP:GNG. I checked a bit and couldn't find much. ~~Sort of a cart before the horse situation would be better in an article on the book series, which would pass WP:NBOOK #1 if there are multiple book reviews, and add the opera into a section there.~~ Update: I can't support keeping this content anywhere on Wikipedia due to a total lack of sourcing for notability and verification purposes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see some advantage to doing that, and then redirecting the article. That said, I think GNG has wiggle room. Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason to redirect, there are no independent sources. The article fails WP:GNG it has 0 independent sources. Per WP:GNG an article requires multiple independent sources. This article has no independent sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry to come a bit late to this. The normal courtesy is for those proposing deletion to notify the article author(s), but for some reason User:Jerry Pepsi, who seems from his post to be a stickler for the rigid rules, has dispensed with this. Thanks to User:Green Cardamom for letting me know. There are of course plenty of sources for Bradbury's novels and he is without doubt a notable writer by WP standards. Neither I nor anyone else (yet) has written the articles relating to the two works of fiction featuring this opera, and when (and if) they do, it makes more sense for them to refer to this article rather than merge it with either or both. I beleive the article is reasonably well-written and covers its topic adequately. The topic of a fictional work of art is a legitimate one for WP. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post links to sources that offer "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of this fictional opera, as mandated by the project's general notability guidelines? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pp. 96-98.--Smerus (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that would be an apparently non-published student thesis. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 10:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A thesis can be used per WP:RS. This isn't MEDRS. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Published theses may be used as reliable sources. There is no indication that Shodhganga, which is self-described as "a platform for research students to deposit their Ph.D. theses and make it [sic] available to the entire scholarly community in open access", is a publisher or that material deposited there can be considered reliable, since there is no evidence that Shodhganga vets, reviews or otherwise exercises any editorial control over the information housed there. Even if we accept this as unquestionably reliable, which it is not, WP:GNG requires multiple independent reliable sources. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would say merge if it was part of one novel, but now it's in two, and it would be undue detail in the author's article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, difficult to merge. A merge would only preserve content as opposed to just dumping it all. I only offer it as a last-ditch alternative. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you offer reliable sources that significantly cover this fictional opera? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not familiar with this writer, but it's telling that his article doesn't discuss either of the two works in which this opera appears. If they're not particularly significant, why would a plot element be? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. As the article is about the opera, it is of course not about the novels. It is an absolute non sequituur to assume that Bradbury's novels are 'not particularly significant' just because there are no WP articles on them (yet). On this basis, a large proportion of the world's knowledge would be 'not particularly significant'. (See e.g. here for something on Bradbury and 'Rates of Exchange'.)--Smerus (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's a false equlvalency, Clarityfiend, Wp can't be a source for wiki, and this would be far from the first time that a main article totally sucks while a spinoff is quite well done. Apples and oranges. Totally WP:LAME argument. Montanabw^(talk) 21:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It's "about the opera", "not about the novels"? So an opera that only exists in the novels can somehow demonstrate notability by its own ineffably manifest magnificence? Look, ma! No hands (sources)! Clarityfiend (talk) 13:18, 17 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) 19:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I query why this has been relisted? It's been up 10 days, with the last comment a week ago, and there is no consensus to delete. WP:RELIST makes it clear that relisting is not justified simply because there is no consensus. Why prolong the agony? There is no consensus to delete - therefore close the discussion and let the article remain.--Smerus (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 0 sources. This relist was a gift, extra time to find sources, you should be thankful the article wasn't deleted today. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither thankful nor unthankful, and I see no cause to shout. There are three editors in favour of deletion and three in favour of keeping. No consensus. That's it. And by the way the article is indeed sourced, by undisputed primary references to published works. Moreover no opposing editor has offered any source disputing any of the article; i.e. noone is claiming that the article is inaccurate. The issue is whether or not the existing references are sufficient - and there is no consensus on this. It doesn't seem as if any of those contributing to this discussion are likely to change their minds. Thus, as above; there is no consensus to delete - therefore close the discussion and let the article remain.--Smerus (talk) 08:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep !votes all ignore WP:GNG's requirement for multiple independent sources. Those !votes will likely be discarded leaving only a plurality of Delete !votes and thus clear consensus. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your (wishful, maybe) interpretation, as a would-be deleter.--Smerus (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's your (rhetoric, maybe) response to a lack of multiple reliable independent sources as required by WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote and the closing administrator is tasked with weighing the quality of the arguments on both sides as they relate to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The article is nominated for deletion for failing to meet to meet the general notability guideline. To counter that argument, there must be independent secondary reliable sources that offer significant coverage of this subject. You appear to concede that there are no such sources and that the article is reliant on primary material. That is not sufficient to pass GNG. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So says another person who voted for deletion. The person who reopened this has made no comment, perhaps because there is no clear consensus. Montanabw^(talk) 02:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article lacks multiple independent reliable sources per the core notability rule located at WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that. We hear that you said that, we just don't agree that a rigid application of GNG is appropriate here per WP:IAR. There are relatively few sources, but it does not follow that a fairly extensive article should be deleted without any good place to merge the material. Montanabw^(talk) 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are not "relatively few" independent reliable sources. There are no independent reliable sources. IAR (which you're misinterpreting, by the way) is not an excuse for keeping anything and everything and Wikipedia is not anarchy. Nor is WP:ILIKEIT a rationale for keeping an article on a minor fictional subject that has attracted no attention from the outside world. And at its core that is all this whole discussion has been. Those in favor of deleting point out that there are no reliable sources and those who want it kept admit that there are indeed no reliable sources but they like the article anyway. "The person who reopened this", otherwise known as the re-listing administrator, made no comment because that is not what the re-listing admin does. There is crystal clear consensus that this article does not pass GNG; you say so yourself. The "rigidity" of the interpretation of GNG is irrelevant because even under the loosest possible interpretation of it the article still fails. No matter how loose your interpretation of it GNG still requires reliable sources and no reliable sources exist. This article would be an amazing piece of work for a wiki devoted to the works of this author but it is not and cannot be appropriate for Wikipedia. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is equally invalid, Jerry, and IAR is perfectly applicable; there is no BLP violation, no copyvio, no grounds for policy-based deletion, there is only the question of notability, and here, where should the material go? This is a fairly extensive article and doesn't fit cleanly into any other existing article. I suppose we could create a new one on the whole series and then merge this into that -- would that work for you? Montanabw^(talk) 20:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would work for me is editors not creating articles without checking on whether there are independent reliable sources for them. But since that hasn't happened here, what would work for me is for the article be handled per the general notability guideline. I have no idea why you would bring up IDONTLIKEIT since no one has advanced an argument that can reasonably be characterized as such. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Primary sources can confirm facts, but not notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: I just created Slaka (fiction). We could merge this into that new article. No sense pitching and all-but-salting someone's perfectly valid hard work if it can be salvaged somewhere. FWIW, I still oppose deletion, though. Montanabw^(talk) 20:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slaka (fiction) has a single independent source with a passing mention about Slaka. WP:GNG requires multiple sources of significance, not just trivial passing mentions (summarized at WP:42). There's no sense merging to another article with notability problems that was seemingly created just for the purpose to hang this content in (see WP:COATRACK). But the bigger problem is no matter where you merge the content it will be vulnerable to deletion since it still lacks sourcing. Anything unsourced can be deleted from Wikipedia at any time. As previously mentioned, Wikipedia is probably not the best place for this content because it's apparently so difficult to source, other than a sentence or short section in the book article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there don't appear to be independent reliable sources that support the existence of an article on the fictional country either. And WP:EFFORT isn't a valid reason for keeping. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you clearly are insisting that "teh rulz" are "teh rulz." Which is petty, small-minded and really quite silly. For all the bandwidth we are wasting here, you folks who did the nom could have also improved the writer biography, done more independent research, or generally have been part of the solution. So merge it all into the author's article then? Seriously, this appears to have been a very interesting political commentary in its time (maybe you two are too young to remember the Cold War era, but it was a big deal at the time) No solution here and no hope of compromise, then. And frankly, if you really want to take "anything unsourced can be deleted from wikipedia at any time" literally, we would remove half the encyclopedia and certainly almost all the articles on, say, Cricket players from Sri Lanka... sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 17:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As "it was a big deal at the time", I'm happy to change my mind towards keeping this article. Please provide the coverage in reliable sources that attest to this being such a big deal. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Slaka itself is mentioned more often than the opera: Korte 2010, Hammond 2013, Starck 2009 and more about Bradbury's works. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 19:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the soruces you just provided, there's not a single mention of "Vedontakal Vrop". I fail to see how those sources establish your case. -- Whpq (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are sufficient to establish notability for Slaka (fiction). I don't know what Smerus thinks, as I think he's the person who most wants to preserve the opera article, but if a merge saves the opera material, I'm for it. And these sources do well enough.Montanabw^(talk) 02:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is on the notability of Vedontakal Vrop (not Slaka), so providing sources that don't even mention Vedontakal Vrop is not particularly useful. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and abuse of other editors is against "teh rulz". Don't do it again. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement of opinion. So drop that stick and do not attempt to threaten, bully, or intimidate me again. Now, back to the topic. Montanabw^(talk) 02:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other editors "petty, small-minded and really quite silly" is a personal attack, no matter how hard you're now trying to play the victim card. Any perception of bullying or intimidation is entirely in your own mind, but you are expected to remain WP:CIVIL. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Smerus has supplied an independent reliable source (a published PhD thesis); There is no requirement under notability guidelines that such sources be secondary, contrary to the assertion made by Jerry Pepsi. This demonstrates that the imaginary opera has attracted outside notice in itself. It also appears in two of a notable author's notable novels and is significant within its own fictional universe. That is sufficient to allow accurate sourcing of both the content of the opera and commentary about its display of "decadence and excess" as well as a comparison with Russian Ballet - see The Aesthetic of Pluralism (26 June 2010) pp.97-98. When this is kept, that source can be used to extend the article. --RexxS (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, have you actually read the general notability guideline? Notability is established through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Two pages in a single thesis is not significant, there is no evidence that the document depository in which it is located qualifies as reliable, no evidence that the depository exercises any editorial integrity or that being deposited there even constitutes being "published". The importance of the construct within the author's fiction is irrelevant since by definition they are not independent and the notability of the source material cannot impart notability to its own contents. And even if the single source were unquestionable, which it absolutely is not, GNG calls for multiple sources. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With equal respect, have you understood the point of guidelines? They are not a one-size-fits-all recipe for cooking an article, they are are guidelines to help us improve the encyclopedia. Two pages in a thesis is significant, and you're confusing the requirements for reliable sourcing of references with the requirements of coverage for notability; the importance of a construct within a fictional universe is a concern for the viability of the article, rather than just its notability; and "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." I'll leave it you to work out how notability actually is inherited in such cases. I ought to add that your barracking every single person whose opinion differs from yours does nothing to help your argument, so give it a rest. --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to whom I choose as often as I see fit. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says that sources must be reliable, and self published sources are never reliable for determining notability. WP:GNG also requires multiple sources, so it fails on that count as well (and "multiple" doesn't mean two, it means enough to show notability). As for WP:inheritance, there are times when certain historically significant authors get automatic inheritance, they are basically exempt from the notability guidelines, but it's very rare. Some examples include topics on Shakespeare, Dickens. But even there, we have to get consensus for each article should it come up at AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:48, 29 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) 03:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Steadfast Tin Soldier?[edit]

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

Novel that does not meet the notability guidelines for books nor, after a search, is there evidence that it meets the general notability guideline. I could not find any reviews of the novel. Assertions in the article ("it has sold over a thousand copies") are not suggestive of particular notability, either. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have to agree as per nominated. I did a quick search on google, and I could find any mention of the book that this one is refering to the only on I see mentioned is The Steadfast Tin Soldier written by Hans Christian Andersen. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete India newspaper search found 0 hits. Fails WP:BOOK needs multiple book reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 27 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 merge to Sherwood Smith. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sartorias-deles[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Sherwood Smith through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and partial Merge?) to Sherwood Smith (many "What links here" to consider). There's no Wikia site for this author. No obvious place for a merge since it would be out of balance in the author article. Maybe the sub-section "Novels and short stories set in Sartorias-deles" could be copied to the author page with a paragraph or so about the world. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:36, 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into something, but I'm not sure yet what. I have to admit that as much as I love and admire the English and literary value of certain works of Sherwood Smith, they are low in notability due to their lack of widespread popularity. Jennifu and I were the primary architects of the article, but it has sat idle since my last content addition on July 8, 2012. There actually is a wiki for Sherwood Smith, but not on Wikia. It can be found here: [10]. —AltiusBimm (talk) 16:50, 20 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) 19:15, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian de la Campa[edit]

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

I put this up for consideration last month, but nobody chimed in and the discussion was closed as "No Consensus." (Although "No Participation" would have been more accurate.) I am going to give this another try, with my same concerns: a lack of verifiable references keeps this from meeting WP:BIO requirements. Thanks. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search turns up nothing but beefcake photos. Does not meet WP:BIO, as per the nominator's observation. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. His name gets mentioned as part of a "rest of the cast" list on coverage about a telenovella he has a part in. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 27 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 to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2014. Removal of the article is supported by general consensus; redirecting will provide value to readers. L Faraone 18:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Craft (politician)[edit]

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

Non-notable, poorly referenced BLP (biography for a living person) article. I dream of horses (T) @ 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL ...William 23:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I submitted the article because Craft is part of a small field of Democratic candidates challenging a seat held by a Republican, but was one of 17 Republican congressional districts won by Barack Obama in 2012. All of the other candidates are of equal or lesser note and have links on the Wikipedia summary page of the Minnesota 2nd district. Craft is notable person covered by all of Minnesota's major news outlets.

Update - I have added more links to external sources and linked the article with other Wikipedia pages.

/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Minnesota,_2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozarn1018 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC) — Lozarn1018 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2014. A redirect to a general election overview is an appropriate place for unelected candidates for national office. WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to redirect It does not seem appropriate for this circumstance. The page you want to redirect to briefly lays out Democratic field. It doesn't seem like a good place to try and provide greater levels of information about individual candidates. The page is still a stub now, but I'm going to be expanding it in the next week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozarn1018 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The format of the election page allows for information to be added about each candidate. Several of the candidates discussed on the same page have occupations and even a brief statement of their campaign platform. The template is flexible to allow relevant information to be added to the page. There are many challenges with creating and maintaining candidate pages on Wikipedia, including, but not limited to meeting WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN and WP:NPOL. Enos733 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Providing substantial "campaign brochure" information about each individual candidate in an election is not Wikipedia's job. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 22:08, 13 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) 19:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The longstanding consensus, supported by WP:POLITICIAN, is that the mere act of running as a candidate in an election does not in and of itself confer sufficient notability to qualify a person for a Wikipedia article — while there are occasional exceptions, normally if a person wasn't already notable enough to get past another notability criterion before they became a candidate then they have to actually win the election to become notable enough to get their own article. Additionally, WP:CRYSTAL precludes basing an article's keepability on predictions about an unelected candidate's chances of winning — so the fact that a Republican congressman currently holds the district even though it was carried by Obama at the presidential level is irrelevant to his notability or lack thereof. Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Minnesota, 2014 per Enos733; it's not our job to be a repository of campaign brochures for aspiring politicians. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:06, 29 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) 07:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Payne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional character. There are no independent reliable sources that establish that this fictional character is notable separately from the fiction in which he appeared. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. Some of the material may also constitute original research. Article was nominated once previously and kept on the basis of its being from a notable series and the actor winning an award for playing it. However, the notability of the series is WP:NOTINHERITED by the characters within it and the award attests to the notability of the actor, not the character. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very little of the text of the article is supported by the sources, and none of these appear to be independent or reliable. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not a very good article as written, but a google books search provides numerous references to, and analysis of, the character. A simple database search brought up reviews of the program from USA Today, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, etc, all of which give significant ink to discussing this character. I think this article could be improved greatly, but it need not be deleted. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those books appear, when not about a real person named Curtis Payne, to attest to the show's existence and by extension the character's but don't appear to contain the sort of out-of-universe perspective required when writing about a fictional subject. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to the show's article. Ugh, I hate fictional character articles that don't even try to establish notability. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only thing with a notable mention is LaVan Davis's Image Award, and that belongs on the main page and his page. — Wylie pedia 05:30, 13 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) 19:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The actor winning an award for the portrayal would be something to add alongside information pertaining to the character's notability, not something to hold up the article itself. Without other sources, this doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 19:12, 29 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. Nothing has changed since the last AfD as far as I can tell. YouTube/iTunes/MySpace are not reliable sources, and there seems to be some COI editing going on as well. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beautified Project[edit]

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

This article seems to fail WP:BAND. Also, this article's creation looks like an evasion to the salt on The Beautified Project. Steel1943 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Spss17 (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)) The Beautified Project is available on iTunes, Amazon, Tunecore from 2010. this means that it's a checked and popular band. The article The Beautified Project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beautified_Project) had been deleted in 2011 as it was short and there were no notable preferances. Now I've added notable and reliable preferances and I can add a lot of articles about this band. Also I've added categories. As the main article The Beautified Project was protected from creation, I moved it to Beautified Project but I would like to move it to it's right place https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beautified_Project. I'll try to give you any info you want about band. just ask me.[reply]

thank you all,

(Spss17 (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)) thank you for supporting me :) Here is data for WP:BAND criteria 1.[reply]

this is duet with popular British band Antimatter http://www.antimatteronline.com/
this is the official manufacturers' advertising of the concert that will take place in BERLIN on 03 Nov 2013 http://www.thearter-gallery.de/the-beautified-project.html
this newspaper article about band's new music video by the MOST POPULAR Armenian news agency http://style.news.am/eng/news/8261/the-beautified-project-band-presents-new-video.html
this one is television documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG1K5mT0qWM
this is articles by Armenian most popular celebrities and entertainment guide http://www.bravo.am/celebrities/the-beautified-project//#tabNews
this the Armenian version of famous Yes magazine http://www.esem.am/news/article/view/5/7977/
this is the interview of band to very popular Armenian worldwide airing televison http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJgqJ4HiU7Y
Armenpress about The Beautified Project http://armenpress.am/eng/news/716064/

this is only a little part of data. hope now everything is allright with the article.

thank you all.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Spss17 (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)) Spss17 Dear friends, what other data do wikipedia need not to delete my article? I think, I have placed all the data for WP:BAND criteria 1.[reply]

thank you all for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spss17 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 17 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) 19:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails general notability guidelines and musical act notability guidelines at this time. Perhaps in the future! Keep on rockin'. SarahStierch (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Spss17 (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)) Dear SarahStierch thanks for support. Here are more notability guidelines and musical act notability guidelines:[reply]

The Beautified Project Live in Berlin 2013: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTtZeAK9cyw
The Beautified Project Live in Vienna 2011: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwpnXLQoATM
The Beautified Project Live in Yerevan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJOfzPMnjHI
The Beautified Project on BBC Persia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8699Y6DfuU
The Beautified Project's New album on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/am/album/united-we-fall/id733860690
The Beautified Project's New album on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/United-Fall-The-Beautified-Project/dp/B00G9FNITU/ref=sr_1_1?s=dmusic&ie=UTF8&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Beautified+Project

what other data does wikipedia need SarahStierch ? thank you!

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) 07:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yliana Yepez[edit]

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

The primary notability listed in the lede is that she was nominated for an award for "best handbag" by a fashion magazine(I don't think this would be notability even if she had won it.

Everything else is purely promotional. I considered using G11, but I bring it here for general attention because the editor has also written a number of other promotional articles, like my two immediately preceding afd listings (and, to be fair, also done some unrelated good editing) DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A handbag? The only substantial coverage seems to have originated in press releases. Thincat (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to imply that it is impossible to be notable for designing a handbag or other fashion accessory, or that it could not be demonstrated by a prize of international or possibly even national significance. This instance, though, was a nomination only, and for a rather minor award. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that. My reference to a handbag, which betrayed my age and nationality, was on account of a fond and nostalgic memory of The Importance of Being Earnest (1952 film), and had no relevance to the AfD. My apologies. I think the article would best be deleted. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment--While many of the sources are weak (press release) or completely inappropriate (magazine articles about the purse not the person) there are enough other reliable sources to warrant this article being cut back and maintained as a stub/start class article IMO.[11][12][13][14]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After looking more closely at the sources I am removing my keep vote. This article is a feature on the subject which details her personal life and career and is a legit source with valid editorial staff. However, this nomination for an award in In Style magazine is a minor mention for a nomination only. This one features information both on the BLP subject and her bag designs but does not appear to have editorial oversight or notability as a source. And finally This one has some biographical content but I can not find any indication of professional editorial supervision so it would likely not hold up as a reliable secondary source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:57, 18 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, ES &L 12:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been unable to find anything that looks like substantial independent coverage. (Even the one "keep" proposer, having rejected existing sources because they are "press release[s]" or "magazine articles about the purse not the person", then goes on to link to four sources one of which is about the purse, barely mentioning the person, and all of which look like press release write ups, advertorials, or similar. If that is the best that can be found by someone who thinks the article should be kept, it is not a good sign.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. Tough one. The handbags are clearly attracting attention, the designer less so. Really not sure on this one, but personally, as a fashion cove, I am kinda leaning keep, though I think the article could be stubified. But I'm not going to commit to a vote either way. Mabalu (talk) 17:44, 18 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) 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saadallah Al-Zacko[edit]

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

A7: Lack of notability. Only source is the subject's Facebook page. Celestra (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Reply by User:Ameer_saadallah: This Person is famous as a successful surgeon not only in Mosul, but also in all over Iraq. He has done many successful cosmetic surgeries for people in all over Iraq. He is well know in University of Mosul for his ambition and loyalty.

New sources are Added.

I strongly discourage deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ameer saadallah (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 November 2013.

I took the liberty of formatting and signing your reply; I hope you don't mind.

I saw the examples of his work and I can only conclude that he is a fine surgeon and a great humanitarian. We determine Notability using the path described in Wikipedia:Notability (people): "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." In other words, we do not determine whether a person is notable, we observe whether others have found him notable.

None of the references you have added to the page are "independent of the subject" except the iraqhurr.org piece and it is only a mention. (Three doctors are mentioned in about 300 words of text.) The College of Medicine site contains numerous before and after photos and I take that as a sign that it is under Dr Al-Zacko's control, but I could be mistaken. If you can provide some independent sources about the subject, notability stops being an issue; otherwise, I think we must delete this article. Regards, Celestra (talk) 20:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All those bare URLs in boxes should be inline citations, and may be the needed references for notability. I added two tags, and I want to see the results before I say oppose or keep. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request This article AfD should be posted on some WikiProjects.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by User:Ameer_saadallah: The College of Medicine site is not under Dr. Al-Zacko control but only the operation photos are used after his permission (which implies that the didn't wrote the article about himself). There were some issues about the references of Dr. Al-Zacko's publication that I have solved. In Addition , I've missed one important reference, but now it's written in the article "كتاب: دليل الاطباء و الصيادلة العاملين في الموصل في القرن العشرين الجزء الثاني (1901-1990) صفحة 100-101 = In English " Book: Guide of Doctors & Pharmacists working in Mosul in 20th century (1901-1990), Part 2 page 100-101. --Ameer_saadallah (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2013.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No cites in GS, no pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Commment if he's chief of surgery (equivalent to a named chair) at a major academic hospital that may satisfy WP:PROF. In Iraq's context, I'm not sure what higher standing a surgeon could reach (I'm not pushing here - just asking). -- Scray (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a resumé instead of an article! Fails WP:NOTRESUME. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can't find that he passes WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC; he seems to be a plastic surgeon in private practice. He has published (and yes, some of them ARE listed at Google Scholar), but citations are minimal. Not sure how to evaluate the academic appointments; he has a private practice, and in the U.S. that would usually mean he is a part-time academic, spending most of his time on his private practice and volunteering at the local university. I'm not sure how if that's how it works in Iraq. But my feeling is that WP:ACADEMIC is intended to apply to full-time academics or highly-cited writers. --MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 30 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) 07:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I Found The Gown[edit]

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

This show appears to be a promotional program for a bridal store, --whose article has also been nominated for deletion. Written by the same prolific paid editor as my other nominations today. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of programs broadcast by TLC. I'm not saying you're wrong; Common Sense Media even called it a promotional tool for the store. However, there does seem to be coverage: I located a review from Media Life Magazine and another review from Zap2it. That might be enough to establish notability. If not, then I suggest a merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThere are other reasons for deletion than lack of notability -- such as promotionalism, especially when the promotionalism is by paid editors who have admitted themselves willing to write marginal articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind rewriting the article myself. We could always stub it and add a cast list and reception. I also found several local news stories about people being selected to appear on the show, but I'm not sure that's relevant. I'm obviously no inclusionist; I'm OK with redirecting or merging it to the list of TLC programs, and I don't much care what happens to this article. If it's kept, I'll work on it; if it's deleted, I won't mourn it. If other people think that it's inherently promotional and not worth trying to fix, then I'll go along with that. Maybe I'm just being naive and optimistic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:31, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grudging of course. Yet another TLC wedding dress show which is a blatant infomercial for one dress shop and could use a major culling which I'll attempt, but we have sources and it's aired on a major network. Sometime that's all we need. Nate • (chatter) 14:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cull has now been done using some of the sources, with the episode guide and ADVERT content removed. Nate • (chatter) 14:58, 13 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) 18:54, 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 no consensus. I'm hardly convinced keeping this article is the right call, but this discussion appears to have been hijaked by people involved with the program. No activity for a week so relisting is not likely to help. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

SORCER[edit]

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

I have been uncertain about this article since it arrived here. My first instinct was CSD as a blatant advert, which was declined, so I allowed it to develop. I see now a huge bibliography (which I have dipped into out of curiosity), no references, and nothing to show me that the software is notable. So I come back to my first consideration that this is a non notable piece of software and an advertisement. Or perhaps it is a coatrack upon which to arrange the bibliography. Fiddle Faddle 14:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SORCER is the unique emerging federated service-oriended technology used for example to design the next generation of air vehicles. It is so advanced that a small group can work with it so far. Since nobody teaches the basics of SOOA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service-object-oriented_architecture), so only a small group that studied at the SORCER Lab at TTU is familiar with the domain and all who graduated there mostly work for military organizations. The Multidisciplinary Science (MSTC) and Technology Center, Aerospace Systems Directorate, AFRL is using and developing SORCER. The recommended two recent papers by the Director of MSTC/AFRL (http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34808) and the paper on Aircraft Conceptual Design Application using SORCER (http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34826) is just a sampler to get more educated and appreciate the new SOOA technology and mogramming model.

Mike Sobolewski, Ph.D. Professor of Computer Science — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwsobol (talk • contribs) 07:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC) — Mwsobol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In my opinion the information summarized by Professor Mike Sobolewski prooves that it's notable software. For example, it is used by Air Force Research Laboratory.

Moreover it's a new technology (as summarized by Prof. Mike Sobolewski) which extends existing technoloiges and to provide full picture of it I need more time. I plan to add new terms describing new scientific concepts around it into Wikipedia to make sure it will be objectively and fully presented (but it will need some time).

Thank You very much for Your remark about Bibliography - it was carrected already.

Is Prof. Mike Sobolewski explanation enough in your opinion to call it notable? if NOT - please explain what You mean by notable in details?

--Pawelpacewicz (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC) — Pawelpacewicz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note that the bibliography has now been changed to be references. However, references such as these have inherent problems. Wikipedia finds scientific papers to be Primary Sources. The issue for notability (@Pawelpacewicz: you need to read this topic) is that it must be verified in WP:RS. Primary sources verify the existence of something, but they can not verify its notability.

There are further problems with these papers as references. I have not found very many that are not naming Mike Sobolewski as the author. I commend WP:ACADEME to this and any editor who hails from the world of Academe. Unfortunately I am drawn to the concern that the article is most definitely a coatrack for Mike Sobolewski's work, which concerns me and reinforces my opinion that we are dealing with blatant advertising here. It doesn't matter whether the gentleman is doing it himself or whether colleagues or even those unrelated to him are doing it, they are still using Wikipedia for advertising and promotion of not only SORCER but also of Mike Sobolewski. The portmanteau Wikipedia term for this is VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT. Fiddle Faddle 16:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep provided the article gets totally redone. Not every project pushed by a professor or paid for by US taxpayers is notable, but this one seems to have been around long enough to accumulate some notability. Would also be fine to delete this one and start over without the promotion. But a good step would be to:

Replace entire first section with a real lead section of one or two sentences giving context, with no promotional language nor inline links.
Remove the "features" bullets and replace with a short prose description that gives a summary with wikilinks instead of jargon.
Rewrite the History section into prose with Wikipedia style (past tense, no inline links, wiki links, etc.)
Add some citations to sources not written by its promoter. This is the big one: if there are none, it is not notable no matter what is asserted.
Remove "Requirements" since one can always get the latest from the web site.

But as it stands this a promotional web page, not a Wikipedia article, alas. W Nowicki (talk) 01:17, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no actual sources. Almost all the references are scientific articles from a single person, Mike Soboloweski Mwsobol. Were we to reconstruct the article to encyclopedic standards from all other available sources we would have a blank article.--Talain (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How you describe complex scientific concepts with no scientific references? I see more than dozen authors, not one name as indicated above and from many places: GE, AFRL/WPAFB, TTU, WSU, and even Chinese universities. I think sources are appropriate for this complex and innovative domain.

Beavercreekful (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — Beavercreekful (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment there is a current flurry of activity adding yet more scientific papers to the article. This needs to be viewed with care, since WP:RS is required to establish notability. All primary sources such as scientific papers do is to verify existence. With so many papers one wonders why no WP:RS stuff exists. The obvious conclusion seems to be that it lacks notability. The extra papers add credence to the coatrack hypothesis for people to hang up scientific papers on. Fiddle Faddle 01:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please compare the references and further reading in the CORBA Common Object Request Broker Architecture article. All those references are scientific by default, from computer science. Are we going to complain about it as well? My impression is that SORCER is much more complex than CORBA.

By the way more new references from GE, AFRL/WPAFB, and China are not scientific they are engineering, explain why and how SORCER is used to solve real world problems thus providing high notability of the article not only in science. Beavercreekful (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fiddle Faddle put suggestion that it's "coatrack for Mike Sobolewski's work". I do not agree with this opinion.

In What is not a coatrack there is clearly stated example showing that article about someone's work (in example from What is not a coatrack - moon landing) is not coatrack - the same is here
It is not coatrack for Mr. Sobolewski - due to fact that article is mentioning Mr. Sobolewski only 3 times and only in history (but there it is legitimate) and in references (which in my opinion is legitimate as well)
It is not a coatrack as topic described within this article is notable enough - which is prooven by references from
1. various types of organizations (academic, business, gvernmental etc.)
2. various countries (US, China, Poland etc.)
3. various disciplines (programing, modeling, multidisciplinary design optimization, 2D/#d CFGD Design etc.)
4. etc.
Additionally it was developed, sponsoerd and used by very notbale organizations - to mention just few of them:
1. NIST
2. US Air Force
3. GE Aircraft Engines
4. Ochio University
5. Texas Tech University
6. Sun Microsystem
7. Beijing Jiaotong University and other Universities
8. etc.
I understand Fiddle Faddle opinion that there's big numer of refernces ... but what to do with that? If we will decide to remove some of them - will it make it "less coatrack"??? I do not think so. In my opinion it's better to keep as for Wikipedia users it gives better view of described topic.
I agree with opinion that is should be rewriten as suggesetd by W Nowicki.

--Pawelpacewicz (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- If this is so widely deployed and used that you think it is obviously notable then I invite you to find a single reliable secondary source that mentions it. Please! Because I can't find any.--Talain (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talain - of course :-) - here I listed just few of them (from SORCER references):
- reference #6 - http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2002-1588
- reference #7 - http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2002-5479
- reference #8 - http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2004-4599
- reference #9 - http://ebooks.iospress.nl/publication/34808
- reference #10 - http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2012-5520
- reference #13 - http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?reload=true&tp=&arnumber=6023325&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D6023325
- reference #14 - http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-HBGB200804012.htm

Within those articles please review: authors and their organizations plus information within their content. There You can find plenty of information i.e.: NIST, Ochio Aerospace Institute, Ohio University, Stanford University, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Air Force Research Laboratory, American Optimization, Beijing Jiaotong University, etc. please review it and let me know if You have any more doubts :-) --Pawelpacewicz (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talain, your categorical statemnts and surprising to me.

According to the official Wikipedia description: 1. "deciding how to classify a source is not always an obvious decision" 2. "Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used" 3. "In some fields, a secondary source materials may include a summary of the literature in the Introduction of a scientific paper"

Very well written article! Have you read any of the provided references? I did. All of them have in their introductions a kind of summary and comparison of other similar service-oriented approaches to SORCER. Therefore, based on 3) all of them can be considered as secondary sources as well. Would you please tell me which of the references are not secondary sources according to 3? --Danjarok (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC) — Danjarok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- The topic needs to be addressed by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. As Michael Sobolewski is the subject (or at least primary mover behind it) his academic papers (the vast majority of references) and the existence of his organizations (which is all of the ones attested to in the History section) cannot fulfill the requirement for determining notability. I'm also finding the creation of multiple new users writing in a similar voice to provide the appearance of manufacturing a false consensus and would suggest that you make certain you are following the applicable guidelines for honest discussion.--Talain (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Talain I understand Your concern about "sources independent of the subject" ... so I removed most of primary sources.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I can see is a small group of COI single purpose account editors pushing a topic that has not been found in any WP:RS. While scientific papers prove that a thing exists they do not show that it is notable. If anyone can achieve demonstrating WP:N then I will withdraw my nomination. So far no-one has even come close. I don't care how many scientific papers verify that the thing exists, but not of them can show that it is notable.

I'm afraid that all I can see is material that seeks to enhance the reputations of the team involved. These editors should read WP:ACADEME Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Fiddle Faddle. Thank You very much for Your comment it seems to me however that your points (WP:RS, WP:N) were already expressed before and I thought I already answered them. Let me explain them in more details below:

In my opinion it is WP:RS and WP:N

1st EXAMPLE: let's take a look at reference #8 http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2012-5520 It's written by:

Scott Burton, American Optimization, LLC; Manager Ph.D. AIAA SEnior Member
Edward Alyanak, Air Force Research Laboratory; Project Engineer Ph.D. AFRL/RQSA AIAA Senior Member
Raymond Kolonay, Air Force Research Laboratory; Principal Engineer Ph.D. AFRL/RQSA AIAA Associate Fellow

please note that it describes SORCER's application and therefore is a secondary source. All authors are Ph.D. and according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) it's strong argument for notability

So on this example You have:

an opinion of people from Air Force Research Laboratory who are members of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
the document was published by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics which is a very notable institution
the document was presented at the 12th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Opertation Conference organized by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
the document describes how SORCER is used to design next generation efficient spersonic air vehicles (ESAV) by Air Force Research Laboratory. Air Force Research Laboratory is again a very notable scientific research organization operated by the United States Air Force, operating since 16 years more details on Wikipedia

2nd EXAMPLE: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6051863&queryText%3DA+SOOA+Based+Distributed+Computing+Mechanism+for+Road+Traffic+Noise+Mapping written by academics from another University and different country it describes how SORCER is employed to build a highly flexible distributed network services space. It shows it's usage in a different discipline (manufacturing) than previous example (aerospace) It's notability proven by the fact that it's published by a very notable publisher IEEE Computer Society

Other EXAMPLES You can find other examples in the references section. Among them Ph.D. and master thesis from 2 different US based universities (Wright State university, University of Dayton) both of them are secondary sources.

If You still happend to have any doubts please point out which of the presented proofs are not showing sufficient notability by underlining which exact points of wikipedia rules are not satisfied. It is the base for all of us to conduct discussion, refine the article if necessary and achieve consensus.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Pawelpacewicz I do not get particularly involved with Wikilawyering and chapter and verse, I'm afraid, unless it is my lot to prove, under WP:BURDEN that an item is appropriate for inclusion. In my opinion, a scientific paper is always a primary source. No amount of primary sourcing shows genuine notability. I appreciate that you find this a disappointment on two levels, the first that I will not engage with you on chapter and verse level, and the second in my oft restated understanding that primary sources do not pass WP:RS, whatever their pedigree. The presenting of a paper at an event, however prestigious the event, is the presentation of a paper at a prestigious event. It does not render the item which is the subject of the paper to be notable. Interesting, yes, Notable, no. The difference is pedantic, but necessary.

SORCER may become notable one day. When it does then this article will become appropriate in some form. Show me SORCER today in the likes of the Wall Street Journal, or a specialist but reliable media outlet and I will withdraw my nomination at once and without hesitation, though it might behove you to ping me to let me know that such a source has been found. Until then I fear I must opt for deletion. Nothing is lost on WIkipedia. The article may be retrieved even if deleted. Work is not wasted, and, if the closure of this discussion does not go the way you hope, you have the option for WP:DRV, but please read the rules with care.

My opinion is one opinion. The admin who closes this discussion is duty bound to weigh the arguments, the article, and the referencing in reaching a decision. It is, however, not a ballot. Numeric tallies are misleading. Fiddle Faddle 17:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Dear Fiddle Faddle thank You for Your comment. With Your explanation the situation is more clear for me :-)

If I understand well the basis for your point of view is summarized by your statement "(..) a scientific paper is always a primary source" and all your further opinions are based on it.

And I do not think we can agree with this statement due to 2 reasons:

1st reason - beeing or not being Primary source is NOT DEFINED by the fact that a source is scientific/academic or not. It's clearly stated in Wikipedia article on Primary source
2nd reason - scientific/academic sources have high value accorgdingly to Wikipedia rules described at Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP#Some_types_of_sources where it is clearly stated: "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources". It shows as well that scientific/academic publications have higher value than any newspaper (including Wall Street Journal mentioned by you).

anyway - thank You for your opinions as it helped us to make SORCER article better and in line with Wikipedia rules. You are more than welcome if You have any other suggestions to improve SORCER article.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dr. Michael Sobolewski [[15]] developed the SORCER. scope_creep talk 23:25 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Keep This is the secondary source [[16]] which is detailed above and is included in the sources, and describes the use of the SORCER product by the United States Air Force Research Laboratory. The article itself needs a complete rewrite scope_creep talk 23:22 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment Scope_creep thank You for your comment. I agree that it should be rewrite and I plan to do it. But now article is nominated for deletion due to different reasons (WP:RS and WP:N) so taking effort of rebuilding article is risky as we still do not know if it will exist. I think we are close to consensus for it. As soon as we will get decision "keep" I rewrite it. Pawelpacewicz (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think over my previous comment and I'll correct article without waiting for deletion decisions.

Pawelpacewicz (talk) 08:28, 22 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) 18:53, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nova (Bangladeshi band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. More sources may exist in Bengali, but search of নোভা ব্যান্ড ("Nova band") seems to produce few significant results. Have linked Bengali WP article in interlanguage links, but it too is unsourced. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The band has produced 7 studio albums under the banner of major record labels. All of the sources mention them as a popular band of Bangladesh. Also, I don't know why the first reference has been tagged as "not in citation given", the source clearly mentions the band and says that they have performed in a music show "Ghore Ghore Utshob" aired in RTV. --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I admit that my knowledge of the Bengali language is effectively null - so I may very well likely be missing something - but in my reading of the computer translation of that source, I was unable to find reference to anything contained in the lede paragraph, preceding that citation. i.e., nothing about its formation "in 1986 in Dhaka." No mention of their having been in "their peak in the '90s", nor about being "one of the most popular bands of that time in Bangladesh." It did not mention the fact that "The band went into a hiatus in the 2000s but made a comeback with the album Return of the Nova released in 2010." Conversely, the lede of this WP article does not cover the thing that you mention it does say, that they "performed in a music show "Ghore Ghore Utshob" aired in RTV." Are there other reliable sources which could serve as references for the other facts? I was unable to find them when I looked. But again, I have difficulty in searching through the Bengali-language sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:07, 24 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) 05:34, 12 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) 18:48, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Houlahan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mark Houlahan

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

Not notable. [17]. Lacks coverage about him in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of 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) 08:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS cites [18] inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 14 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) 18:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I'm sympathetic to anyone who's written a paper called "COSMIC HAMLETS: 'STAR TREK VI' - CONTESTING SHAKESPEARE IN FEDERATION SPACE", he doesn't appear to meet WP:SCHOLAR or WP:WRITER. As far as I can tell, he has not written any books (the article cites a PhD thesis), held any positions that would make him notable, or received any significant honors. I can't find any reviews or other in-depth coverage of him or his work, and nothing to indicate he's more than a run-of-the-mill academic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:59, 25 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) 03:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John McSoriley[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of 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) 08:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of third-party coverage, fails WP:GNG. Not notable as a writer or public official. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:03, 13 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) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important New Zealand legislative interpreter for lawmakers.Rick570 (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important according to who? duffbeerforme (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The New Zealand Constitution Advisory Panel [19] list of source documents: [20]Rick570 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither link verifies your claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A publication by this person cited by the current official Government enquiry leading to reform of the NZ constitution (search the bibliographic list in the second link).Rick570 (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which does not verify your peacocked claim. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Lacks multiple independent sources which establish that he is notable (rather than has a job). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The footnotes cite four independent sources.Rick570 (talk) 01:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't lie. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:22, 28 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 no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry L. Richman[edit]

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

A social media expert and publisher who has managed to get profiled on Wikipedia for several years with little basis that I can see. Sources used in the article are not independent or reliable and I can't see any online. If he's been mentioned in the Charlotte Examiner that doesn't amount to general notability. Sionk (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno - he seems more notable as the founder/CEO of Century Publishing than as a social media expert. I'd actually heard of some of the books they've published. Perhaps the article should be about the publishing company? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He would only be notable for the books he has personally authored under WP:AUTHOR, not books his company published. His most popular book appears to be Improving Your Project Management Skills, [21] but I can't find serious book reviews only a dodgy vanity review by "PM World Journal".[22] Similar problem for Project Management Step-By-Step. Usually if authors have book reviews, they'll quote them on the author website or Amazon page - no reviews are quoted. That leaves GNG sources and don't see any. Since there are no special notability rules for business people, founding a company is not considered inherently notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:23, 31 October 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) 01:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. He seems to be a noteworthy author, since he has personally authored 13 books ( see http://centurypubl.com/Richman_Larry_publications_author.html ), plus articles in professional magazines and journals. He seems to fit with the Notability Guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability He has had coverage in independent sources, quoted in the Salt Lake City newspaper Deseret News. The Google search https://www.google.com/search?q=%22larry+richman%22+site%3Adeseretnews.com&oq=%22larry+richman&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i57j0l3.4103j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8 shows 139 references to him in the Deseret News. Seems notable enough to keep the entry. Rebuilding a huge website like LDS.org is also impressive. -- Bennett908 (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per GNG, coverage in the same news outlet usually counts as a single source. But with that much coverage one has to ask if he has ever been a columnist or worked for Deseret News, have friends or family there or some other connection? In any case it's probably at best one source. Other sources? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. His books seen legitimate. Several were published by AMACOM, one of the world’s largest publishers of business books. See http://www.thefreelibrary.com/netLibrary+and+AMACOM+to+Simultaneously+Release+eBooks+and+Print...-a059610265 and http://www.librarything.com/publisher/258/AMACOM I verified his books at amacombooks.org. Two of his seven books on project management are college texts in their second and third editions.

Here are two examples of published reviews of his books http://projectmanager.com.au/skills/review-improving-project-management-skills-larry-richman/ and http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/book_reviews_3/book2.htm

Richman was recently quoted at length in the article “Entering the world of LDS blogging” in the DeseretNews.com http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865589490/Entering-the-world-of-LDS-blogging.html?pg=all His blog has a monthly readership of 36,000.

He was also a guest speaker at Brigham Young University (https://video.byui.edu/media/Larry+Richman+%22Learning+through+Life's+Trials%22/0_6g3uxzea ) That’s fairly notable.

The bottom line is that his entry has been whittled down over the years so that now it looks pretty lean, but I think he’s substantial enough to not delete the entry. The notability guidelines say that “For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.” So, even if his notability is somewhat unclear, I don’t see that as sufficient reason to delete the entry. In fact, it seams reasonable to re-introduce some of the stuff that has been taken out over the years where it’s from verifiable sources. Bylanrichter (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some other sources: [23] , [24] —Anne Delong (talk) 23:58, 13 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) 18:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Green Cardamom. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an author. Some of his books are indeed by one of the most impt publishers in the field, and "Project management step by step " alone is in 1,495 libraries a/c worldcat. Some of the other content does need trimming. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Square Blueprint[edit]

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

No long-term relevance and little coverage by reliable sources. Its own web page no longer exists. Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References are available. I have added some. There is apparently one more, to which I have no access–Has someone access to this paper?–:

Kelley, Robin D. G. (2012). "Building A Progressive Movement In 2012". Souls: A Critical Journal Of Black Politics, Culture & Society. 14 (1/2): 10–18. doi:10.1080/10999949.2012.723413. Retrieved 23 November 2013.

To me, this manifesto is notable enough, under Wikipedia:Notability. That the manifesto web page no longer exists is hardly relevant, per WP:DEFUNCTS. --Edcolins (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's now of historical interest.--Nowa (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Good finds. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 08:53, 25 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) 07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Of Financial Trading[edit]

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

In my opinion the topic of this article is not notable as the only 3rd party mentions I could find are this press release where it won a non-prestigious award and this news article where it is mentioned in one sentence. If I ran across this article on CSD, I would have deleted it under A7, but since time has passed since it was created, I'm listing it here. Thingg ^⊕^⊗ 16:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thing, I truly appreciate your opinion on this. That being said, I also would like to contest this opinion, on the basis that there appears to be a rule that is not being applied to everybody. For example, we look at Online Trading Academy - a company that's template was followed in order to create this article, after doing a study of the companies competitors. This article had been allowed to exist for over 2 years with no complaints. Then I bring further attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Investment_companies . The vast majority of the entries found in this list have been sat on Wikipedia between 3-5 years, with no edits or notifications brought to them, even after admin inspection, yet these are all of a lesser quality as I'm sure you will agree. There are many examples I could happily bring to light. The fact of the matter is, I, the author of the Academy of Financial Trading wikipedia page, have no affiliation with the company, nor have I interacted with them. All information has been produced based off of the information provided on their website after completing a research paper on the rise of e-learning / distance learning stock exchange educators. As mentioned, I feel slightly penalized in this case as evidently it appears to be 'one rule for one, one rule for another'. IgniyteJames (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia, Guardian) I am not finding any reliable 3rd party sources. That leaves the question of whether the awards from "Global Banking & Finance Review"[25] are sufficiently notable? I am not seeing evidence of that and in that context can only say that this enterprise fails WP:CORPDEPTH. (Regarding the comments above, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I would also add that, while looking for references for the present AfD, I did notice at least one Daily Mail article featuring the "Online Trading Academy", but nothing for "Academy Of Financial Trading".) AllyD (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking into the "Global Banking & Finance Review" award, I can't see how it conveys notability. They don't give any specific criteria for the award, just puffery ("a wide range of criteria"). The nomination form [26] just asks for a company name and category (you make up your own category and it doesn't ask for for a nomination reason or qualifications). The award page doesn't give any reasoning behind the award or companies that it beat in the category. ParacusForward (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After spending a few days looking for notability, I cant really find any refernces other than a passing mention. As its a new company this may change in the future, however for the moment its a delete. Murry1975 (talk) 10:56, 24 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) buff bills 7701 00:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu pilgrimage sites in India[edit]

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

Article is completely unsourced, and, ultimately, I suspect it is unsourceable. As the person who removed the prod implied, nearly any site can be the target of a pilgrimage; as far as I know, anyone could designate any site with even slight religious connection as a valid sight for a "pilgrimage". If any natural site or religious construction can be a pilgrimage target, then this list means nothing (as it should just be a list of all natural and religious sites in India not explicitly connected to a non-Hindu religion). There is no value in a list without a clear definition and a clear way to get sources for it. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Category:Hindu pilgrimage sites should also be deleted then? postdlf (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notion that "any natural site or religious construction can be a pilgrimage target" is wrong however the article does needs some sourcing, preferably academic sources. Simple Google Books search throws up references:
Surinder Mohan Bhardwaj (1983). Hindu Places of Pilgrimage in India: A Study in Cultural Geography. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-04951-2.
Director of Asian Studies Carthage College James Lochtefeld Professor of Religion (28 December 2009). God's Gateway : Identity and Meaning in a Hindu Pilgrimage Place: Identity and Meaning in a Hindu Pilgrimage Place. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-974158-8.
Knut A. Jacobsen (5 March 2013). Pilgrimage in the Hindu Tradition: Salvific Space. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-59038-9.

Cleanup is not a reason for deletion. Solomon 7968 23:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work, but as Solomon points out is is far from unsourceable. Besides Bhardwaj, which seems to be a standard reference in the area, other notables works are JH Dave's Immortal India (1960) and BC Law's Holy places of India (1940). See also this map in Schwartzberg's A historical atlas of India (1978), itself based on some of the listed sources. Abecedare (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could either of you please tell me what the benefit is to keeping the current article? Since you are suggesting sources, and the article would need to use those sources, would it not be better to blank and restart once someone wants to take the effort to use those sources? It seems like, since everything currently in the article is unsourced, you'd effectively have to start over from scratch anyway. The information added now is really just the opinion of the article creator, not based on any sort of list. While deletion is not a substitute for cleanup, in some cases, it's by far and away the best, easiest, and most effective means of cleanup.

Or let me put this a different way: if the article survives deletion, I'll tag it as unsourced. Then, a week later I'll remove all unsourced entries, as we should, per WP:V. This will leave a blank article. Is this better than having no article at all? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V doesn't entitle you to remove content just because it's presently unsourced, only that which cannot be sourced. See also WP:PRESERVE. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are 150% wrong. Read WP:V again. "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. " This is a fundamental basis of Wikipedia, and how I have always edited on WIkipedia and how I will always continue to edit on Wikipedia, unless the rule were to change (in which case, I wouldn't edit any more, because the project would be useless). The option which can always choose is whether to tag unsourced data and let it sit around, then later remove it, or to simply remove it first. If I had faith that the contributions were accurate, I would consider tagging first. In this case, though, the article creator was blocked (by me) for adding spam links and numerous unsourced pieces of information (some non-neutral) to a wide ranging number of pages. I have no faith that the information is in any way accurate, or that the sites chosen are particularly noteworthy as pilgrimage sites (WP:UNDUE, part of WP:NPOV). Given that, 1 week is plenty of time to get the sources in. And all of the alleged information will all be in the history, all recoverable for any editor who wants to re-add it with sources. While I'm willing to accept a consensus that says that there's benefit in not deleting the article, there is absolutely no chance that I will accept someone arguing that unsourced material contributed by an unreliable editor of questionable ability and intent is okay to remain in Wikipedia. And I will insist on that up to the point of seeking blocks on any editor who intentionally re-adds said info (i.e., reverts to an unsourced revision). You may find this threatening; I find the very idea that we would intentionally leave unsourced information in Wikipedia threatening to everything we stand for. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find all of that quite a non sequitur, given that no one was talking about not trusting this article because of issues particular to the author who created it. Try to lay out your premises up front next time to avoid misunderstanding about where you're coming from. postdlf (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Qwyrxian: Your rationale for deletion is lack of verifiability. Now i know that you have read more WP essays than i have and i think somewhere they must have written that stuff should be verifiable but not necessarily with an inline citation. Also while AfDing we expect editors to do some cursory checks and then bring it to AfD. Despite that you have come here for deletion which to me means that you want to explicitly see a certain thing in the article. And that thing is not clear to me. Do you want a inline web reference that specifically says "Place PQR is Hindu pilgrimage site"? Because blue links are already present in the article and when surfed through that you would have found all the verifiability that is sufficient enough to not raise a AfD. Moving ahead, in case we are unable to find such a specific source, will you consider blue link temple articles written in front of the place? Or is that also not acceptable to you? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The primary reason of the PROD was "In any event, I don't actually see how this list would be different than just a list of temples in India." As "the person who removed the prod", I want to clarify my comment "pilgrimage places in Hinduism includes places with temples, places with holy ponds/rivers, places where religious fairs are held". The comment just established IMO that temples are just a subset of pilgrimage sites. Notability is already established in many comments above. WP:RS exist for it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can be re-written, so no problem. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Solomon. As I've noted several times over the years at AfD, a topic is notable if multiple books have been published about the topic, per WP:SIGCOV. AfD is not for clean-up. This is not so terrible that it needs to be started from scratch. A temple is not the same as a site of pilgrimage. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian and Solomon. No good case for WP:TNT made, and no good argument that the topic is unverifiable. Even if "nearly any site can be the target of a pilgrimage", that certainly doesn't mean reliable sources can be found for "any site". postdlf (talk) 21:45, 25 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. Speedy keep SarahStierch (talk) 07:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skimlinks[edit]

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

Company/product that doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP and is written like an advertisement. I originally speedied as spam but author asked me to restore it. Since it's a user in good standing, I'm sending it here instead. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 15:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author for this page. I just wanted to clarify some points mentioned briefly above: I submitted this article in the wiki project Articles for Creation 4 weeks back. Yesterday Kafziel reviewed the submission, determined it was promotional material and deleted it. I got in touch with him as soon as I noticed and he reinstated the article, but he did so in the article space and then nominated it for deletion (instead of re-instating it in the AfC project). I've been editing Wikipedia for a few years now, but this is my first article. I knew the risks in writing an article about a company which is precisely why I submitted it through AfC with the aim of getting constructive feedback should it be denied. I'm a bit out of my depth here so would appreciate some guidance on how I can fight this deletion and either make the required changes now, or get the article back into AfC so that I can edit it there until it becomes suitable. Thank you! Juniper4589 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add that though the promotional content criticism may very well be valid, the one about WP:CORP is not, in my opinion. I've cited a number of very reliable and notable sources - from TechCrunch to Wired, The Atlantic, the Guardian and VentureBeat, a number of which were very in-depth coverage of the company, what it does, and why it's notable. Juniper4589 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - AFD is not WP:CLEANUP. The Notability of the subject is well established by the cited sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:07, 28 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triune Understanding[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Not independently notable. Could also be simply redirected. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:08, 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hydro-Men[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:11, 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 Speedy delete g5, created by User:LumCel sock. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MarkMeets.com[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the subject in detail as required by WP:WEBCRIT. As an aside, the site has a very poor Web of Trust rating. - Mr X 15:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 15:17, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dombivli Return[edit]

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

Unsourced article about future film. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:TOOSOON. - Mr X 12:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NFILM with main production yet to begin. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not Notable. IndieNewsReview (talk) 16:02, 24 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 KEEP.

Back to Whitechapel[edit]

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

~~Non-notable book lacking GHits and GNews of substance. Fails WP:NOTBOOK.~~ Actually the references are adequate to establish notability. Will self close the AfD. reddogsix (talk) 12:42, 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.

List of Atavika Hindu saints[edit]

The result was Deleted G5, Creations by banned or blocked users. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list is full of original research and hoax claims. The OR starts from the title. The Sanskrit term "atavika" meaning forester being used as a synonym of adivasi is OR. Koli community is not adivasi. Describing the god Shiva's avatar Kirata (see Kirata), Valmiki, Shabari as adivasi or saint is OR. For saints like Kubera, [27] the ref cited does not call him a atavika/adivasi. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per nom, and latest creation by sock of User:Buddhakahika. Pinging @Dougweller: who has dealt with similar articles created by other sock accounts. Abecedare (talk) 17:00, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Castillejo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and also WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't yet played in a fully professional league. The Transfermarkt source cited in the article [28] has confused subject with Samuel García Sánchez: see e.g. Spanish League website, ESPN, Malaga CF website, etc. Struway2 (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning that the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multan Updates[edit]

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

A non notable webpage. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. SMS ^Talk 02:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEBCRIT unless independent reliable sources to notability added. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:57, 12 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, Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also concur, it fails our general and web related notability guidelines. Perhaps in the future! SarahStierch (talk) 19:12, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Cavit[edit]

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

Not notable. More commonly Tony Cavit. A short term 1985-87 Stipendiary Magistrate which appears local, not full Territory. The incidents which led to his resignation are not major, were not widely reported and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Lacks coverage about Cavit in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of 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) 08:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 12 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, Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Minor politician who in no way meets our politician or notoriety guidelines. Mangoe (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 05:40, 25 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) 07:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural heritage in Kosovo[edit]

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

The entire article is either a travel brochure feature or an in-flight magazine report aimed purely to promote the region (along the controversial grounds of statehood I must add) rather than produce encyclopedic information. I attempted to clean it up but was forced to abandon the task before any revision was saved as I found it impossible as doing so would have removed more than four fifths of the text. Compare the look of the article as it stands today to Cultural heritage of Serbia and Cultural Heritage of Andorra. Zavtek (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Blocked sock:Evlekis.[reply]

Keep and remove copyvios or delete if no one has the time to plow through it and check for copyvios.'For consistency with other "Cultural heritage of .. " articles, I moved it to the new title Cultural heritage of Kosovo. Cultural heritage of various nations is recognized by UNESCO as being both tangible and intangible, and Kosovo is rich in both, with a cultural history dating back to a kingdom before it became part of the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and later the Ottoman Empire. It was the cultural heartland of Serbia and the Battle of Kosovo was important in world history. Its tangible cultural legacy includes at least castles, monasteries, archeological sites and battlefields, and it has historical museums.It includes UNESCO World Heritage sites. It has proclaimed its independence and is under UN control, although Serbia asserts it is still part of Serbia. Its cultural heritage is as encyclopedic and notable as that of other countries with articles about their cultural heritage or their National Register. The nominator says it sounds like a travel brochure or in-flight magazine, but no copyright violation has been identified. If it had been, then stubbing rather than deletion would be the appropriate remedy. Without a copyvio identified, then editing to make the tone more encyclopedic is the appropriate outcome. The article could have been edited or tagged for someone else to edit it. Edison (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The internet archive holds a page from the Kosovo Government from June 2012 which included some of the content placed in this article when it was created in Feb 2013. Some other websites with the same text may have copied the Wikipedia version and thus not be copyvio problems. Timing of when material appeared on the web is crucial. So copied text should be stubbed, or deleted for later recreation.I have removed phrases I found in the earlier Kosovan website. Others may check the remaining text to see if it appeared earlier in print or at some website which does not allow free use consistent with our licensing requirements. The text removed from the lede should be restored in a non-copyvio fashion, with proper attribution. Edison (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found additional sections where text was copied with little or no change from a pre-existing site, and I removed some more of it. The authors of the article often cited the copy-paste copyright violations, but that does not make it acceptable under our copyright policy. The entire article needs to be checked and copyvios removed, or stubbed, or deleted, to comply with WP:COPYVIO. The numerous plagiarized sources are, sadly, evidence of the notability of the subject. I do not have any more time to devote to finding/removing copyvios at this time. It is hard to find any text which is original and not just copy-pasted even if the source is acknowledged. Added: It has been asserted on the article's talk page that Kosovan government sources are open licensed, but I saw no such declaration of the pages I checked, and that would not address things copied from other websites and from blogs or publications. Copy-paste from open licensed sourced without indicating it is a quote seems problematic. Edison (talk) 17:39, 12 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, Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's certainly notable. If some of the content is copyvio, remove that content. bobrayner (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AfD was started by a sockpuppet; perhaps an uninvolved editor would like to close it accordingly. bobrayner (talk) 16:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject even if a lot of it has been copied and pasted. I might reword and reference some of it when I get some spare time. IJA (talk) 16:57, 26 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Shulman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All coverage is through his famous wife. Notability is not inherited, and his coverage/accomplishments are insufficient for a standalone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 12 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, Randykitty (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, don't everybody comment all at once... – Muboshgu (talk) 02:55, 29 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) 07:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Dean McDowell[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. No independent reliable sources cited, and no substantial coverage in such sources found on searching. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically nothing on the web that I can find about him. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Delete - Not Notable. IndieNewsReview (talk) 15:53, 24 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) 11:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance of Serbs of Vojvodina[edit]

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

This political party may have existed and may still exist. Nevertheless, appears to have no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It would seem anomalous that a party that had contested an election in 2003 would have no mention in electoral governance agency websites. As well - though this is of course non-determinative of notability - it appears it has no website, either currently online or formerly online. Shirt58 (talk) 10:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not listed on the registry of political parties in Serbia. Even if it did exist once, its lack of content or coverage would indicate it is non-notable, certainly not deserving of its own article. Buttons (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think any AfD regular participant is more friendly to the inclusion of articles on political parties than I am. Basically, if it is bigger than a breadbasket, it should be an automatic keep because articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections is something that should be included in encyclopedias. That said, this entity, the Савез Срба Војводине, is or was not bigger than a breadbasket. Less than 200 hits in a Google search, nothing counting towards GNG, nothing really convincing me that this was anything more than a fancy name given to the political campaign of one individual in one election. This article appears to be a straight translation of a piece in Croatian WP, which is another essentially unsourced one-line wonder. Carrite (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the arguments made above. 23 editor (talk) 22:52, 27 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 keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skala (sports organization)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Like I noted few years ago, this has serious issues with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Since the last AfD in 2008, the article has remained in its pitiful substub state. Yes, yes, I know, the current state is not an issue if the article could be expanded. Well, that's the problem. It's mentioned in 2-3 English sources, tops, in passing. And I couldn't find a single Polish language source that event mentions it (I also tried the alt spelling "Skała"). Nothing comes up in Google Scholar either. As such, I cannot help but conclude that this organization has never been subject to more than a cursory mention in a marginal number of reliable sources, and as such, it fails the notability requirements for a stand-alone inclusion in our project. At best, the article content can be saved by a merger to Communist Party of Poland. PS. Pinging participants of past AFD: User:Pcap, User:Eastmain, User:Greg park avenue, User:Aponar Kestrel, User:Ron Ritzman, User:Ecoleetage, User:DGG, User:T L Miles, User:Stifle, User:Benjiboi _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I think the purpose of bringing the AfD has been accomplished. I apologize for not finding the sources earlier. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've managed to get some more sources, and expanded the article somewhat. Clearly there is a bias in availability of material on organizations that folded decades before the world-wide web. A limitation is that I haven't been able to get the Yiddish name, which could provide further sourcing. Merger into the Communist Party of Poland article would not help, as the club was not strictly a part of the party organization. --Soman (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Credit is due to User:Soman for taking the time and effort to find sources and add them to the article. Looking at the original AfD, I see a consensus to keep the article, though it was closed as "no consensus". The addition of the sources helps further establish notability and addresses the nominator's concerns regarding the lack of sources and the "pitiful substub state" that the article had been in. Alansohn (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination, please close. I appreciate the efforts put into rescuing this, particularly the addition of the original Polish name allows me to confirm the notability of the subject. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 25 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. G12 copyvio. If he can be turned up as notable for writing the driver's handbook, a fresh start sans copyvio can be made. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley D. Jaworski[edit]

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

Seems like a Wikipedia:MEMORIAL ("Wikipedia is not a memorial or obituary") violation; only references are two obituaries. The only claim to the notability would be his participation in the Olympics, but the article contradicts itself on whether he participated or not, and I cannot verify that he did in any other sources (outsite the obits). I tried google books, and regular google - nada, a person under that name doesn't appear anywhere. He is not listed on pl wiki list of Polish olympic participants (pl:Polscy olimpijczycy), nor on the pages of Polish Olympic Committee ([29] - and yes, it does go as far back as the 1936 olympics), nor is he listed at [30] . At this point while the article doesn't appear to be a hoax, the claim of his olympic participation seems very dubious, and nothing else in the bio suggests notability. PS. Pinging editors who discussed subject's notability on article's talk in the past: User:W. B. Wilson, User:Valentinejoesmith _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. The obituaries are the sort placed by the family of the deceased or funeral directors, not by newspapers editorial staff, and therefore don't establish any notability. I can't see any coverage online beyond funeral notices and catalog/directory entries. It's possible that he went to the Berlin Olympics but didn't actually participate in any events; this would not make him notable. Perhaps there are contemporary newspaper articles about him or contemporary reviews of his books, and notability could be established from them. But the nominator seems to have done a thorough job, and right now there's nothing to justify his notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, evidence of actual participation in the Olympics would pass the mark but the nom has researched that and found none. MilborneOne (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MilborneOne. Obituaries fail WP:RS because they aren't checked factually. The deceased loved one's family members can claim accomplishments that never took place and in one famous case[31] were deceived by the deceased into believing he was a former professional baseball player....William 21:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails per WP:BIO. More importantly, the entire foundation of the article (created on September 12, 2007) was plagiarized from this obit in the September 9, 2007 Chicago Tribune. This can be speedy deleted as a copyright violation per WP:G12. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 01:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ignoring the full copyvio problem which would necessitate a delete anyway, this is an unusual AfD because from the Chicago obit: "Drive Your Car Safely was published in Spanish, Polish and English and used in drivers' education curriculums throughout IL for many years." Textbook authors do get some notability. Though have never discussed drivers' education before. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:55, 25 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 merge to Drexel Dragons. L Faraone 18:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drexel Fight Song[edit]

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

Contested prod. Not notable. Even in Schueneman's "College Fight Songs: An Annotated Anthology", it only is mentioned in passing on one line.

I had only removed the lyrics as a possible copyright violation, but this has been reverted by the article creator. If someone would be so kind to check this, I'ld be grateful. The copyright status of the lyrics has no further bearing on the notability of the subject (and thus this AfD) though. Fram (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Fram (talk) 07:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Drexel Dragons. No independent, reliable sources support keeping this as a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment A more careful check of the Drexel website shows that the included text was from 2008 and therefore unquestionably copyrighted. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Drexel Dragons; the limited information about the song and its writers is sourceable[32][33] and relevant as a school tradition, but there is not enough to justify or require a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As creator of the page, I also now believe the Drexel Fight Song page should be merged into Drexel Dragons(talk) 02:11, 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 merge to Galactic quadrant (Star Trek). Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sector (Star Trek)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Prodded as non-notable, but previously went to AFD. Nothing but in-universe fancruft, no sourcing. Previous AFD resulted in "delete". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete unsourced fancrufty padding around a single sentence of unknown authority. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do know that the most confusing and highly sought after piece of information regarding Star Trek is understanding space travel / speed. Now I am just a greasy science fiction nerd who doesn't understand hyperfluatant Wikipedia standards, but I don't see the harm in having accurate information that people want in the Encyclopedia. Sector is a word that has some 8 or so odd meanings, and it seems important to me to disambiguate them all, especially if you're a school child trying to write a report. The original article was deleted because it was just a jumble of episode references without any concrete information.

I don't know what "fancruft" means, but it sounds like an insult. It seems to me you are accusing me of making things up. Can you clarify please? To my recollection, there were three citations in this article when I wrote it. I wonder where they all went? It seems to me this article could use help to be brought up to "Wikipedia standards." I'm not against that. I think it's odd that this community is always trying to tear down what they don't like instead of improving on it. But that's just me. ---Article Author

Delete. Sorry, but just because something is "accurate" (in-universe at least) and WP:USEFUL for some is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I assume the references you were referring to were from Memory Alpha. That's where this article belongs, not here. (Yes, WP:FANCRUFT is mildly insulting.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History Merge content to Galactic_quadrant_(Star_Trek) and Delete (as a non-searchable title). Talking about sectors in light of the Galactic Quadrant (in universe) seems to make sense and a way to retain some of this. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Masem, but keep the redirect per WP:MAD. Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs on Wikia, not Wikipedia. If people want to learn in-universe trivia, they can always check out fansites, of which there are plenty. If people really want to merge this unreferenced material, I suppose that's acceptable, but it probably won't survive for long before someone removes it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:34, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Kroger Main Street Marketplace[edit]

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

Originally proposed for deletion by another editor, and I endorsed. It was contested without giving a reason by an IP. This is a non-notable grocery store that fails WP:GNG. There isn't really that much more to say. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the editor who originally proposed deletion - I wanted it to be speedied but couldn't justify it under the regular criteria. There's just nothing notable about this and it borders on being spam. PK T(alk) 03:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not even vaguely plausibly notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable firm, failing WP:CORPDEPTH; the text - noting the non-encyclopaedic "we" - can be regarded as advertising. AllyD (talk) 09:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I appreciate the editor's contributions but Wikipedia is not a business directory for every shopping center out there. It may help if it was locally notable, but even then it probably wouldn't be enough. Google News searches found links here, here and here. It's your usual shopping center. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Howell[edit]

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

Being a captain in the American Revolutionary War does not satisfy WP:SOLDIER. Also fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer with no further notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Necrothesp: there's no real evidence of notability here. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 26 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 merge to White Pony. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elite (song)[edit]

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

My notability tag has been disputed a few times now, so I guess I'll take my issues here. While the song does pass WP:NSONG criteria #2 for winning a Grammy, it seems to suffer from WP:PERMASTUB. As WP:NSONG notes, "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Since the song wasn't released as a single, nor was it promoted in anyway, I don't believe the article could grow much beyond what it is now. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's a weird case because despite winning a Grammy it was never released as a single[34]. Hence sources will be album reviews[35]. A merge/redirect to White Pony is called for by WP:NSONG unless anyone can find better sources. (As an aside, a lot of things win Grammies every year due to their numerous categories, but not all of them really get much mainstream press, so even if it's a well-known artist, winning a genre Grammy is not itself a guarantee of notability - NSONG says it's only an indicator not a guarantee.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The fact that it won a Grammy does mean it has been noted by peers. I'd say that the song is indeed notable. But in this case, winning a Grammy didn't really generate the sort of coverage for the song that would provide is the material to flesh out the article so a merge is more appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- Notable due to Grammy but not enough coverage for a stand alone article. Merge with White Pony album.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:20, 28 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) 03:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hostocol[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced article about a newly-founded web hosting company. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 00:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article (and the company itself) attempts to make claim to notability, but the few amount of web results, in addition to "quoting" Obi-wan Kenobi on their webpage is evidence of a lack of any true sort of notability, and puts their claim as one of the fastest growing web hosting companies in India into question. Until Hostocol breaks any major press it will likely remain a permastub if anything, as the only sources I can find out their for Hostocol are blogs and items from the company itself. Delete. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 03:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP pretty badly, Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete blatant advert. Almost speedy delete. LibStar (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - Too new to build substance and multiple News searches only found that one press release. Sometimes, a company will use press releases and maybe eventually get news coverage. The press release is for a partnership which is a good sign but now it depends on the future if this company holds its ground. No prejudice towards a future article. SwisterTwister talk 19:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost considered applying for speedy, but I felt it didn't fit. Still spam though. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 22:24, 26 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) 01:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Madhyapara massacre[edit]

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

One of a non-notable and quite possibly POV-driven series of articles created in good faith by one editor; there is a dearth of any sources to be found, especially with the given title; if this indeed occurred, it is not an historically accurate title for the article (possible OR); the only given sources are apparently in Bahun, so source veracity cannot be checked (request for translation by template was removed). GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are references at the end of the article. It is a good article. Why delete it? 117.227.84.167 (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four foreign language sources (three of which are dead links) do not indicate notability. (Note:I tried to find replacements for these links, and could not find any.) Search engines can barely find the term. It's just not notable; and is indicative of OR. In addition, there are several other "massacre" articles by the same author which fall into the same category as the one above. The edit summaries of these indicate a complete POV push regarding the troubled time. I will be adding those here if I have the time before the AfD is through. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes they do. It doesn't matter what language the source is in, so long as it is independently-published, the coverage substantial, and its information presumably trustworthy. Nor is there any requirement that a website remain functional forever — which is why we should be using more permanent forms of sourcing that ephemeral web pages. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If 370 people are killed in a single day just because of their religious affiliation it certainly is a notable incident. We must remember that this incident is not an isolated one. It is a part of the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. Due to link rots, the sources could not be verified I agree. But I have fixed one link rot and added one more source which can be verified. Regarding the title, the term used by Bangladeshi media is মধ্যাপাড়া গণহত্যা which translates to Madhyapara genocide. But the killings of 370 people alone can't constitute a genocide, so I had used the term Madhyapara massacre. Please suggest suitable title. BengaliHindu (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear keep; a massacre of 370 people for any reason is a historic event, well beyond the filter against mundane coverage of awful events envisioned by WP:NOTNEWS. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the sentiment, but what about citation or references? There is nothing on any search I come up with. The sources in the articles are dead links. There is no way to verify that any one even died as described or that this incident even took place. It's similar to the Bicholim deal as far as I can see. If anyone would or could provide ANY reliable source(s), I will gladly withdraw my request. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 19:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly refer to this Bengali article titled ৭১এর গণহত্যার নির্মম দৃষ্টান্ত শরীয়তপুরের মধ্যপাড়া বধ্যভূমি, বিজয় সেখানে আজো পৌছেনি!. There is even a picture of the memorial. BengaliHindu (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant: WP:DEADLINK, WP:NOENG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 26 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.