Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 October	15 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Wood[edit]

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

This is either somewhere between a hoax and massive self-promotion. I cannot verify any of the article's claims. No person by this name is listed in the credits of any of these movies. All the references lead back to the person's website or have no bearing on the article's claims. The creator, Magickali13 (talk · contribs), is pretty clearly either the person herself or knows her. Note that this topic was rejected at Articles for creation at the same time this article was created. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both failing WP:GNG and self promotion. Search results lead back to the article and directories leading to similarly-named individuals. One source leads back to her website, another makes no mention of the subject, the third is a gallery and hence unusable as a source. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not something we need here. WP:CRYSTAL may apply here p b p 17:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the articles tells us the subject was cast as an audience member alone suggests they are probably not notable. Even the claim about being cast in an undisclosed upcoming film does not actually say they are notable. Utterly not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 21 October 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 Snow close. There seems to be a fairly strong consensus to delete the page and I also can't see where it expands on Hollywood marriage enough to warrant a separate article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Celebrities Marriage[edit]

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

Contested PROD, tag removed with no real rationale by article creator. Unsourced essay, and a remarkably badly written and trivial one to boot. TheLongTone (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. WP:OR and horribly wrong. There is no "law" preventing celebrities from marrying fans or people in certain professions. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Utterly horrible article and grammatical garbage; apparently the OP didn't get the memo about Julia Roberts marrying a cameraman eleven years ago, and is a terrible copy of Hollywood marriage, a mess in itself. Possible salting if user follows through on restoring if deleted. Nate • (chatter) 01:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Article is completely unreferenced and makes no sense.Bonnie (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic is itself a strange combination of nonexistent ("Law About Celebrities Marriage" section) and redundant (see Hollywood marriage). cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 October 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. No argument mande for deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cilla Black: The 50th Anniversary Collection[edit]

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

This Parlophone release has been cancelled and replaced by The Very Best Of Cilla Black. As explained in this link: http://www.cillablack.com/cpt_news/this-really-is-the-very-best-of-cilla-black-cd-dvd Britboy1976 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Cilla Black: The 50th Anniversary Collection[reply]

So why not just move the article to the proper title? You don't need an AfD for that. Keresaspa (talk) 23:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 15 October 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 Bangu (drum). I've chosen the bold move to redirect to Bangu (drum) instead of the broader Drum. Bangu (drum) could use some work, but is a more complete article and includes the drum mentioned. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gu (instrument)[edit]

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

Gu is the generic Chinese word for drum, of which there are many kinds (many of which have pages). This page appears to be based on a particular specimen in a museum, but does not provide enough specific information to designate a particular style of drum. There is too little here to bother with merging to drum. Rigadoun (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to broader type of drum. What effort has been made to contact the museum for more information? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to drum. Gu is simply the Chinese word for drum. See wiktionary entry. -Zanhe (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale. There's nothing to merge anyway, since the misrepresented info is actually about a single object. Improbable search term too. --Cold Season (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Zanehe we should redirect to drum and merg the article Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 22:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as hoax (all three articles). Fram (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Sarinhi[edit]

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

This topic is completely unverifiable. Google search does not give any hit for "Sarinhi" connected with typhoon. ([1]) Vanjagenije (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm calling BS on Typhoon Sarinhi, Papua New Guinea Seawall, and Typhoon Zengari, all by the same author. I can't tell if Coronon, Davao del Sur, is real or not, but it isn't ridiculous. 2013 Pacific typhoon season does not list a Typhoon Sarinhi, and there is no such thing as a "Category 7 super mega typhoon" or a "catergory 10 super mega typhoon". Chris857 (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 October 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 -- Y not? 15:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the list of 33 best football players of the championship of Russia[edit]

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

No content other than the opening sentence - No content. Links to Russian wiki where there are lists of players - can't check for copyvio of that unfortunately. Antiqueight ^confer 20:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes a strong case for qualifying as CSD A3, having no content other than bare external links and a restatement of the title (possibly also A1, frankly). Regardless of whether it would be a valid speedy, I cannot imagine any content that could result in a valid article at this title. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inherently subjective list. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a list, it's an article about a list. Whether it's notable or not, in its current state (insufficient context, no references) it isn't ready for the article namespace. Peter James (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to be notable. Giant Snowman 14:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. Fenix down (talk) 14:38, 15 October 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 Left Behind characters. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Todd-Cothran[edit]

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

Minor fictional character that fails WP:GNG. Character has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article only covers things from an in-universe perspective, and is simply a plot summary of part of a book. No real world notability is asserted. The article also has no references and has been tagged as such for nearly five years – since January 2009. It was also PRODded then, but the PROD was removed for the reason "notable character". Neither the challenger nor anyone else has provided any evidence of notability since. (In fact, the only improvement the article's seen since the 2009 PROD is the addition of a stub tag.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge/redirect to List of Left Behind characters. In fact, most of the "main article" characters in that List article should be merged/redirected like this one. Probably could be done without AfD since the articles are so old and unattended, but if someone complains it could be done with a multi-article AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Lagman[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA. Appearing in one episode of an MTV reality show does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't quite meet NMMA and fails to meet GNG. A one episode guest spot in a reality TV show doesn't change that. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Berry (fighter)[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about an MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No top tier fights and no significant coverage makes this an easy decision.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Into the Rift (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Valenzuela[edit]

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

MMA fighter with only 1 top tier fight (a loss). Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Winning a second tier title does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. He fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn Anderson[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability standards for MMA fighters WP:MMA or kickboxers WP:KICK.Mdtemp (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has only 1 top tier MMA fight. It's WP:CRYSTALBALL to assume he'll get the 3 fights necessary to meet WP:NMMA. His few kickboxing bouts do not meet WP:KICK or show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Into the Rift (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lopez (fighter)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NMMA. Winning a second tier championship does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and I don't think being called a "scumbag" on some MMA sites is enough to show he meets WP:GNG. I think the incident falls under BLP1E.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Fails WP:NMMA but he might be notable if you include his appearence on Bully Beatdown as well as the coverage due to the controversy of his last fight. Into the Rift (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. I don't think receiving coverage for continuing to choke and hit an opponent after the ref stopped the fight shows notability nor does appearing in one episode of an MTV reality TV show.

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) 01:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lowry (martial arts)[edit]

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

While there's evidence to show he's written books, there's nothing to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.Mdtemp (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Prolific martial arts writer in magazines and books. His most held book according to LibraryThing [2] is Bokken: Art of the Japanese Sword. Book reviews: Arresting Solutions, Akido Journal. The next is Autumn Lightning and it has a "stand out" mention in Black Belt magazine [3], was said to "influence" Barry Eisler's understanding of the warrior arts[4], as well as cited in many other book bibliographies. Lawrence Kane called him "A highly skilled and knowledgeable martial artist"[5]. Finally is Sword and Brush: The Spirit of the Martial Arts which is cited in many martial arts books on Google Books (along with the other books). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The author is quite well known within the general martial arts community and in that context quite notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see significant independent coverage. Short reviews and one line mentions in introductions or comments don't show me the significant coverage required by WP:GNG--especially when I read things like "my good friend Dave Lowry". Since he's a columnist for Black Belt, the "stand out" mention in that magazine carries no weight. If he's well known then it shouldn't be difficult to find significant coverage of him. If that happens, I'll change my mind about him.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Creative professionals, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." jmcw (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Carpenter[edit]

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

Subject contacted OTRS requesting deletion. The rationale essentially revolves around WP:BLP1E, and (reproduced with permission) from ticket:2013100710015384 is as follows: The article should be removed (...because it...) is based on a singular event in the lifetime of a low-profile, nonpublic individual whose role in the event is not significant or well-documented. Further, the Wiki article provides no context, and is based initially on three news articles in which I am not the main subject of any of the article, and, as of this date, only one of these articles is still available. I'd agree that this is a clear wholly negative BLP1E, probably created in the heat of the moment during the Abramoff scandal. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not-notable.TheLongTone (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the scandal hadn't happened, would this be a notable individual? No. Case of BLP1E. Per nom. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and a well-reasoned request to OTRS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 14 October 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 Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Raymond[edit]

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

notability Blander2 (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC) It's clear from Talk:Nathaniel Raymond that several people have notability concerns about this article. It's basically a citation farm, though the references are weak (none concern Raymond). He's quoted in one of them, though this would establish the notability of what he is knowledgeable about and it doesn't confer notability to him.Blander2 (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The article needs to be modified, but Raymond is notable. WP:BIO states "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. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." There is significant coverage of Raymond in The Boston Globe, Guardian, Nature, Newsweek, International Business Times, and other publications. DavidinNJ (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single cite in this quote farm that is about Raymond. In the instances in which Raymond is cited about the Human Rights Organization, that establishes the notability of the organization, not of Raymond.0Juan234 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan, WP:GNG states that significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Here are three references where there is significant coverage of Raymond in a well-known publication. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian article - The article opens with a discussion of Raymond's work, and he is mentioned 11 times.

Boston Globe - The entire article is about a group that Raymond directs, and he is mentioned 17 times.

Nature - The entire article is about a report that Raymond authored, and Raymond is quoted several times.

Finally, someone with evidence. The problem with these is the Guardian piece could be understood to confer notability to the initiative; he's a mouthpiece. The Nature piece refers to the report, not to Raymond. The only one that discusses Raymond in the context of his expertise (i.e., an in-passing reference to him and not just the initiative) is the Globe piece. So what we've got here is a quote farm and one in-passing mention.0Juan234 (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DavidinNJ--significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. I'd also like to note the unusual situation that two of the accounts driving the call for deletion here are new accounts with less than 50 edits apiece; since this is a very low-traffic article, it would be remarkable for two such new users to converge here, and suggests to me that some form of offline shenanigans may be happening here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note the sockpuppeting that has already occurred in support of this article, and that we have three supposedly "different" editors posting in 13 minute in support of this article, while the talk page is replete with opinions to the contrary.0Juan234 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think DavidinNJ, ColHenry, Quadell, and I are sockpuppets of a single individual, that would be one of the most elaborate hoaxes in Wikipedia history... did you look at our contributions? -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this person is prima facie notable, and is subject of significant, independent secondary coverage. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage, if you read each of the cites, concern other topics and Raymond isn't the subject even in passing of all but one of them. One passing citation, thr0Juan234 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP per DavidinNJ. While the article can be improved (hey, can anyone point to an article that is perfect?), the subject is entirely notable and verifiable and passes the test for inclusion. Raymond is the point man on human rights violations in Sudan and during the Afghan War. His work to shed light on such human rights violations, and specifically his work with Physicians for Human Rights are all per se notable given its significant coverage in the press with regard to Wikipedia's policies. I'd like to see this article improved with Raymond's fight to get access to public records (his FOIA requests and litigation with the US Government in the Dasht-i-Leili massacre), the publication of those documents on Wikileaks, and that his research was the backbone of the excellent 2002 documentary "Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death" (which can be seen in its entirety on youtube). The forcing an AfD despite the sources and despite the discussion on the talk page does smell fishy (per Khazar2's observations), and I do wonder if this is a coordinated campaign by Raymond's detractors, professional rivalry, or human rights violation deniers.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noted expert (pioneer) on using satellite technology and other intelligence information gathering techniques to monitor human rights violations in otherwise difficult regions such as the Sudan. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, of course* There are some sketchy things occurring here and on the Raymond talk page. As I noted there:

All the text recommending deletion was mysteriously archived a few days after it was posted - while everything else on the talk page remained there for nine months. I cut and pasted it again here last week, and -voila!- the same text recommending deletion was archived again today! Hmmm... Anyway, these above entries are nice reports, though unfortunately they do not add much to the questions on notability. The concept of notability must be established through certain types of references (regardless of a person's opinion of the individual). The question is why/how does these references establish notability? If he's interviewed about something, that establishes the notability of the subject of the interview. Rather than saying "this seems to me to [this or that]" - responses on this topic need to be "this reference establishes/fails to establish notability because..."

One might bear in mind that the talk page has a history of sockpuppet editors posting, and we find some nice coincidences that these people are all here at the same time:

DavidinNJ (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Khazar2 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Quadell (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

ColonelHenry (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Green Cardamom (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

But who cares about sockpuppets, wikipedia has notability safeguards against quotefarms and editors (like those who have posted above) who haven't interpreted the citations of a quote farm. But don't take my word for it, read their lack of reasons why the citations establish notability. This is about the best of the bunch: "here is significant coverage of Raymond in The Boston Globe, Guardian, Nature, Newsweek, International Business Times, and other publications" says DavidinNJ. No, there isn't. There are references there that do no even in passing concern Raymond. There is a single reference that could be construed to be an "in passing" reference.0Juan234 (talk) 19:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the ridiculousness of your position, going on the warpath by accusing five accomplished editors (together who have been recognized with dozens of FAs, GAs, and other achievements, tens of thousands of edits, and probably about a combined 40 years worth of work on the project) of being the work of a "sockpuppet" is not convincing and rather offensive. You might want to learn a little before spouting off like a disruptive little gnat with such an absurd claim.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing of the sort! I said "it's a nice coincidence" - if I wanted to accuse you of sockpuppetting, I would have said as much. Aside from the ridiculousness of your position, going on the warpath by accusing an editor of accusing others of being "sockpuppets" is rather offensive. You might want to learn a little before spouting off like a disruptive little gnat with such an absurd claim. And while you're at it, have a look at the references for Raymond and, if you still feel that the page warrants existence, explain why 0Juan234 (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editors above who have encountered your agenda during the talk page discussion, and who you've commented on their keep votes above, likely do not wish to continue discussing this matter with you, and neither do I. Your behaviour and tediously repeated argument show you cannot be reasoned with, that you are intransigently stubborn, and that you will persist in your refusal to acknowledge consensus just because it isn't to your liking. Further, quite frankly, harassing editors and throwing around accusations (veiled or not) simply on the basis of their voting in opposition to your position is bad form. Doubtlessly, if such disruptive behaviour and hostility continue, it will be reported accordingly to your detriment. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you point out, harassing editors and throwing around accusations (veiled or not) simply on the basis of their voting in opposition to your position is bad form. Rather than being petty and personal, why not just explain why you feel the references support notability.0Juan234 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clever, my two-year old likes playing the repeating-what-I-say game, too. Except when she does it, it's cute. I can't say the same here. Already did explain my "why" and sufficiently did so--as did other experienced editors. If you desire to insistently refuse to listen to those reasons, your refusal doesn't negate the validity of my judgment or their judgment. If you want to continue ignoring opinions that disagree with yours, that's your problem, not mine. If you want to be disruptive because of it, well, you only have yourself to blame. This is my final comment on this AfD, I've explained my reasons sufficiently to my own satisfaction and that of other reasonable editors. If you don't agree, well, too bad. I don't intend to make any further accommodation for your intransigence. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Already did explain my 'why' and sufficiently did so." Where? Here: "the subject is entirely notable and verifiable and passes the test for inclusion." The test is: which citations make him notable? He is mentioned in passing on one of them. Maybe you meant here: "Notable given its significant coverage in the press with regard to Wikipedia's policies." Again, which citation? Because wikipedia policy says that ""A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources." So, for Raymond, the answer is no, as he's not the subject of any of them. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." There are not multiple sources that concern Raymond. Again, that's why I am asking why - as it's clear either you didn't read the references or you don't understand notability.0Juan234 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the references and Mr. Raymond's work at PHR. Typically when someone is interviewed by a newspaper regarding an event, they're either connected with or know a lot about that event. Newspapers and magazines don't interview random people who are clueless, they support their stories with experts. Raymond's work with PHR is specifically connected to the events in Afghanistan, he's an expert on that event. Newspapers asked him about the event. The newspaper establishes coverage (a) of the event and (b) of his expert opinion on that event. Therefore, conferring notability as an expert, a participant, and as a researcher on that event. Seriously, it's that simple. If you refuse to accept that, no answer anyone gives you will be sufficient in your skewed world. Any editor here at Wikipedia who has a little more than 60-edits worth of experience would accept that this article's subject meets the notability guidelines. I suggest you read a little more policy before you deign to pontificate on matters of its application. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Congrats on finally addressing the topic! Get this (wo)man a BARNSTORMER! I won't go into your pontificating here, as that's off-topic.) As I noted before, and you note here, there is one source (the Globe article) that could be understood as in-passing reference, as Raymond is not the subject. The notability guidelines say "multiple" such references are necessary to confer notability. Yes, it is "that" simple.0Juan234 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Juan, The material on the talk page that was removed yesterday was old material that was auto-archived by a bot. Here is the thread that the bot archived. There is nothing wrong with citing archival material in a new thread, but I suggest that you don't restore old threads from the archives. When these restored threads archive, the same material will be in the archives in duplicate. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was pointing out that it's interesting that the text that recommended deleting the page a year ago was immediately archived while other topics were left on the page for nine months. Then, when the delete-the-page topic comes up again, and discussed (by me and others) it's archived in a week. That means: it's not old. Just pointing that out that such selective archiving is a bit coincidental...Another Comment: Let's get to work explaining why the citations confer notability. No one seems to be able to do that. 0Juan234 (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan, I'm really confused by your comments. The archiving bot is a computer program that follows a formula. It doesn't play favorites. The reason why one thread was left on the talk page for many months is that there were no other threads. The bot for this talk page is programmed to always leave at least one thread (the oldest one). I have added some new material under my original comments above that explains how the references confer notability. DavidinNJ (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have established why/how/etc. that they confer notability, but apparently you continue to not comprehend anything other than your way, so we can't establish it sufficiently to meet your skewed expectations that is founded on a misinterpretation of policy and how it's applied. Learn how things work before you insist on your limited understanding of it. With only 60 edits, you're forgiven for not knowing how Wikipedia works. However, your lack of willingness to comprehend is unforgivable. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Oh yea, that. It's a touchy subject apparently. Congrats, though, again, for actually discussing the topic in this edit [[6]].0Juan234 (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide links to examples of the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources covering this subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Candleabracadabra: - asked and answered several times above and on talk page discussion. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ample secondary sources establish notability, and the page is being substantially improved beyond the original mess created by a sockpuppet. Spurious accusations of censorship and further sockpuppetry (against widely known and respected editors) don't do anything but push me even further into the "keep" camp. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, let's base decisions that supposedly concern sources on petty matters. That's a fantastic approach. There are about two worthwhile comments here, which is to say there are two comments that actually discuss the topic. Sorry Ninja man, yours isn't one of them (neither is this post of mine, in fact). Ninja, your post could be improved (which is to say it might mean something) if you were to discuss which references you feel establish notability and explain the reasons why. .0Juan234 (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan, you might check out WP:BLUDGEON. We're all familiar with your views at this point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the sockmaster, I performed all the edits of all other above editors and would finally like to take credit for that! Actually, I'm also Jimbo Wales. Come to think of it, add Barack Obama and Napoleon, too. Seriously: the sources posted by DavidinNJ clinch the deal. Two sterling references in major newspapers (I'm less impressed by the Nature one, which is more in-passing). --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Guangxu[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the top three flights of chinese football are pro. He has not played in the top flight and the fully pro status of the second and third flights is not confirmed by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I a also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete all - this discussion suggests League one is an FPL, but there is nothing available to suggest league two, in which all these players play, is fully professional. Happy to reverse my view if sources can be found. Fenix down (talk) 11:25, 15 October 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 with nomination withdrawn and no opposing delete !votes. Dispute resolution, in particular, WP:DRN is now the way forward. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Control Center[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Last AFD closed as "no consensus", bold merge reverted by creator of article. All the references either only make passing references to the feature, or are invalid sources (self-published/blog, primary).

It is already covered at the exact same extent in the main iOS 7 article, and despite claims to the contrary, has no notability that is independent of the OS itself and can be better covered in the main article because its a relatively minor addition. Apple always makes minor features look more important than they actually are, so this is giving undue weight to Apple's marketing (thus, non-neutral). ViperSnake151 Talk 14:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep and speedy close. Nothing has changed in 7 days since the last AFD, and this is being used to force what is essentially a merge and redirect discussion, if any. That's a matter for WP:DRN if ya'll can't work it out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn. Shifting to merge discussion because apparently this is articles for deletion, not merging. ViperSnake151 Talk 19:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mass transforming into gravity[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for original research. This "brand new physical concept" has been PRODded before, and WP:NOR explained on the author's talk page, but here it is again, with a bit of additional material. I bring it here so that any future re-postings can be speedily deleted. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Recreated page by writer to whom it was already explained that Wikipedia is not for original research. WP:OR, promotion of a fringe theory. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a personal essay. The author has created a new physics theory, and he is using wikipedia to publish. The author seems to have problems understanding that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. The creator should find a website where this type of content is acceptable, and publish there. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Nat Gertler is right, this article doesn't even have any references and a Google search only turns up mentions of this page. Hence this article's subject is unquestionably not notable. Jinkinson talk to me 16:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Not only is this WP:OR and WP:FRINGE, it is also delving into the realms of religion and belief systems. The article does not cite any reliable references to establish the notability of this subject. This is simply conjecture with no real scientific method in it, the author seems to be saying "I think this" without explaining why. It has no place on wikipedia.Martin451 16:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay-like speculation, neither scientific nor encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - Textbook WP:OR and WP:FRINGE, article is also poorly sourced. A search for the subject here will turn up no relevant results. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Salt, and Snow. All of my nope. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh my god, worst crackpot OR ever. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:SNOW PianoDan (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: rambling OR based on personal speculation. It's not encyclopedic. Praemonitus (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Wow, worst word salad ever. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 17 October 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. withdrawn by nominator. JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kanakamala[edit]

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

Un-notable local landmark with no sources and little information. Benboy00 (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: article is about village as well as hill, have rearranged text and found a source re church. PamD 21:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the subject of this article has changed (-_-), i would like to withdraw this AfD. Benboy00 (talk) 21:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Kim[edit]

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

Plastic surgeon/researcher. Member of some professional associations. Some publications that, according to the Web of Science, have been cited 20 tomes, highest citation count 10, h-index of 2 (searching for "Kenneth Kim"). Only sources in the article are his own publications, two brief references in the "Koreatown Daily" (a local newsletter for Korean immigrants) and some in-passing mentions in Korea Times. None of this meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- the article states he is most well known for his research & that he is an Assistant Clinical Professor, indicating that the individual should meet WP:PROF, backed up by reliable independent sources. Neither is the case. Lesion (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. In particular the publications listed in our article (and the ones I could find through Google scholar) are not highly cited enough to pass criterion C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Non-academic sources quoted are of inadequate value to pass WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. This is actually the third AfD nomination. Others were closed with non consensus on 15 July 2010 and 19 Jan 2012. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrie (Ann Harrington)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Murry1975 (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --HighKing (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 8 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add an entry in Harrie referring to her appearance on You're a Star, as that's all she appears to be notable for. I'd normally go with a redirect for that, but the search term isn't a likely one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie, she isnt mentioned on the You're a Star article, which isnt odd in itself, a once-off apperence does not bestow notability, but how would we mention he in the article? Murry1975 (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I assumed a source for that would be available. If it isn't, don't bother with the disambig bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bujak[edit]

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

This person doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC, and the article has been unreferenced since forever. This article was prodded in 2007 - that prod was challenged, but the concerns still haven't been addressed six years later. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GARAGEBAND A clue is that the only link out is to his somewhat poorly designed personal website. The fact that this article was created a while ago renders it ineligible for a BLPPROD, but the fact remains that it has no sources whatsoever, let alone reliable ones. There is also the fact that the supposed label he is signed with describes their "record label/artist relationship" as "realistic" on the front page. Benboy00 (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis of Mara Masonic Lodge[edit]

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

Non-notable local chapter of Freemasonry, with no assertion of notability. When I went through the article, nothing was actually sourced other than things like the address or other easily verified information. ELs were a lot of links to obits of NN members and other tangential things like the Little League team they sponsored. There's nothing that would make this inherently notable - it's not the first, biggest, or anything else superlative. MSJapan (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (talk to me) @ 17:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 7 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No assertion of notability, and reliable sources on this subject do not seem to exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 16 October 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 John W. Gardner. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The John Gardner Fellowship Program[edit]

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

Promotional article on a scholarship program with no clear indication of notability. Having 3 notable fellows out of about 100 is not notability . I do not think that a article of this sort, without a single external source, should have been accepted from AfC, but it was 2 years ago and I hope standards are better now. I note the large number of routine tinkering and minor fixes over the subsequent two years--yet nobody seems to have noticed the more fundamental problem. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to John W. Gardner. Not independently notable. Material from the Stanford[7] and UC Berkeley[8] websites can't establish notability but can be used as sources for non-controversial material in that article; also there are passing refs in other articles/books[9][10]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:45, 9 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Shop[edit]

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

Small non-notable company, article unreasonably accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 7 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- An on-line retailer with one physical shop is surely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 14 October 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 Conscription in Israel. Refusal to serve in the Israeli military might also be a possible merge/split target for some of its contents. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Haredi anti-draft protests in Israel[edit]

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

Content of the article is not notable enough to warrant a wiki article of its own רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 14:10, 20 September 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 September 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It probably is notable enough isn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:10, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Merging per Roscelese/Colapeninsula seems like a good solution. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Conscription in Israel. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:38, 28 September 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) 00:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Conscription in Israel. Single event, which received news coverage but article makes no claim of broader impact that would take it beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Also, very short article that needs additional background information: this could be provided by incorporation into existing articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 7 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above or into Refusal to serve in the Israeli military.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:33, 14 October 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. There is no clear consensus here - the value of the sources is the main sticking point here, with one side saying they are sufficient, the other side disagreeing. As it's been relisted 3 times, I am closing it as no consensus, as none has been reached! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shadazzle[edit]

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

Shadazzle is a webseries, an apparently a nicely-produced amateur production. No indication that this has generated any coverage in reliable sources, however. The only two sources listed in the article (besides their own website) are from two very local publications of unclear status. A Google search mainly shows links related to a cleaning product of the same name. Fails WP:WEB, WP:FILM, and WP:GNG, hence: Delete. See also the related AfD for the shows creator, Brett Barnett. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 14:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not entirely sure what is meant by unclear status, but the two references in question are articles from independent publications with a combined circulation of over 50,000, for which the series is the sole subject of the article. This would appear to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I have also added a third source, a radio production from the BBC, which should certainly satisfy the criteria for a reliable source; the producer is a globally recognised and respected company, and the series in question was discussed in depth on air. The dominant Google Search results appear to be for the series, rather than the cleaning product (the top-ranking result is the series' homepage; the cleaning product's homepage does not surface until the bottom of the results page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.240.85 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — 145.255.240.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. It arguably squeaks by the WP:GNG with the addition of the later sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which are a reference to Flicker and a local BBC station (BBC Sheffield). --Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only independent coverage I can find is of the racehorse of the same name. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If this had been on TV, I would not object, but I do not think we can have pages on any am-dram that someone fil,s and pus on the web! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage, nice potential here. — Cirt (talk) 19:12, 21 September 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) 01:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Cirt (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC). It on the third series, looks as though there is enough invested in it to become very popular. scope_creep talk 16:58, 06 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, neither of you explains which are those nice secondary sources (the only ones in the article are quite local) and where that nice potential comes from. --Randykitty (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see how location alters the definition of "secondary source." A secondary source is "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere," and that definition does not change based on geographic factors. Wikipedia's guidelines are quite clear that the requirement for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article cites several such sources. If this article fails WP:GNG, then perhaps an alteration to the guidelines should be considered to avoid future situations? 145.255.240.85 (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following your reasoning, a subject discussed in depth in two magazines that have a circulation of 50 each would be notable... --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. But it's not my reasoning, it's Wikipedia's reasoning, and it's outlined quite clearly.145.255.240.85 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By those criteria, then, I am notable as I had three paragraphs about me in a computer magazine in the 1980s, a CD got about the same in a Dutch prog rock magazine about ten years ago, and I've done a few interviews on local FM radio. Can you create an article about me, please? I promise not to have a conflict of interest. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I get that it's a fine line and I do understand why people may consider this article not notable (although I disagree), but I stand by the fact that, based on the Wikipedia guidelines, it does qualify, so I again suggest that the guidelines should be altered accordingly. I've also been doing a little research (for lack of a better word) and found quite a few articles that pale in comparison to this article. For example, Chronicles Of Syntax has 18 references, all but one of which are primary sources. Compare that to the coverage the four secondary sources already cited in this article provide. I think the main problem with this article is the lack of citations for small details, something which I'm slowly working to improve by adding more primary sources to verify the information. Of course, I'm also looking to add more secondary sources where possible. It would be a shame to see the article vanish rather than expand. -- 145.255.240.85 (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) is not the strongest of arguments to use here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a stopgap, if you believe it's possible to find better offline sources, you can always ask for it to be userfied for you. I've got a few article parked in userspace (eg: User:Ritchie333/England (band)) for this very reason. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:15, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with regret). It does sound like a well produced show that's got a devoted following, and probably deserves to be more notable than it actually is. That said, I have tried really hard to look for sources, but I can't find anything that doesn't suggest this is simply World famous in ~~Poland~~ Sheffield. The guideline that fits this best is WP:TVSHOW - a local television show isn't necessarily non-notable (the London-only "Today" is highly notable for giving the Sex Pistols their break) but if it doesn't gain national attention it probably isn't worth much. If it gets picked up and repeated by BBC Three, we'll look into creating an article then. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Ritchie333 is about right here, unfortunately. Also their YouTube views are quite low [11], less than 200 views per episode is common, with recent ones not even reaching 50 views. Its extremely unlikely for a webseries to be notable at that level.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:34, 25 October 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 Moshiach Oi!. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alpert[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only one source cited in the article, and that source only has incidental coverage of the person. LK (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not everyone mentioned in the news is notable. This article is based on the same NYT story as Yishai Romanoff, which has also been AfD'd. Allah is an akbar (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 7 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect to Moshiach Oi! for which Mr. Alpert plays. Other members of the band have been proposed to redirect back to the band page as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:12, 20 October 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 Moshiach Oi!. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yishai Romanoff[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criterion in WP:MUSICBIO. As noted in WP:MUSICBIO, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." LK (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Del[reply]

Delete. There are four references, but they are news stories about Orthodox Jewish punk that mention this individual only in passing. They do not support the claim that this individual, the bands he plays in, or even the music they produce, are notable outside this gimmicky context. Allah is an akbar (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as there is enough RS-based info to fill a multi-section article, thus satisfying WP:GNG.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:28, 7 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge no cause to delete. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moshiach Oi!. He lacks independent notability. All coverage of him is in the context of that band. All refs are already in the band article. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Moshiach Oi! because the person's notability is due to that one band which does seem to be notable. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:10, 20 October 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

University of Kentucky K Crew Coordinators[edit]

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

Non-notable student position at the University of Kentucky, would likely be CSD-able. A redirect to a one-line mention at the main University page might be more appropriate? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically no coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Devante Clut[edit]

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

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the moment anyway - is signed with Brisbane Roar and on the roster, while I cannot find proof of his having been put into a game yet, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and deleting this only to have to undelete/recreate a week or so later would just be silly. I'd suggest letting this one simmer per WP:IAR until the season is over or he is cut, at which point if he hasn't played we can round file it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; saying "he'll be notable in the future, honest!" violates WP:CRYSTAL. I am more than happy to be the admin who 'wastes' 12 or whatever of my precious seconds it'll take restoring the article if & when he becomes notable. GiantSnowman 16:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, saying "he won't be notable anytime soon so delete" also violates WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody has actually said that - and that's not what CRYSTAL is about at all. Giant Snowman 08:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. JMHamo (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS, a potential case of WP:TOOSOON. Will be easy to recreate if he plays professionally. There is clear consensus at WP:FOOTY that players must already have played in an FPL or at senior international level to pass notability. There is no consensus on any form of period of grace. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Doctorhawkes (talk) 11:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails both relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:48, 17 October 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, indeed meets speedy deletion criteria.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yehuda M. Fulda[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and possibly WP:GNG. The Professional Life section is written a bit promotionally. The only things I could find during a search for sources were profile pages such as Linkedin and G+. The controversy section at the bottom is about all the news I could find on him, and it's a small, rather localized bit of trivia; nothing that meets significant coverage. Ish dar ian 10:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably meets Speedy Delete criteria. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:28, 14 October 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 by nominator with no dissenting !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Smallwood[edit]

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

1. new BLP lacking an independant source, 2. procedural reason - created despite AfC Submission declined on 11 October 2013 "Lack of sources to establish notability" - shouldn't this be taken back to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jonathan Smallwood? Widefox; talk 10:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC) (clarified 2 reasons, 2nd being more of an issue) Widefox; talk 11:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per taking EXT as RS (see below) Widefox; talk 11:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Web of Science lists several highly-cited publications (highest citation counts: 243, 205, 73; total cites over 1000, h-index of 16). As usual, GScholar gives much higher results. In any case, for a young researcher like Smallwood, this is quite good. The article could indeed have benefited from more work before going "live". --Randykitty (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1 on Google scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Care to say how (per WP:DISCUSSAFD / WP:JUSTAPOLICY)? Widefox; talk 11:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on modified nom: Creating an article despite a declined AFC, without any further explanation, is less than elegant, but not a reason for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. In which case, I have no objection if it meets C1 "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" - none of which I see here or in the article. 2. Either the AfC was set too high, or this same current sourcing is too low. More than inelegant, seems inefficient we prevent AfC moving to main space for lack of sources but allow it created here (for unspecified sources per WP:NRV). Widefox; talk 00:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd nominator is advised to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

(ec) That may come across a bit WP:OWN. I tagged with WP:Prof before nominating. Any part in particular? "h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution since their validity is not, at present, completely accepted," I'm sure Randykitty is spot-on, I've already said I have no objection. Sure WP:NRV "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation..." but "...However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive...". Xxanthippe, (WP:N or) WP:Prof is a guideline not a rule, but WP:V is policy. Widefox; talk 11:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To address point 1, the citation numbers are sourced in the article to Google Scholar. And, as regards point 2, the very guideline that the nominator links says, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thanks, I'd missed that. (see above "challenged") Nom withdrawn. Widefox; talk 11:45, 16 October 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 Destiny (disambiguation)#Comics. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny (comics)[edit]

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

Destiny (disambiguation) already included the links on this dab page. Quest for Truth (talk) 09:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Destiny (disambiguation), which should have been WP:BOLDly done instead of AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bushranger, this should redirect to Destiny (disambiguation)#Comics as an WP:incomplete disambiguation. Unlike a shipindex page (or some other set indices), there is no information on this page beyond disambiguation and apparently nothing that links the various entries in any meaningful way. older ≠ wiser 14:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above Redirect to Destiny (disambiguation)#Comics. This is an incomplete disambiguation. Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 16 October 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Friedman[edit]

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

I don't think that Friedman yet passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The sources in the article look ok on first glance, but after going through them I found a number of problems:

The Atlantic Wire, Columbia Journalism Review and FishbowlLA don't have the significant coverage of Friedman required by the guidelines.
PolicyMic has good coverage, but it is crowd-sourced, and so doesn't pass our guidlines on identifying reliable sources.
ONA13 looks like a blog, which also doesn't count as a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes.
Mashable has previously been found not to be reliable source at threads on the reliable sources noticeboard.
The Rumpus interviews look ok with respect to our guidelines, but by themselves I don't think they are enough to satisfy the criterion that subjects have "significant coverage" in reliable sources.

I couldn't find any other sources on the web that looked suitable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge (if there's a suitable target). Ah, I hate these decisions. Nom is right, this is a borderline case - a good journalist who writes a lot of lively stuff, but as is the way with journos, not a lot of people write about them. Except here at AfD, of course. I've always felt the WP rules didn't apply too well to writers. However, there really aren't very many good sources about Friedman, and the ones above add up to enough for a mention somewhere but not really enough for an article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Influential journalist and former executive editor. COverage is sufficient to establish notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Of the two statements here, the first is an opinion without evidence, while the second is explicitly contradicted by nom's detailed arguments, none of which have been refuted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG as an award winning and recognized journalist. While I agree with the nominator that the original article was poorly sourced, Ann Friedman is the subject of articles about her, is frequently cited and her editorship of GOOD magazine was much publicized. She is important as a feminist and young female magazine editor. The pool of sources about her is much richer than the article at the time of nomination. Crtew (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh sources added. More to add. Crtew (talk) 07:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the new sources are about the move from GOOD magazine to Tomorrow, and don't really have much background about Friedman herself. This is all good stuff, and probably enough for an article about Tomorrow magazine, but I'm not convinced that it's enough for a stand-alone biography. If we can find one more really good source that discusses Friedman in a context other than (or as well as) the move to Tomorrow magazine, then I would probably be persuaded to change my mind, however. I would recommend a merge with Tomorrow (magazine), but that page is in need of some serious cleanup. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as much as people above believe that she meets our notability guideline for people, there simply are not multiple reliable sources that we can build an article from, and those expressing a keep preference are not presenting them. The most substantial one is Policymic, which is not a reliable source at all. Not against a merger to a relevant target, but deletion is the correct option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More fresh material was added. None of those with a preference for delete are disputing that the GOOD magazine incident received WP:SIGCOV as I noted above. Despite what is said above, the citations are NOT unreliable as they consist of LA Times, New York Magazine, and The Atlantic among other publications which covered the incident. Unlike other well-known journalists who we sometimes have to rely on their work alone, Friedman has been the subject of multiple interviews by secondary sources. Perhaps a previous contributor here did not compare the citations before new ones were added and the current version (more fresh material was just added). Moreover, Friedman fits both the WP:GNG and WP:Author criteria as her work is frequently cited by other journalists and she has won or been nominated for multiple awards. Crtew (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to add. Crtew (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There may be. However SIGCOV is a synonym ;-) for GNG, not anything extra, so mentioning both does sound like talking things big; and the GOOD mag stuff does little to confer notability on Friedman, while the list of things she wrote via primary sources does nothing at all in that direction, so do excuse the gentle skepticism. Similarly, interviews are at best extremely weak sources for WP:N, as they're the subjects talking about themselves. The prizes now in the article, and proof that other journos cite her work are however evidence, so these are what need to be demonstrated either here or in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I was very specific about how I use those policy terms. You may think it's making something bigger than it is, but that doesn't take away from the facts. My use is fact based. Crtew (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three direct quotes showing other journos citing her would clinch the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's three from the last 24 hours: [12][13][14] Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 20:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even more fresh sources added -- and apologies for the delay. Thank you, Gobonobo, for your contributions! Crtew (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Demonstrating notability on articles for journalists/editors is always difficult and sort of a blind spot for Wikipedia, but I'm seeing enough coverage in reliable sources for this to pass WP:GNG. As an editor, Friedman has worked for several well-known internet properties, she was one of "20 women to watch" featured in a 2012 Columbia Journalism Review cover story, offers analysis on NPR and the Rachel Maddow Show, and was specifically singled out in an article about the paucity of women bylines in magazines. Concerns over the reliability of interview sources can and should be addressed at the article or RSN. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 20:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, based on what I see at the article's history. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - per WP:SNOW. Giant Snowman 15:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Shand[edit]

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

'not notable'

Note that this nomination is completed on behalf of 88.104.26.129 who is unable to complete the nomination due to being an IP. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#John_Shand Stuartyeates (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; ridiculous nomination, given that the nominator knows that he has a detailed entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography and still continued pressing at WP:AN for this deletion nomination to be filed. Nyttend (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have re-opened this AFD after it was closed by non-admin Colonel Warden (talk · contribs). I have no opinion one way or the other - but you cannot have a 'SNOW speedy keep' after one !vote. Giant Snowman 12:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW states that editors are "encouraged to exercise common sense and avoid pointy, bureaucratic behavior". It already seemed quite apparent that there was not a "snowball's chance in hell" that this article would be deleted. Even giant snowmen stand no chance of prevailing here. Warden (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has raised a concern about the notability of this article, valid or not. Let's allow for further discussion and comments before we close it off so suddenly. Giant Snowman 12:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Show me a stack of Keep !votes and you have an argument for SNOW. One Keep four hours in is not sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the NZ DNB entry should be sufficient evidence of notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as above.TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - push one more on to the stack, then. Subject has sufficient notability. This should close per WP:SNOW. Honestly, Stuart, we are not obliged to file AFDs for IPs if we don't believe in them. There is a reason why IPs can't start AFDs of their own, and this should be a prime example. Clearly the nominator at best does not understand Wikipedia:Notability, at worst is just trolling. --GRuban (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:SNOW - looks like a frivolous nomination. Peter James (talk) 14:58, 14 October 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburg steak[edit]

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

Can't see this as a standalone article. The content is very similar with Salisbury steak and it has been suggested that it be merged with Hamburger steak. Clearly, there is a some serious overlap between at these articles and it is not clear whether this article is distinct and worthy of being separate from the mentioned articles. Therefore, I believe it should be deleted or merged. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until a reliable source shows the relation between these foods. The 'Hamburg steak' article has impressive older citations that indicate that 'Hamburg steak' developed into the modern hamburger. The 'Salisbury steak' article has impressive USDA citations but has only a very weak Japanese cultural citation to 'Hamburger steak'. From the citations, 'Hamburg steak' (citations for 1836 & 1844) has existed long before the 'Salisbury steak' (1897). Given that both articles have quite good references, I would leave them as they are. jmcw (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this appears to be sufficiently different from the standard Salisbury to merit its own article. GBooks and GRecipies show enough that I believe notability is clearly established, especially when you add in gNews. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jmcw37. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as harmless, if slightly redundant, article. I also agree with Jmcw37 and Bonkers. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 17 October 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. Consensus is that it is too soon for an article as indicated by a lack of significant coverage but that this may change at some later point. —SpacemanSpiff 13:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Vaidyanath[edit]

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

(PROD removed so taking to AfD). No meaningful sources in this BLP. No sources which demonstrate general notability. LukeSurl^{t c} 16:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All references have been added and not sure why this is being removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senthilx2000 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 18:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 27 September 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) 07:21, 6 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) 03:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Singer appears to have appeared in televised music competitions, performing well in some of them, but there are no reliable sources that I can find to support these claims on the web or through news sources, even using alternate names suggested by WP:INDAFD. She is mentioned as a singer in this source here, but this doesn't represent significant coverage. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all unreferenced claims need to be removed per WP:BLP, but she seems to be notable enough: singing in productions like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC9E5zxFwxg --Soman (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Airtel Super Singer#Season 3, as we usually do for these reality show contestants that do not pass notability threshold. Cavarrone 04:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, In a public function for the movie Thalaiva audio launch where she has sung a song in the movie http://www.indiaglitz.com/channels/tamil/events/42739.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senthilx2000 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, Here is one more public reference http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130705/entertainment-tvmusic/article/songs-spell-success — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senthilx2000 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, Listed in Times Of India as one of the tamil singers hot in bollywood http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-16/news-interviews/40611439_1_chennai-express-bollywood-playback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senthilx2000 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there are very few independent references and even they merely mention her, it is too soon to merit an article. The article can be moved as user subpage until good enough for mainspace. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 14:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject to later re-creation, per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MILL, and WP:UPANDCOMING. It is too soon to have an article on this run-of-the-mill singer, who may be up-and-coming (or not). The lack of reliable sources makes the creation of even a stub problematical, for lack of substantial coverage. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The famous filmfare music review mentions her name http://www.filmfare.com/reviews/music-review-raanjhanaa-3470.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijiscdl (talk • contribs) 11:01, 24 October 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. Black Kite (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Icarus[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultra Seven 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) 18:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 28 September 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) 07:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Or Delete Could be merged into Ultra Seven. The page is overly long, badly formatted and with no sources. In addition, the Ultra Seveen Monsters should perhaps go, as well. There doesn't seem to be any notability defined on that page whatsoever. I think they can both me merged into the Ultra Seven page, in a table, with several cells per line, containing salient information like Name, Height,Weigh/Stats, When appeared, Description. scope_creep talk 17:56, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to List of Ultra Seven monsters, as part of the group they are noteworthy but individually they lack sufficient out-of-universe notice to merit individual pages. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. This has been done rather shabbily. The deletions that have passed should have been merge/redirects. Many of these monsters have appeared in more than one series, and been widely sold and are being sold as action figures. The fact that the articles are not expanding is irrelevant--if the shows have ceased production the complaint is no different than saying dead people's articles should be removed because they are no longer working. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not relevant; and the fact they are "widely sold" is a WP:BIGNUMBER argument - it does not establish notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The big problem here is the mass deetion nomination. The articles for Miclas (listed here) and Eleking are quite large, and even with paring down they would still be oversized for the target list. I'd like to know how to have the Miclas listing here removed. I may simply delete it and ask anyone who's interested to nominate it separately. μηδείς (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Miclas entry from this nomination. It is really in a different class, with multiple appearances in different shows entirely, and a rather large article compared the the rest of the items here which could be comfortably merged into the relevant article. μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT. jps (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the monster list, non-notable and extremely unlikely these can be covered by reliable secondary sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to List of Ultra Seven monsters - none of them meet notability in their own right, but they should be mentioned in the list PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of them are notable. Merging would also be acceptable, but I don't really see the point in trying to merge unreferenced, in-universe writing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:54, 27 October 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, defaulted as keep. Whereas the keep arguments are convincing, there was unfortunately just not enough interest to the discussion to close it as keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix of Leadership[edit]

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

This plot element does not establish notability independent of Transformers 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) 20:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The current article is a mess, and treats plot elements with far, far too great a level of detail. That said, of course, independent sourcing is the issue at hand. I am aware that there is an active debate about whether sources that are independent of the creators of a fictional setting but that are themselves purely dedicated to that fictional setting (such as world guides, work-length plot summaries, toy guides, and the like) satisfy this requirement. If so, it is trivially easy to find references that would permit an article at this title (although, again, clearly not one this extensive). Otherwise, there are at least some truly independent references, although their depth of coverage is debatable:

Shook, John R.; Swan, Liz Stillwaggon, eds. (2009). Transformers and Philosophy: More than Meets the Mind. Popular Culture and Philosophy. Open Court. pp. 187–188. ISBN 978-0812696677. A discussion of the passing of the Matrix of Leadership in the context of willful sacrifice in a book exploring the potential philosophical interpretations of the Transformers franchise. Proof that AFD lets me learn about things I didn't know existed.
Knight, Michael Muhammad (2009). Journey to the End of Islam. Soft Skull Press. p. 312. ISBN 978-1593762469. Almost unquestionably a trivial mention, but it's simply too weird not to comment on a notable author mentioning the Autobot Matrix of Leadership as part of a bizarre metaphor about Abu Bakr!

However, I'm not sure where I stand on the argument of independence, third-party sourcing, and fiction in general, except that I really do believe we'd be better off with an RFC to clarify the issue rather than taking scatterings of articles to AFD. In any case, I'm neutral here; the sources of the second type probably aren't enough to stand on their own, and I'm not willing to get my hands dirty by arguing an outright keep. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 28 September 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) 07:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Took about 2 minutes to find a reliable third party news article talking about the Matrix. More could easilby be added. Mathewignash (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathewignash (talk · contribs), no reason for deletion, we do not delete all of the Transformers articles because there notable. JJ98 (Talk) 08:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think I have a stalker. Mathewignash (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:18, 14 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) 03:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may be something that can be salvaged as a standalone article. Alternatively List of Transformers objects or List of Transformers artifacts might be an appropriate merge-creation for this, Space Bridge, and other "bits and bobs" that lack individual out-of-universe notability but, as a group, are worth mentioning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Indy Week article found by Mathewignash is a good source, but it doesn't display any out-of-universe notability. The books mentioned by Squeamish Ossifrage seem like they could provide some interesting information that would make this article worth keeping. However, it might be better to create an analysis section in the main Transformers article and bring them up there instead. --Jpcase (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Maksimowska[edit]

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

Young writer, published her first book this year. The coverage does not seem significant enough to make her pass WP:AUTHOR yet... or is it? She has been mentioned in National Post, which seems like a major Canadian newspaper. Is it enough? is self-authored, this is better, but is the single good source in the article, not counting being a finalist for this award. I am leaning toward recommending userfication due to Wikipedia:Too soon. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says she was reviewed in The Toronto Review of Books[15] and the National Post. However I don't think this is enough and is a case of TOOSOON. It's unusual for a first-time author to have enough coverage for a Wikipedia article and this doesn't appear to be an exception. The honors are nice but "reader's choice" are not of a serious critical nature, and the other was a nomination, we have no idea how selective a nomination is it could be 100s of nominations, and may have been a self-nomination. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:43, 7 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) 03:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Crime Prevention Network Association[edit]

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

The notability of this organization can not be established. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Seems there is no mention of this charity on the Google Malaysia search, nor any links to it, in Malaysian police websites. There is one mentioned, but it's a foundation. Also no mention of the Alex Chandran actor. scope_creep talk 16:24, 06 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 7 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) 02:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Googling this organization in quotes turns up only 264 results, and the first one is this article, which makes a very strong case for deletion in conjunction with the article's complete lack of references. Jinkinson talk to me 04:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visitors and residents[edit]

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

I prodded this with "no evidence that it meets the notability criteria for neologisms". It was deleted and then restored. But no attempt has been made to provide evidence that the principle has received any sort of widespread notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the bump. I think of it as a regularly used expression in the field at this point. I will do some research over the next little while and update the entry. Does that work? --Davecormier (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to give Davecormier another week to find references to establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete after checking one of the purported sources and not finding either term in it. The main source for this article does have 61 citations according to GScholar. Perhaps this can be merged into some article about digital media use? (Not my field of expertise, so I wouldn't know which article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:20, 9 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) 02:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agree that the paper is cited, but that in and of itself, is not enough to satisfy notability requirements for the term/concept. I searched two commercial research services (HighBeam and Questia) and couldn't find a single relevant use of the term in any professional literature. Unless someone can show sources that indicate the notability of the concept itself, it doesn't meet the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:28, 17 October 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. Not an overwhelming case, but the consensus is to keep.Mojo Hand (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Lucas Robiquet[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a person of unknown notability. Apparently, Mary Healy - Art Historian used this as more of a soapbox for her own research. bender235 (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm yes. I trimmed the article of its promotional content. I found one relevant mention of her in Google Books; there's more in French books, but Google doesn't give up French contents easily. But JSTOR has nothing to offer, so notability is indeed questionable. Perhaps editors like JNW or Mandarax have anything to offer? Drmies (talk) 14:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That was funny; at least we knew what an art historian was up to. Otherwise this is problematic, as, per Drmies, there's very little to be found in English. However, online auction records show some of her paintings selling in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which suggests notability. Unfortunately, lacking more in depth reliable sources, deletion seems inevitable. Anyone else find references? JNW (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow. Nice work if you can get it, JNW. Maybe you should start painting more Orientalist kind of stuff, instead of dogs and nekkid women. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nah. Orientalist painting is only desirable if it's from the 1800s. The nude's always in season. The problem must be me. I found a few more mentions at Google Books, just using first and last names and adding 'painting' or 'artist', but still thin stuff. JNW (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - A reference, pages 59-60 [16]. Another, with image [17] Biographical information hard to come by so far...JNW (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Her bio can be found at several commercial sites, like [18]. I usually steer away from these--any takers? JNW (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm not an art expert but reading her bio found by JNW[19]

(exhibition) regularly exhibited at the Salon des Artistes Français from 1879 (Société des Artistes Français)

(exhibition) Colonial Society of French Artists

(exhibition) Salon of the Society of French Orientalist Painters

(exhibition) in Marseille in 1906 and 1922

(award) Order of the Legion of Honour

(award) third class medal in 1894

(award) second class medal in 1905

Per WP:ARTIST 4b, "(b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", for her time the Salon was very significant and "regularly". Can't verify the Legion of Honour. Don't know what the medals are. (just noticed she lived to 101, possibly some French obits and write ups in old age) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable enough to pass the rules for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 9 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) 02:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on the strong market for her paintings, both at major public auctions (such as Christie's) and in private sales. I was shocked at the prices her works have garnered. Even if she was a nobody (which is unlikely), she is notable today. Bearian (talk) 17:55, 22 October 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. Will userfy upon request Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Chengkuai[edit]

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

PROD contested for no reason (as usual) by User:AFCShandong. Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - under AFCShandong's space if editor agrees to it. While the Dutch Eerste Divisie is fully professional he has not played for his team in that division. If the player suits-up for the side, the page can be moved back. It would be a show of good faith to the editor. If the user doesn't accept, the page must be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Userfying (then restoring) or deleting (then restoring) makes little difference. Giant Snowman 08:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't received enough coverage to pass the general notability guideline, and he hasn't appeared for any team that would make him notable per WP:NFOOTY. A request to userfy this article should be accepted, but either way it could be recreated when the subject passes one of the notability guidelines above. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Yes it is true he has not made his professional debut yet. He was on the bench for Jong Ajax in the match against Excelsior on 6 October 2013, and it will not be long before he makes his debut (maybe this weekend) he has seen coverage in the Netherlands, when him and Wei Shihao came to Amsterdam after receiving high praise from Ajax scout Henk ten Cate. And he played in the Copa Amsterdam for the Ajax A1 squad. Although I agree that the user jumped the gun by creating this profile, since I think he should at least wait until after his professional debut. It is only a matter of days before it happens, and by userfying it, the user can resubmit it when the time comes. (Subzzee (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Per nom. WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 14:07, 25 October 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TTA UAV[edit]

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

Author has created multiple articles about distinct products which are probably not notable as stand-alone articles. A common article for all of the might work.

(does anyone know how to simultaneously nominate multiple article Zero Tech UAV, CAS UAV, ZIA UAV, MCC UAVs, Z-Fly UAV, XMU UAV etc. for deletion?) SPat ^talk 21:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one, if any third-party sources are available, as this alrady appears to be a group list for a variety of types that are insufficiently notable for their own articles, but, as a group, are article-worthy. The others should be nominated seperately. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a common article, of sorts: List of unmanned aerial vehicles of the People's Republic of China, which links to scores of such articles. The present article is probably better than most on that list. There are challenges of notability for many items on this list, some more than this. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:11, 5 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) 02:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion and consider merging others listed into list article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:59, 14 October 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 Archaic Dutch declension. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch declension[edit]

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

This page gives a very inaccurate view of Dutch grammar. Look on the talk page and you'll see what I mean, well over half the comments are talking about how wrong the content is, how much it needs to be rewritten, and so on. These comments go all the way back to 2006 (!) but nothing has been done since then, so I am led to believe that nominating it for deletion is the only way to get it fixed. Dutch does not have declension, it has no grammatical cases, but this page makes it appear as if it does. The only thing on the page that is accurate at all is the part about diminutives, and that could easily be put on Dutch grammar. It should be noted, though, that the written form of Dutch still used some or most of these forms until the 1940s. So if we take "Dutch" to mean everything since 1500, then it is more or less accurate. But it does not apply to modern Dutch at all, and I don't know why the article was created to make it seem like it does. CodeCat (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per "if we take 'Dutch' to mean everything since 1500, then it is more or less accurate". AFD isn't for cleanup. If things need to be labeled as archaic or whatever, then do so. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Merge to Archaic Dutch declension (which I was unaware of until I saw the discussion below). Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been here since 2006. What guarantee is there that if this page is kept, someone will fix it? Right now I'm saying, fix it or it goes. CodeCat (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also it looks like there is Archaic Dutch declension, which contains the exact same information but is at least a bit more honest about it. CodeCat (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like one of the editors complaining about the accuracy of this article actually took the trouble to rewrite it, but that this rewrite kept getting reverted by an IP. Here is the latest revert, in January. Would the version before that be more acceptable, CodeCat? If so, it might be better to keep the article, but protect it with pending changes protection. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better, yes, but it doesn't have the same detail that Archaic Dutch declension has. Although I don't know how accurate that article is either. That's kind of the problem with this topic, nobody knows the declension anymore because it's obsolete, so nobody has the know-how to say what's correct, incorrect or dubious. We can only rely on sources. I would suggest merging the older rewritten version of Dutch declension into Archaic Dutch declension and redirecting to it, then checking all of the latter for sourcing and marking off what still needs it. CodeCat (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case I think I agree - we should merge Dutch declension into Archaic Dutch declension. Even if the title of the latter changes, these articles are basically on the same subject, so merging them makes sense. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article discussed here was implemented by an anonymous editor in January 2013. I have restored an older, more representative version. Iblardi (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should have read this discussion before reverting. I now see that this proposal had already been made here. If anyone disagrees with my action, you can change it back if you will. I do think that the anonymous' edit of January 2013, which replaced large stretches of sourced text with original research -forms like "des baby's" and "des bureaus", for instance, combining archaic grammar with modern loanwords, look ridiculous and are, to my knowledge, never used- amounts to vandalism, especially given the many discussions that were held on this subject on the article's talk page, and for this reason alone should be discarded. Iblardi (talk) 11:37, 6 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) 02:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Archaic Dutch declension per arguments from Mr. Strad, CodeCat, and Aɴɢʀ. Merge the non-vandalized stuff restored by Iblardi. Cnilep (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the examples I mentioned above, "des baby's" and "des bureaus", were apparently copied to this article from Archaic Dutch declension. The latter is actually the result of POV-forking and was created years ago as a compromise in order to keep a particular user from reverting the general article on Dutch declension to a version which reflected his own, bizarre, view on the subject. I wouldn't say that Archaic Dutch declension is completely rubbish (new information was added over time), but I would be very hesitant to merge the two. Iblardi (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those forms would have been correct in written standard Dutch up until the 1940s I think. So it's not "rubbish", but it doesn't reflect modern Dutch unless you want to sound silly and archaic. CodeCat (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merging the articles doesn't mean that you have to keep the bad stuff. The best thing to do would be to make the merged article actually accurate, and then request protection at WP:RFPP if the IP reverts again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wesley Weeks, III[edit]

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

Notability not established. Outside of press coverage over a domestic dispute, no indication of significant contribution to his field. Wkharrisjr (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. St Anselm (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Putting the alleged assault incident into its proper context is an editing matter. This is a famous individual, a prominent televangelist, not a BLP-1E situation. See, for example THIS STORY in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on the Bishop's marriage. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see nothing notable in the article, except that his first wife manages to be WP-notable and that he was engaged in a brawl 5 years ago. Or was he notable as a tele-evangelist? If so, the article needs to be expanded to cover this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Notable" is not a value assessment about the worth or lack or worth about a subject, it is an indication that a subject has been covered multiple times in independently published sources of presumable accuracy. In short: can the subject be sourced out independently of their own published or unpublished words? Carrite (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Classic WP:BLP1E. -- 101.119.15.224 (talk) 13:04, 15 October 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. SK1 - nominator does not advance an argument for deletion. No prejudice against a bold redirect or a renomination with a policy-based rationale. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SDYuShOR Sokil-90 Kyiv[edit]

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

amateur childrens team, not notable, should just redirect to Sokil Kyiv since it was a team of kids they sponsored Львівське (говорити) 00:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why not just boldly redirect the article? Why bring it to AfD? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:37, 14 October 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. SK1 - nominator does not advance an argument for deletion. No prejudice against a bold redirect or a renomination with a policy-based rationale. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SDYuShOR Sokil-89 Kyiv[edit]

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

amateur childrens team, not notable, should just redirect to Sokil Kyiv since it was a team of kids they sponsored Львівське (говорити) 00:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why not just boldly redirect the article? Why bring it to AfD? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:37, 14 October 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.