Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 October	17 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. postdlf (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Hubbard[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and has not received significant coverage in reliable sources outside of one event (the 2012 election). Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Is nothing more than his campaign platform. Redirect to United States Senate election in Texas, 2012. Tiller54 (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per established consensus for ordinary, unelected political candidates. Do make sure anything worthwhile, if there is anything worthwhile, has been merged, per Tiller54. Carrite (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy did not even win his parties nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Fails WP:POLITICIAN....William 12:18, 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 merge to Cult of Reason. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess of Reason[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article is a stub with no references -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This AfD was first voiced at Talk:Cult_of_Reason#Atheist or deist. In short, it's a matter of undue weight: the festival "Goddess" figures are described well enough in the Cult article for what they really were – essentially, grandiose mascots. The concept simply doesn't merit an article of its own: giving it article namespace implies that there is more to the topic than there really is. It causes confusion in readers who might easily end up thinking that it was an actual deity, or that it played some deeper role in the Cult than it did. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It does seem that this and the Cult of Reason cannot, or at least should not, be covered separately and users are not served by the separation. But the Goddess is notable, however she is understood, and should be included in the Cult of Reason article. --AJHingston (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Per my initial comment, and in accordance with both SteveStrummer and AJHingston, I think this article ought to be deleted, and the article namespace redirected to Cult of Reason. I apologize for the tardiness of this comment... I'm new to the AfD process. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:46, 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 merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earth-691[edit]

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

This topic does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Features of the Marvel Universe for the usual reasons. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 21:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry[edit]

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

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

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

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

Prodded; deprodded without reason or addressing concerns, which still apply: no indication of notability. No proper refs – both are to the book which can't be a RS about itself – and reads like the blurb from the back of the book, not encyclopaedic content. Ignoring this promotional content there's nothing that indicates it's at all notable. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "blurb from the back of the book" and left only one reference. The page now is on the yesterday state, and this article lived successfully in this state for many years before. Please remove nomination for deletion, which is not good for readers. I from my side will try to write in several days a standard article about this concrete book Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry, using other many articles about other encyclopedias in Wikipedia, as examples. Also, I have read the Guide for deletion and understand the Wiki policy. Is this a way out? Thank you very much. Duplij (talk) 22:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like a likely copyvio of a publisher's blurb, e.g,Powell's publisher comments. Accordingly, the prose seems purely promotional. I could find no news or reviews for this book. The books has generated 8 GScholar citations, which is negligible for an active field like supersymmetry and and string theory. In short, no notability based on either independent reliable sources or citations. The article has recently been edited by Duplij, who is likely the first author of the book. Copyvio, no notability per WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, and conflict of interest, per WP:COI, all indicate that this should be deleted. Update As I was writing this, the copyvio was removed, so this criticism no longer applies. --Mark viking (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, I am the Editor-compiler of this book, but this is not a reason not to write about the book. Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry was written by 275 people, not by me only. This article in Wikipedia was not created by me, but I wanted only to improve it. And I can do it along the rules of Wikipedia. 2) About notability, there is some incorrectess in 2 orders of magnitude. Please have now a thorough look to GScholar - you can see 499 citations, which is much more than 8 !!!... 3) Also I know that the book Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry was bought by many leading scientists privately, and it is on their tables for everyday use. I know that definitely, because I saw the book, during my visits, lectures and seminars in USA, France, Poland and Germany for many years. And this true use of the book is independent of any formal numbers. 4) Also all libraries of Universities which have Phys. and Math. Departments have Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry. There is no conflict of interests with anybody, if an article about Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry which will satisfy the rules, will be in Wikipedia. 5) If it will help to solve the situation positively, I can ask leading world specialists in supersymmetry to send you (to any e-address, which you give) a short 'independent' e-mail with support of a small article about 560 pages book in Wikipedia according to its rules. By the way, the Second Edition of Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry is planned for the next year. So this project is alive, developed and will be an effective and useful reference for many scientists worldwide, as all other Encyclopedias which are already described in Wikipedia. Thank you. Duplij (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update to your Update. If copyvo is not applied and the notability is explained, also there are no any COI, maybe you allow me to write a small article along the Wikipedia rules about the book for which I spent 10 best years of my life. To write such an article is also a hard task for several days. Please, understand me. Thank you. -- Duplij (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Duplij. Thanks for the update on the number of references. I was searching on the full book title, but it appears that most references just use the shortened title "Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry". Notability of articles is based on the availability of multiple in-depth independent reliable sources that have written about the book. To learn more about notability standards and guidelines, please take a look at WP:Notability and WP:GNG. To learn more about what constitutes a reliable source, please see WP:RS. In this case, the most likely reliable sources would be reviews of the book by people unconnected with the book, published by reputable sources like academic publishers. I was unable to find any, but perhaps I did not search deeply enough. Personal testimonials sent to me or any other editor won't help establish notability. With due respect, you do have a conflict of interest. As first author, you may receive some financial compensation from sales of the book and you certainly gain reputation if the book is successfully promoted. Please see WP:COI to learn more about conflict of interest and how it is dealt with at WP. Finally, this discussion runs for seven days from initial posting, so don't feel this is a race against time. Other WP editors will also comment on this article until a consensus is reached. --Mark viking (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mark. Thank you for your notes. We already wrote twice more text than the possible article under discussion. I try to reply. 1) The using of short title is not a "nonnotability". It is OK in science.2) Everybody knows, how the reviews are written. There are formal requests, and these reviews are usually made by formal agreements, they usually are weakly connected with real significance of a book. Everybody knows. My book Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry is really used, and all scientists know it. When they use they do not have time to review, they work with it. The reviews are usually done by people who something far from the subject in reality. Therefore, this is also not an argument. 3) If somebody else will write about Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry, then it will be no COI, as I understood. Therefore, the first step, could you leave the article on its state writen by somebody else before my corrections, e.g on the date: 04:08, 9 January 2013‎ Addbot (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (735 bytes). Then other people (not me) maybe will write a good wiki article which will satisfy all the requirements. So I ask you not to remove this term/article Concise Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry for possible further extensions and writing - maybe up to 1 page of text. Thank you. --Duplij (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to work on it that is not a block on deletion. Rather if it is deleted then after you can request it is undeleted to your user space, where you and other editors can work on it for as long as you want, to try and fix the problems with it that caused it to be deleted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's see if I understand the conversation so far: the person supporting this article, apparently the author, cannot find any references which support notability (or the book version) as defined by Wikipedia. Offering as proof "all scientists know it [is really used]" is precisely what is not allowed in Wikipedia. Perhaps it's a great book, but it fails notability.--Larry (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The publisher's website references one review (P. D. F. Ion, Mathematical Reviews, Issue 2005 m)[1] but that's not enough to establish notability. It does appear to be occasionally cited by people, appears in bibliographies, and is held in many university libraries (see WorldCat). But it's still not quite notable. The lack of reliable, referenced information in the present article also suggests deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Please, not delete... 1) Yes, there exists a very good review by P.D.F. Ion in the highest level Mathematical Reviews of AMS. I have no access to its full version, but maybe you can. Please, read the full version. This is the most notable place, where a math book can be reviewed and the right highest place for "notability". 2) The book is cited not occasionally, but gives About 29,800 results (0.26 seconds) in Google search! 3) All University libraries have it. 4) The book is written by 275 professionals for professionals (who really work now in this subject and present concrete current and established results) including a Nobel Prize Winner Gerard 't Hooft. The Advisory Board consists of 23 Members, most of them are famous and noble scientists, Deans and inventors of new formulas named by their names (the same can be said about many of ordinary contributors). The Editor Warren Siegel is listed in Wikipedia, as a famous scientist. The Editor Jonathan Bagger is a Vice Provost at The Johns Hopkins University, a member of the National Research Council's Board on Physics and Astronomy and vice chair of the Energy Department/National Science Foundation High Energy Physics Advisory Panel. Is that quite notable? 5) It is obviously, that the article in this one sentence form is not a good reference.

I agree with the above positive ideas of JohnBlackburne.

Therefore, I ask you not to delete this entry, but allow me to prepare a standard wiki normal size article (obviously, not one sentence or resume copied from other place). When you agree, I will start this hard work, because it requires too much additional time and special efforts. I would be happy to collaborate with you in future sharing my knowledge and experience to improve your very important project Wikipedia. Thank you very much. --Duplij (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable; cited only 13 times. Fails WP:NBOOK. -- 101.119.15.94 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've searched the following commercial databases for "Encyclopedia of Supersymmetry" and found 0 hits: Gale Academic OneFile, Gale General OneFile, InfoTrac, JSTOR, ProQuest, Booklist, NewsBank, Ebsco MasterFile Complete, Ebsco Newspaper Source Plus. These represents 10s of thousands of newspapers, journals and magazines over the last 50+ years, many of them specialized. The Google Scholar citations and library holdings are interesting but not notable according to WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Need multiple book reviews in reliable sources (how many "multiple" depending on the quality of the sources). Notability on Wikipedia operates much like the Google search algorithm, it's based on what other people say about a topic. The more other people have written about something, the more notable it becomes, in the same way the more a web page is linked to by other websites, the higher in the search results it's listed. Bibliography citations are interesting in this regard, but not enough alone. Two more reviews I'd probably vote keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a book gets an article if it isn't a famous work (like A Tale of Two Cities). Instead, this book seems like an appropriate reference to be cited in relevant articles. However, I don't feel strongly either way and prefer to let others decide about deletion. Zaslav (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete; I understand that this book is somewhat specialized, but it contains many interesting articles written by the most autoritative authors in the field of supersymmetry. As such, this reference is very important for all the people working in this particular field (R. Casalbuoni), 19 October 2013.151.41.72.234 (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC) — 151.41.72.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete. This is a highly specialized encyclopedia. It will never have a lot of links. We have to support all kind of books, not just about pop music with big number of links. VodoRiz (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews/refs are here - no reasons to delete. I have observed that there are reviews from the top notable Mathematical Reviews and ZMath added. There exist no more higher places for any phys/math book to be reviewed. Also, there are many references from Wiki entries to this article. The text in the second box on the top of the entry "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and its consequence is not actual now, because all my text was removed, and changed were done by somebody else. Therefore, I am not a main contributor to this article at all. This article now is fully and independently being rewritten by other people in the framework of the WikiProject Books. This requires some time. Also, there are many votes for not to delete. Duplij (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken your second !vote; you only get to !vote once. As for references, i.e. links, from other articles, there are few, half of which you added – that is how I noticed this page. And the !votes not to delete are all from single purpose accounts, i.e. editors (including yourself) who have made little or no other contribution to the encyclopaedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, you are not right: no editors are involved here, people use single purpose accounts for their own reasons. The other two SUSY editors are on the top of U.S. and world science, they are too notable and noble to be in such discussions. I am here openly and sincerely tring to develop your project Wikipedia. --Duplij (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Many independent researchers need this work to continue their research and many of us are not aware of this compilation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.41.248 (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2013 (UTC) — 174.89.41.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do not delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.124.23 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the record is well written and deserves publication. The search for supersymmetry is a very important task for the years to come. The Editor of the book has done an excellent job for the community. Please "do not delete it".

Do not delete This is a specialised academic reference and under

wikipedias own notability criteria should be assessed differently from books for the general public. As recommended in the section on Academic and technical books, it is published by an academic publisher, is widely cited in academic articles, and is widely used by supersymmetry researchers. Also, its editors are themselves quite notable within the field.--Schrocat.academic (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete This is a highly specialised reference book, it cannot be assessed using the same standards as books for the general public. 500 citations for such a technical book is no small number. Also it is very likely that once the book has been used as an entry point to the literature on some topic, authors prefer to cite the original works - it is the most sensible thing to do. It is a book of very high value containing contributions by many of the top scientists in the field. It definitely deserves to be recorded in Wikipedia. Yougeeaw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please save. I have this book and use it from time to time. It is useful just for me. I do not see any reason, why to delete the entry about it from Wikipedia. 37.52.150.109 (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — 37.52.150.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

'Do not delete I was surprised to see that this book is being considered for deletion. I have the impression that the book is often in use, among practioners in supersymmetry. Why delete a big work which has proved to be so useful in the actual research community? 2.150.32.82 (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC) — 2.150.32.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexuality in the Arab world[edit]

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

I was asked this in my user talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Could we go ahead and delete this article? It has had no citations for years now, but no one has taken the initiative to delete it. Michipedian (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)"[reply]
Keep No, you can't go ahead and delete it. See WP:NOEFFORT. Warden (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was about to advocate Delete, seeing the excellent and comprehensive LGBT in Islam article already exists, but Warden's WP:NOEFFORT defence is powerful and compelling. This may be a viable niche article, which could be valuable in exploration. I would throw it over to any existing LGBT project colleagues, for their opinion on viability as a first step. Maybe no one is actually aware of its existence. It may have to extensively reworked and retitled. We could have a nice Cultural experience of LGBT minorities in Islamic Nations article in the making. Irondome (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have pinged Timtrent who may bring some insight into the matter, and may give a steer on any project groups which may take it on, and of course its viability in the light of existing WP content. Cheers Irondome (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork of the fairly excellent LGBT in Islam. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the difference between Comment forks and POV forks is often misunderstood. Please see Wikipedia:Content forking. Content forks are valid and the wellspring from which new articles are made. The topic expands beyond the bounds of the initial article which constrains it, and we have a content fork, a good and expected thing. POV forks are deprecated because they are, simply put, and entirely different point of view on the same topic, regurgitating old material in a different guise. Those are a bad thing because they make the encyclopaedia appear to be more unreliable than it is.

With regard to your statement I see a content fork here, one to be welcomed, not a POV fork, and certainly not a redundant content fork (a bad thing, those). The material is wholly different. The sole issue with it is that the lack of referencing leaves it vulnerable to a deletion discussion. Indeed, such a discussion is a wise discussion because of the lack of references. Fiddle Faddle 07:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an unreferenced article, yes, and finding references might be hard because of the Arab apparent insistence that homosexuality (and thus bisexuality) either does not exist or is punishable by death. But it is not congruent with LGBT in Islam since Islam has spread way beyond the borders of the Arab world, I appreciate the ping. I am not here simply to 'make up the numbers against deletion', and I will take some time to examine the article to see what can be brought to bear for references. The article is undeniably poor, though it has a pseudo-reference to a poet who may or may not have written about it. To me this is an article we should see the potential in, even if it has long been abandoned. WP:NOEFFORT seems to make sense here, though it may be that we need to blow it up, remove unreferencable material, and start again. I've dropped a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Bisexuality_in_the_Arab_world_is_in_danger_of_deletion to see if some editing muscle might be brought to bear. Fiddle Faddle 07:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Timtrent Pass a Method talk 07:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of a valid deletion rationale aside, there...isn't really any content here. It's a few generalized paragraphs that are redundant to material elsewhere in the encyclopedia (the history of classification of sexual orientation, LGBT rights and penalties for homosexuality in Muslim countries), and it's all unreferenced. Basically, there's only one piece of information here, the bit about situational homosexuality due to sex segregation in these cultures. That might actually have enough sources out there for its own article, but that's not what the article professes to be about, it's unsourced, and the article on situational homosexuality is small enough anyway that it doesn't need a spin-out. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now been able to add a reference. More are needed, of course they are, but that reference is, of itself, likely to show that the topic is notable. The article may need to be rewritten, but the topic has notability. I'm working to add more. Help woudl be received with gratitude. Fiddle Faddle 16:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename They mention Bisexuality, then homosexuality, and even pederasty. Bisexual means you are into men and women, not just men, or little boys. This article is about homosexuality only, not bisexuality, and should be renamed. Dream Focus 18:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont see an issue with a rename. The article is broader than Bisexuality, though does focus somewhat on that at present. Some of the remainder is confused, primarily because it is badly written. I suggest we embrace the entire gamut of LGBTQ if the outcome is to rename it, though. The world is more complex than homosexuality or bisexuality and there is a lot of anecdotal stuff about pederasty in the Arab world that could be entered into the article after refining and referencing, if it is retained. Fiddle Faddle 20:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arabic issues are not necessarily the same as Islamic issues, as not all Arabs are Muslims (and vice versa). Timtrent's arguments toward keeping the article are also persuasive. I would prefer the article be renamed to cover all LGBTQ topics, but that's another discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, essentially agree with NinjaRobotPirate (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an academic paper from 1996 with the exact title of this article, which is in turn widely discussed, indicating notability of this exact topic. Agree that expansion of scope to include LGBT topics in general/merge could be discussed, but AfD is not the place to do so. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia: Please would you consider adding the second link, the discussion one, as a reference to the article? I'm trying to work out its title and author and failing miserably to work out how to cite it. Fiddle Faddle 17:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fiddle and cyclopia. See also WP:HEY. This is a valid academic topic well covered in many secondary sources, which is quite distinct from Islamic attitudes to LGBTQ issues. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 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. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Coppock[edit]

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

Contested PROD, removed without comment by IP editor. Reason was " I'm having trouble seeing this lady as more than just a jobbing actress who is below the WP:GNG threshold for inclusion here. The lead shows no reason for inclusion, nor does the main body of text. Without any extra information I cannot see the value to WIkipedia of this article remaining." Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - This article clearly satisfies WP:GNG, specifically:

"Significant coverage" - Laurel Coppel's career as an actress involves at least 19 listed appearances on television and movies, each with proper citation. In addition, Laurel Coppel is listed in at least seven non-user-page Wikipedia articles, all of which pre-dated the creation of this article; that's the main reason this article was created.
"Reliable" - Two of the six cited references are newspapers, including one (The New York Times) that is generally regarded as an excellent independent and verifiable source.
"Sources" - There are six sources cited in the article, including two newspapers. A Google search reports several hundred other "hits" that could lead to many other sources.
"Independent of the subject" - At least four of the six cited references are independent of the actress and groups to which she belongs, including one (The New York Times) that is generally regarded as an excellent independent and verifiable source.
"Presumed" - As a new article only a few days old, having six references is pretty good, compared to other similar new articles. As time goes on, and more research is done, additional information about Laurel Coppel will undoubtedly be added by Wikipedia editors, and the number of references will increase.

To call this person "a jobbing actress" is short-sighted. Some of the most notable actresses started out with the kinds of roles Laurel Coppel has had. I strongly urge this article be kept. If we delete this one, there are hundreds of others with less-clear notability that would deserve the same fate. Truthanado (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The New York Times link is just licensed content that states that she appeared in a film. It's not an actual article about her. I removed two of the other sources, as they were not reliable: the IMDb and an promotional website. The Patch article looks like a local newspaper, and the Groundlings website is a primary source. She fails the criteria of WP:NACTOR, and I can not locate any other sources to establish notability. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a defense for this article, and she can get an article once she has become famous. Until then, it's WP:TOOSOON. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR as none of her roles appear to be very significant. Also, what the heck is this supposed to mean?: Rotten Tomatoes gives her a 78% rating for her role in Crazy, Stupid, Love with a total box office of $84.3M. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary - I'm all in favor of following Wikipedia guidelines. That's how/why I created the article and why I defended it with specific reasons for each of the items in WP:GNG. If someone wishes to refute those, how about using some specific arguments in the discussion rather than simply say that she "does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR"? I'll abide by whatever the Wikipedia community decides ... let's all remember that Wikipedia decisions are made by consensus and discussion, not majority voting. Truthanado (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significant coverage. Only the Weston Patch source really devotes any info to her. The others are generic credit listings, which are not coverage at all. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [2] is just an advert, and not RS, [3] is not RS and has impossibly small information anyway, [4] actually shows she is not notable and is a similar advert to the first two, [5] may be RS, but is a passing mention and thus does not count, which leaves [6] with a more substantial piece. But local press is not generally viewed on its own a sufficient, and the article simply tells us that she is a run of the mill jobbing actress. When she becomes notable she may have an article here. Fiddle Faddle 08:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Coppock is not a notable actress. She has had minor roles, many of them so insignificant they are not even given names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 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.

NOT NOTABLE? SHE'S THE FRIGGIN' FACE OF TOYOTA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.2.108.54 (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Use of courtesy titles and honorifics in professional writing[edit]

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

It was asserted at Vfd back in 2005 that this article was "a bit of propaganda" against the use of honorifics on Wikipedia. I don't know if that's true, but it does explain how something like this would come to be. I think this fails WP:GNG and is fundamentally unencyclopedic in that it's not a subject discussed by reliable sources. The citation scheme here is rather hodgepodge, but it seems to all be primary sources explaining individual publications' practices. The article would need references beyond journalistic how-tos and style guides, and I just don't see that ever being the case. I couldn't find any such sources, though it's not a particularly easy search. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Essentially a research essay comparing the house style of this paper to that to the other. Carrite (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would take issue with "not an encyclopedic topic". This is the kind of topic that traditional print encyclopedias thrive on. I think you mean "not a Wikipedic topic", which is a very different thing that depends on the blinkered vision of an encyclopedia that has taken hold here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, if you can prove that, the article might be worth keeping. I'm skeptical though. Does Britannica, for example, really have an entry that essentially just samples style guides to discuss the use of such titles in professional writing? If they're referring to good reliable sources, maybe the article can be saved. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the event that this mess is kept, there are greenlinks aplenty in the body which need to go away or be moved to External Links. This thing is virtually unsourced as it sits... Carrite (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOWTO, unless you can give me good reasons otherwise. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Raficq Abdulla[edit]

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

Looks like an autobiographical piece, content looks copied and pasted from a variety of primary sources, no 3rd party sources to be found. Not notable. Loomspicker (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent a lot of time researching this article since it seems like it should be notable. Unfortunately, the sources are not there. There is one solid book review, a few quotes in newspapers, lots of speaking engagements. The two 1980s films had some minor award nominations but nothing written about Abdulla. None of it passes WP:GNG guidelines, that I can tell. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- His day job is clearly as a health administrator. The article is therefore about his extra-curricular activities. The trusteeships no doubt consist of sitting on committees. Even if a society is notable, its board members may not be. I see nothing that stands out as making him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify if your Delete vote is based on the sources, or the topic? Because he is an activist and many activists are notable and also have day jobs, there is nothing inherently non-notable about the topic. The problem is the sources, but you didn't mention the sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:10, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aliso Village[edit]

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

Not a neighborhood, but simply a defunct housing project that is mentioned in only one reference. Not Notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boyle Heights, Los Angeles. There seem to be a variety of sources, but they are behind a pay wall. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This AfD is flawed on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin. Fist of all, "not a neighborhood" and "defunct" are not reasons for deletion. The nom contends that this topic is "mentioned in only one reference." If by "mentioned" they mean very in-depth coverage demonstrating passing WP:GNG, then yes, it was "mentioned" in a source. Then nom then claims this topic is "mentioned" in "only one reference." It not only took a couple seconds of searching to find an incredible amount of coverage on this historic project, [7][8][9] (the creation of an AfD takes much longer than a couple of seconds), but the searching came from the links provided by the nom in their own AfD. The sources also show this was the largest housing project in Los Angeles that came from the Housing Act of 1937. This AfD is a textbook example of even cursory adherence to WP:BEFORE not being followed. --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable housing project in Boyle Heights, passes GNG. There is one source counting to GNG in the footnotes. I'm also seeing 25 uses of "Aliso" in THIS JSTOR journal article, Sophie Spalding, "The Myth of the Classic Slum: Contradictory Perceptions of Boyle Heights Flats, 1900-1991," Journal of Architectural Education, vol. 45, no. 2 (Feb. 1992), pp. 107-119. No, it doesn't pass a special guideline as an inhabited town or discrete population center, but it does pass GNG as a notable housing project. The article is decent as well, not that that matters, although maybe it should... Carrite (talk) 04:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. The sources presented above User:Oakshade alone (above) prove that this topic meets WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:55, 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 delete. G3: WP:HOAX. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retighter[edit]

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

WP is not a dictionary, bullet point definitions may work on Wiktionary, but not on Wikipedia. Mat ty.007 18:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could find no sources for the definition of this term on Google or GScholar. The most common occurrence seems to be as a misspelling of retighten. --Mark viking (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dictionary definition and failing verification. Peter James (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Almost certainly qualifies for A1 (no context). There's no prose here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 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 redirect to List of Tenjho Tenge characters#F. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katsumi Kabuto[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Tenjho Tenge 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) 17:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Tenjho Tenge characters#F - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Tenjho Tenge characters#F. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:55, 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. --BDD (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Shelby Hotel[edit]

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

Article is about a former hotel, now operated as a bar and grill. Citations in article are a dead link to a genealogy page, a Facebook page, and the hotel's own website. Google search for ("shelby hotel" nebraska) turns up nothing indicative of notability. The article states that the hotel is in the process of nomination to the National Register of Historic Places; an NRHP listing would confer notability. The statement was inserted in December 2011, so an NRHP nomination should've had time to progress. However, Google searches for ("shelby hotel" nebraska historic) and for ("shelby hotel" nebraska "national register") turn up nothing; searching the Nebraska State Historical Society website for ("shelby hotel") also yields nothing. Absent evidence of notability, this article should be deleted or, if an NRHP nomination is still in the works, userfied until an NRHP nominating form or other source attesting notability becomes available. Ammodramus (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the co-ordinates are correct, then Google streetview suggests a fairly undistinguished building with a newly built ground floor entrance. It may be significant that the article actually has almost nothing to say about the building as such, and the claim to notability is an association with a notable individual, and a weak one at that since it is not asserted that there is any connection with the reasons for his notability. Notability is not inherited in that way. --AJHingston (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources discussing the hotel, and the article doesn't say much to convey notability. The nomination forms for recent (mid-September) Nebraska NRHP listings were all written earlier this year, so if a nomination for this property was in the works in December 2011 it was probably either rejected or never got submitted. (No prejudice to recreation if we're missing something and the hotel actually does end up on the NRHP.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:34, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Nullifier[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be nothing but fancruft, and not a feasible search term for any other particular article. By the way, TTN, do you use a template for all of these deletion requests? I tend to agree with most of them, but they all seem to be worded exactly the same. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy and paste it while occasionally making minor variations depending on the article. I pretty much nominate articles that all have the same issues, so taking the time to type out what would be essentially the same rational each time seems pointless. TTN (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I figured, but that's why I was also wondering if you had a template for that; one where you just have to put up the template and fill in one field with the universe of the fictional item. I suppose copy and paste does about the same job, though. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 01:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into Features of the Marvel Universe. Worth a paragraph or so there, and redirects are cheaper than deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm usually a pretty reliable "merge" vote in these discussions, but the Ultimate Nullifier is actually pretty notable. Someone built a replica here, it's discussed at length in this excerpt and (to a lesser extent) in this column, and it made "top ten" lists at IGN and Geeks of Doom. I feel fairly confident that I could dig up further references on its use as a deus ex machina, element of Silver Age storytelling, and more "top ten" lists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources evidencing sufficent notability foound by NinjaRobotPirate. (Do you get to add "Zombie" to your name as a reward?)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources out there including:

Geektionary: From Anime to Zettabyte
Marvel Comics: The Untold Story
Marvelous Myths: Marvel Superheroes and Everyday Faith
Marvel Universe
Researching Beneath the Surface: Psycho-Social Research
Superheroes and Philosophy: Truth, Justice, and the Socratic Way
The Encyclopedia of Super Villains
The Gospel According to Superheroes: Religion and Pop Culture
The Science of Supervillains
The Supervillain Book: the evil side of comics and Hollywood

Warden (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let this page stay. This is an important item in the Marvel Comics and it had various appearances throughout it's history. Rtkat3 (talk) 1:38, October 24 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourabh Sharma[edit]

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

Non-notable. No third-party sources, the party he founded was just created as well and is likely also non-notable. Wizardman 16:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence found to indicate that this particular Sourabh Sharma meets the biographical notability guidelines. I have also placed a PROD on his party, finding nothing on it either. AllyD (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, and VIAF link at the bottom of article is misleading.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 12:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good point - I've now removed the VIAF that had presumably been copied from the Brinda Karat page. AllyD (talk)

Comment Subject is too young to have voting rights in India and far too young to contest even the panchayat election. Can't possibly be a president of recognized Indian political party. I request a speedy close.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 14:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Date of birth has now changed by a SPA (possibly a sock). --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The changed date of birth is indeed an own goal and speaks volumes about everything to do with this AfD.-Zananiri (talk) 19:08, 23 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cole White[edit]

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

Former minor league baseball player. His baseball career is unremarkable and while his military career is interesting it is also not especially notable. Spanneraol (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor leaguer.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page was not made solely on his baseball career. White is a key figure in the debate of when/if athletes that attended military colleges and institutions could forgo their military obligation and play professional sports.Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 20:39, 12 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} 15:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Borderline case. Surely he doesn't make it based on the baseball career alone, but he seems to have been the subject of multiple independent reliable sources. That's WP:GNG right there. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm inclined to agree with BDD. Rlendog (talk) 13:52, 26 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 soft delete. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yamila Abraham[edit]

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

There is two aspects to this BLP. 1. She is a founder of a small publishing company. Not by itself notable. In connection to this role she also appears at anime fan conventions. Not by itself notable. There is a lack of coverage about this aspect so not notable for that. 2. There was allegations of a crime, just a minor news event. WP:BLP1E suggests not having an article for her for this aspect. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 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} 15:32, 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 soft delete. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hona Costello[edit]

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

No sign of notability: unsigned artist, who only self-released 1 EP via the internet. No songs ever charted. Majority of references are from blogs, forums, YouTube, and sites with self-published content. A Google search didn't bring any notable publications about him either. 2Flows (talk) 11:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 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} 15:32, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edition Silvertrust[edit]

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

Search for notable media coverage came up empty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolf h nelson (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 October 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 October 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 06:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 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} 15:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deletion. I also searched and found nothing online that could be used as a ref. Hcobb (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I finally figured out how to get this below. I originally put it in the talk page. I am a music teacher, performer and specialize as a chamber music coach. I come to this page often as a resource to get me to other pages on Wikipedia and the net. I also send my students here. I was shocked to learn you are going to delete it. I agree with what Peter Klossbruhe has written. You will make a mistake by deleting this page. I am sure that there are lots of chamber music players that come to and use this page as a resource. There must be some other criteria besides notoriety in deterining the usefulness of a page entry. I encourage you to keep this page. Signed Lawrence Block, Violinist, Clarinetist, college orchestra director and member or the Cantabile String Quartet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Larry Block (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.140.21 (talk)

These are some of the online references to Edition Silvertrust I found: classical-composers.org, classiccat.net, earsense.org/chamberbase/works/detail/?pkey=15213, scmp.net, http://books.google.com/books/about/Trio_no_1_in_F_major_for_pianforte_violi.html?id=Jtk2AQAAMAAJ, radioswissclassic.ch/cgi-bin/pip/html.cgi?lang=en&m=entity&sid=5575200abc60265320ff594ca71995d3a8af5, worldcat.org/title/piano-trio-no-1-in-d-minor-op-47/oclc/457850396, last.fm/music, forgottenstringquartets.com, .websters-online-dictionary.org, pytheasmusic.org/webern.htm, romanianculturalcentre.org.uk/cultural-diary/2013/10/george-enescus-string-octet-performed-by-chilingirian-quartet/, answers.com/topic/piano-quintet, http://books.google.com/books/about/String_quartet_in_D_minor_for_two_violin.html?id=CSY3AQAAIAAJ, classical.net/music/links, /publisher.php, http://books.google.com/books/about/Armenian_sketches.html?id=Vi03AQAAIAAJ, http://forgottenstringquartets.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/A-Guide-to-Forgotten-String-Quartets-1st-Edition.pdf, http://article.wn.com/view/2013/08/29/Stenhammar_String_Quartets_Volume_1_review/#/related_links, nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Friedrich-Kuhlau, sbworldoffice.com/assets/2011/2011-ISB-Bassists-Guide-Chamber-Music-Ensembles.pdf, bookfinder4u.com/detail/1155713532.html,earsense.org/chamberbase/works/detail/?pkey=8324, earsense.org/chamberbase/works/detail/?pkey=28642, worldcat.org/title/langsamer-satz-for-string-quartet/oclc/150875894/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true, henseltsociety.org/links.htm, http://books.google.co.uz/books/about/Music_Publishing_Companies_of_the_United.html?id=00CcSQAACAAJ, http://www.worldcat.org/title/piano-trio-in-c-major-lovissa-trio-1888/oclc/811248216?ht=edition&referer=di

Signed Lawrence Larry BlockLawrence Larry Block (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of which is an article by a human being about the company. Hcobb (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has no sources and none of the sources mentioned here are about this publisher. I had no better luck when I did my own search. There simply doesn't appear to be any significant independent coverage of this company. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 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 snow keep because there is no delete opinions. Withdraw, basically. Beerest355 Talk 18:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson[edit]

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

This was AfDed but was kept because I think it was too early to tell if it was going to have a lasting effect. Now two months later it is clear this went totally nowhere so it was a generic case of Not News. Beerest355 Talk 15:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With several dozen references, it is, in my opinion, clear that this article meets WP:GNG, as well as WP:EVENT--specifically, the news stories that cover this case cover it in detail. Jinkinson talk to me 15:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News stories covering it in detail is not the only reason to keep. You also need to prove the event had long-standing notability. Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The previous AFD ended on 19 August 2013 as KEEP, because it meets all notability requirements, as the overwhelming majority of people participating did say. 26 people said it should be kept, and yet two months later, we have the same AFD over again. Dream Focus 17:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. Voting keep because it was kept before is not a good idea. My evidence is that this case has no long standing notability. Lots of the arguments in the first one for keeping were crystal ball in that they were predicting that it would stay notable. It did not have a lasting effect so it fails the guidelines. Beerest355 Talk 00:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I think that the original nomination, by User:Taylor Trescott, was done too soon. There was no real way to tell if it would have long standing notability as the nomination was close to the event, so really both keep and deletion arguments were a bit crystal balling and prediction. Now 2 months have passed. This did not stay in the news. No long standing coverage and no evidence it will have an effect. Beerest355 Talk 00:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The story was and is notable per WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. It received in-depth national coverage for some weeks and continues to receive coverage.[10] It may not have a lasting impact on society, but last I checked that wasn't a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Dwpaul (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - deemed notable once and not long ago. In-depth coverage which was persistent.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I voted Delete in the first one, but that was premature. It persisted for a good while and got fairly deep. No rule saying an event must be perpetually covered to retain notability. The vast majority of historical events are no longer in the news, simply because they're not new. It would be hard to argue the United States presidential election, 1904 or the Siege of Tsingtao still have a lasting effect. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basically per InedibleHulk vertabrim. I nominated this article originally but it's pretty clear it passes WP:EVENT as there is persistent coverage. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:13, 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. postdlf (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CipherCloud[edit]

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

Finishing one of many incomplete nominations by User:Mikefromnyc - this is the only one with a provided rationale, on the talkpage: "This page is obvious marketing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikefromnyc (talk • contribs) 11:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC) ". I also note that the page was deleted as being promotional around three months ago, but the creator of this version claims it's different. I have no opinion for now; I see no problems that can't be surmounted by editing (specifically, promotional language as Mike believes or soapboxing as I see), but need second opinion about WP:GNG. Ansh6 6 6 07:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userify. The page is indeed very marketing in tone, with mostly direct quotes of the founder and some discussion that is not really on the company itself but the general idea of network encryption. Many stylistic errors as well, such as a misleading wikilink to ArcSight making it see like the founder is notable. That would not disqualify it per se, but generally private company should have a fairly high bar of providing reliable independent sources. Maybe if the company survives long enough to go public or appear in more in-depth publications, it could be covered. But probably best to start over at that point with something less promotional. W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any "misleading wikilink to ArcSight." None are listed here. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the founder (Pravin Kothari) is a piped (easter-egg) link to ArcSight#History. Ansh6 6 6 23:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Marketing tone is not a valid reason for deletion. Notability abundantly established by references included in article. ~KvnG 18:16, 10 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} 15:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Per KvnG's rationale. The references used are reliable and should establish the article's notability. The article should have been tagged first for promotional tone/advertising and not for an AfD. --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:24, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshanna Evers[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Nearly every source is unreliable: primary source, press release, blog, social media. Did find a couple other sources: Publishers Weekly[11] mention of a short story anthologized. Interview in Writer's Digest[12] on how to find a literary agent. USA Today article[13] but it says "information provided by publisher or website" so may be primary. One brief review in Romantic Times[14] of an anthology. Unable to find the usual standard of notability for authors which is multiple book reviews in reliable sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 1 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, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep: This page meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR requirements. Over 40,400 hits on Google for "Shoshanna Evers" [15]. Recent articles and reviews featuring Shoshanna Evers and her books found at NY Magazine [16][17], The Plain Dealer (Cleveland, Ohio newspaper) [18], another Publisher's Weekly article [19], Pop Sugar [20], Writer's Digest[21], Lady Smut [22], Simon & Schuster [23], Dear Author [24], Romantic Times[25], Publishers Weekly[26], USA Today [27], Night Owl Reviews [28], The Book Cellar [29], Romancing the Book [30], Book Lovers Inc [31], The Pen Muse [32], Fresh Fiction [33], Guilty Pleasures Book Reviews [34], XOXO After Dark [35], The Weeklings [36] and in an article in Salon [37] which states "If you didn’t know you were reading Fitzgerald, you might think that this decidedly erotic description was lifted from Shoshanna Evers’ Enslaved trilogy. I mean, this passage is racy."

- - Able to find multiple reviews in reliable sources which is the usual standard of notability for authors, author is widely cited by peers and reviewers. Note: I am a minor contributor to the article in question. Thanks, ShanaEB(talk) 11:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)ShanaEB (talk) 07:32, 13 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} 15:05, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omorfoula[edit]

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

Needs some indication of notability. Two videos of possible traditional dancers are linked, but no other sources or indication of cultural context. Is it a popular or widely-upheld cultural tradition? Or is it just something that is put on for tourists? Eggishorn (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also tried to find sources using the Greek Wikipedia, plus Google translate. I searched on 'Omorfoula' and on the Greek word provided in the article (Ομορφούλα). If I interpreted things correctly, there was no listing there.--Larry (talk) 01:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 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} 14:54, 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 Deception series. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deception IV: Blood Ties[edit]

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

WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies, specifically the section concerning upcoming product announcements. Eggishorn (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can you please explain how WP:CRYSTAL is relevant, and how it overrides notability? This game is a revisit of one of Tecmo Koei's biggest Japanese titles back in 1996; the original was a major hit in Japan, and is considered one of Tecmo's original successes. How is this game not notable? If there is a shortage of information, keep in mind that there is no deadline, and that content expansion is always possible. --benlisquare_T•C•E 10:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to issues raised. In the same way that coverage of upcoming albums can notability requires more than "game company X accounced Y" coverage that tends to be little more than barely-rewritten press releases. Having a big name behind the game I don't feel helps matters much, either. The game industry in particular is prone to vaporware, especially in the import market. I would wait until at least a shipping date was announced before I created such an article, just to see if it was possible for the game to make an impact. Too many Duke Nukem 3D's have taught me that glowing coverage of future games should be treated with great skepticism. But that's why I listed this game here, so that the community could discuss the issue and other parties could weigh in. Eggishorn (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This game is due for an early 2014 release, which isn't too far away at all. The game is well-covered in third-party sources: here is a google.co.jp search for "影牢ダークサイド・プリンセス". Notability is established via coverage by third party reliable sources, and the current problem is a lack of detailed information, and not notability. Referring to the "import market" is irrelevant, as the United States is not the centre of the world, and the nation of Japan has human inhabitants as well. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge + Redirect to the series article. To benlisquare - generally we don't create articles simply on the product announcement (though creating a redirect is fine). We need a bit more "meatier" coverage of the game, such as concern gameplay and story details, or aspects of its development, so that we have third party, secondary sources that go into why the title is important. The game doesn't have to be released for that to happen, but that does show there's interest in it. --MASEM (t) 14:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If worst comes to worst, then a merge and redirect is fine as well. Once more information becomes available (in the form of third-party reliable sources), information can be gradually accumulated for an article to be split off again. (This is by no means a request for early closure though; let the AfD go through the full process.) --benlisquare_T•C•E 00:34, 10 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} 14:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deception series until there are reviews about the game. Preserve the article's history please, since it'll be recreated as soon as this game is released, there sure to be coverage. All the results I find for this game in my searches show product announcements, and nothing else. Since they didn't interview anyone, or talk about the game at all, just announced it was going to come out, there is no significant coverage as of yet. Dream Focus 19:30, 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. postdlf (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Kirby[edit]

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

Was PRODed in the past. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the length of his career and apparent related honours - albeit in a semi-pro league system - he could well WP:GNG. However, in the absence of any reliable sources to verify the claims I will say delete for now. Feel free to notify me if sources are found, and I will be happy to come back and reconsider. Giant Snowman 14:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has been much improved, meets GNG. Giant Snowman 14:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. May not pass WP:NFOOTY, but I'd be interested in knowing the basis for nominator's decision that this particular subject "has not ... received significant media coverage". It's a damn sight quicker to for an enthusiastic nominator to put up dozens of these things every week, apparently indiscriminately, than it is to find the time to actually look up whether they do pass WP:GNG or not, let alone to produce enough evidence to convince at AfD, and definitely let alone putting said evidence into decent English prose on the page in question. Which makes it inevitable that notable subjects are being deleted.
Google-searching the Irish Independent website produces numerous results, most of which are obviously minor mentions in match reports, but there are some with more than trivial content, e.g. (from the regional press) [38], [39]. When he was with St Pat's they got through the qualifying rounds of the UEFA Cup to the First round,[40] which is probably the same as the Play-off round today so wouldn't confer football notability, but holding Hertha Berlin to a draw and a fighting 2–0 defeat got a bit of coverage.
The earliest mention I can find in a quick search of the Irish Times archive (accessing via library, so can't do urls, but I'll include enough citation so anyone with access can confirm) is from a long-ish preview of Ireland's semifinal in the 1997 edition of what is now called the FIFA U20 World Cup, which briefly speculates on whether Kirby will be used in a man-marking role against Pablo Aimar ("Tired Irish again try to defy odds", 2 July 1997, p.19) and incidentally mentions his father Dave having been a footballer. The Irish squad for that tournament were followed for a strand in the RTÉ magazine programme The Soccer Show ("World U-20 Championship: The television producer", 27 Dec 1997, p.A7). There's a post-2004 FAI Cup final piece contrasting his reaction to scoring a goal that beat his former club Waterford with the elation of the other goalscorer ("Pleasure and pain for United old boy", 25 Oct 2004, p.A2). A piece about the miraculous effects on Mr Kirby of a return to full-time professionalism with St Pat's ("Strikingly good times for Kirby and St Patrick's", 13 Apr 2007, p.19). Contrasted with a long piece from two years later focussing on the fear of the out-of-contract footballer with bills to pay and Mr Kirby's gratitude for a part-time contract in the second tier, which he was combining with taking a business degree at Dublin City University ("Bookies believe Fingal have more than a sporting chance", 5 Mar 2009, p.27). And the usual amount of routine match-related coverage over a long career, i.e. a lot. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've read what you found but what here makes him notable exactly? JMHamo (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for belated reply. I'll quote WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I'd say that the small selection of bits of media coverage mentioned above, that you've read, plus the slightly larger selection now cited in the article, that you may not have yet, demonstrate a breadth of coverage over the length of Mr Kirby's football career that satisfy the requirements of GNG. But that's what those !voting here have to judge. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - I'm prepared to AGF that the sources above are significant in terms of length. the headline and description of a number of the articles do seem to indicate that the focus is on the player, not his club or a match. Fenix down (talk) 07:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following Struway2's expansion of the article. It is now clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not because of the quality of the article, but because Struway has demonstrated that the subject passes the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:36, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hirsh[edit]

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

PROD'ed in hopes of prompting RS for an article with no sign on notability, but tag removed without explanation Avidreader79 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added a couple sources. Looking at how often he has been cited in The Star[41] and The Globe and Mail[42] he's a known "Internet specialist". There are probably many more sources but have not looked too hard after seeing this. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hirsh is a reasonably well known media commentator in Canada, so I do think it's probable that there are other sources out there about him that could be added. That said, I agree that what's here right now ain't great, and he's not a topic that I personally have enough of an investment in to justify spending my time trying to track down additional sources to improve it. If somebody is willing to do that, I'm prepared to reconsider — but given the ways in which WP:BLP has been tightened up over the years I don't see a lot of value in keeping this version of an article about him just because somebody might eventually get around to improving it. Delete; if somebody wants to start a new article about him in the future which cites stronger sources than this, then by all means go for it. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 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) 01:12, 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} 14:32, 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 no consensus. One delete (the nominator), one merge - despite 2 relistings, there is no consensus to delete PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility assumption[edit]

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

I came across this because I was looking at article with old original research tags (July 2007), and there's certainly a great deal of OR here, but looking it over, I'm not sure it meets WP:GNG. The article contains no in-line citations. A Google News search for the phrase turned up nothing. A regular Google search doesn't seem to turn up any reliable sources, and if you filter out mentions of WP, most of the results appear to be liability wavers using the phrase "Release from Responsibility, Assumption of Risk, and Waiver". A Google books search brings up one book (the "Existential Psychotherapy" listed as a reference in the article) with a sub-chapter called "Responsibility Assumption and Psychotherapy" (22 pages of a nearly 500 page book), but the rest are passing mentions of the phrase. The other non-fiction book cited in the reference section, A Course in Miracles, also showed up in Google Books in a seperate search for that, but searching in the book returned no mention of the phrase "responsibilty assumption" at all in it. That one book doesn't seem like enough to me. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*According to the article, the relevant essay was reprinted in the third addition of Current Psychotheraphy, which is a standard college text. The current (10th) edition of this work still has a 34-page extract from Existential Psychotherapy. But it no longer mentions this subject. So the subject may have have been reasonably notable back in the 1980s, but later dropped under the radar. Mound of the Dead (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC) Comment by user blocked for being a sock puppet. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the well-sourced content with Moral psychology. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:35, 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} 14:25, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Lafian[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Duplicate of previously deleted article. Feickus nominated this for deletion (diff 1, diff 2) but did so incorrectly. I am correcting it for them, but also lean delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was still working on the page but thanks. Individual does not meet the notability of WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. Multiple articles of Service Cross recipients have been deleted and multiple silver stars does not constitute a page. Feickus(talk)
I suggest reading a bit about Twinkle if you plan to work in deletions. It makes the process much, much, much, much, much simpler. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:56, 16 October 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 October 16. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN soldier. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two second-level decorations do not qualify him for inclusion, although three might. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- No, Lafian did not win a Victoria Cross or Medal of Honor, medals that would have made him pass a special notability guideline, all on their own. But very few of the subjects of our biographical articles meet our notability criteria for a single act. Most individual's notability is determined by considering ALL the factors that contribute to their notabiity. Winning lesser medals contributes towards establishing his notability. The references to him in the book Triumph and glory: Armenian World War II heroes span 9 pages -- a chapter. Having a book written about one would strongly contribute to one's notability. Surely a 9 page chapter comes pretty close to establishing his notability all by itself? And combined with being awarded significant foreign medals on top of significant American medals -- shouldn't this push him over the top? Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demirjian, Richard N. (1996). Triumph and glory: Armenian World War II heroes. Moraga, Calif.: Ararat Heritage Publ. ISBN 9780962294518.

In other fields, like academia, various forms of peer recognition help establish notability. Being made a Dean -- being appointed to a named "chair", is a form of peer recognition that helps establish notability. Academics who are honored by having their peers write a book, or hold a conference, devoted to their work have that considered as a strong factor helping to establish their notability. Other fields have other ways peers recognize exceptional individuals, and those forms of peer recognition should contribute to the individual's notability.

The article lists half a dozen famous individuals he met -- which doesn't establish notability as notability is not inherited. But he was chosen as one of Eisenhower's bodyguards. I suggest this was a significant kind of peer recognition. Semyon Timoshenko, a senior Soviet General, personally awarded him a Soviet medals. I doubt that many heroic GIs were awarded medals by Soviet Generals. So it too is a kind of peer recognition.

I've participated in other discussions where individuals from the military wikiproject have seemed to want to take the position that if an individual's medals didn't include their country's highest order medal, or if they hadn't been promoted to General or Admiral, they couldn't be notable. Personally, I don't see this as a defensible position, when the individual has other factors that make them notable. Those in the military wikiproject sometimes have an unfortunate tendency to totally discount non-military factors that help establish notability. Lafian, for instance, was the co-chairman of the UAW Joint Skilled Trades Apprenticeship Committee -- falls short of establishing his notability, it doesn't establish any military notability. What it does establish is peer recognition -- within his union. Geo Swan (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-chairing one committee of one union does not make one notable. As to medals, our usual standard is one first-level or two second-level decorations. I will personally usually also vote to keep for three third-level or one second- and two third-level decorations. But two third-level alone? No, doesn't meet the notability bar (his other medals are so low that many other countries wouldn't even count them as medals, just commendations if that). Neither does the fact he was of Armenian descent and therefore features heavily(ish) in a book about Armenian-American war heroes just because he happened to be a member of a minority who won a couple of decorations. Neither does meeting some famous people or being a bodyguard (one of many) to a famous person. Nobody disputes this man's courage, but he needs to have more notability for an article. Many thousands of people have won two third-level bravery decorations. The fact is that other than this he didn't do anything else particularly notable in his life. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete unreliable sourcing [old rational follows]. I'm convinced by Geo Swan's argument this case doesn't fit the rules perfectly when looked at as a whole it makes sense this individual is outside the norm and notable. The lack of diverse sourcing is a problem. Has anyone looked for older sources from the 1940s, or Armenian-language sources, or sources ca. 2010. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search of books in World Cat for Ararat Heritage Publishing returns only three books, all of which were written by Richard N Demirjian: [43], and Google Books appears to only return the same three volumes: [44] with references to one book which may be a RS which references one of Demirjian's books. As such, this book appears to have been either self-published or published through a tiny vanity press, and it isn't a useful source for establishing notability. The outlandish claims which are referenced to the book (for instance, that Mr Lafian single handedly destroyed six tanks and massive mistakes about the deployments of the 82nd Airborne Division) also illustrate the problems with it - no professional publisher would produce anything with such blatantly wrong material. The fact that these obvious errors have reappeared in the article despite the problems with the material which were pointed out in its earlier incarnation make me wonder whether this article has actually been developed in good faith. The two other sources offered here are also weak, and not reliable sources. As such, notability isn't established. Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk John Vlug destroyed 5 tanks in a single day for which he won the Medal of Honor.[45] However our source says one "battle" which could be over many days/weeks which is plausible for someone with an anti-tank weapon. Can't comment on the 82nd deployments. The publisher evidence is pretty damning on reliability - take away that one source and there is nothing left. Changing my vote to delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any infantryman who knocked out six tanks in a single battle would have either received the medal of honour or be the subject of serious literature complaining about the injustice of him having missed out on the medal. Such an achievement was very rare. Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashis Roy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only real claim to notability ("...first man from India to run 100 marathons" unsupported by reliable source. Rest of article is trivial compilation of races. Wkharrisjr (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG topic has been covered in multiple reliable sources. Called a "marathon icon and legend", and "grand old marathon man of India". Going with the amount of coverage over a long period of time in multiple reliable sources. There are multiple instances of The Hindu and IANS coverage, but only one each listed here per GNG guidelines.

"At 78, Ashis Roy completes 104th marathon", The Hindu, June 2010
"India's marathon man Ashis Roy completes 90th marathon", IANS, May 2009
Partha Bhaduri, "Around the world in 100 runs", The Times of India (Nov. 29, 2009) (long in-depth article about Ashis Roy)
"Marathon icon heads to York", York Daily Record, March 17, 2009. Quote: "For those interested in the Bob Potts Heritage Rail Trail Marathon, here's one more reason to join the race-day crew - either as a runner, volunteer or spectator. Ashis Roy, a marathon legend from India, has signed up to run the May 31 event in York." (emphasis added)
"Bizarre Bazaar.", South Asian Post. 6/10/2010, p5-5. Quote: "The grand old marathon man of India Ashis Roy has completed his 104th marathon in South Bend, India."

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be plenty of sources to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To have run his first-ever marathon at the age of 52, given that he was never a professional athlete, and completed the 109th at the age of 78, is a notable and remarkable achievement. It matters little where he comes from. Easily meets WP:GNG given the wide international coverage and the plethora of sources.- Zananiri (talk) 19:09, 23 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gowps[edit]

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

If there was an appropriate CSD tag I would have used it. A userpage that has no place in article space. (and no content of any worth) TheLongTone (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I meant to PROD this. No case at all for retaining this nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 11:12, 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} 01:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Lubiw[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Don't believe the kind of award is enough to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep -- full professor at a well-known school for computing. h-index of 27 and over 2,000 citations is high enough in general, but particularly for a researcher who did most of her work in the 80s when citations are still being uncovered. (if 27 isn't high enough then I'd like to see an AfD for her husband Jeffrey Shallit as well who is at the same rank and has 29). The ACM award is not a superstar award but it is in recognition of significant notability in the field, which fits well with our guidelines for a Keep. Superstar status is not necessary. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per MSC. An incomprehensible nomination from a user whose main interest seems to be bicycling. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I think I'm going to have to recuse myself on this one as I know Anna too well professionally to have an unbiased opinion — her work and mine are in very similar areas. But I just added some more detail and sources to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). H-index of 28, it seems, and 2,105 cites; trending up since Xxanthippe's check.--Eric Yurken (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually, it was Cuthbert's count. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Citations are conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep There are articles on unnotable people in Wikipedia, but Lubiw is notable with all the citations she has. She has made an impact and we should have an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 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. --BDD (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pauli Antoine[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Don't believe the award is enough to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddogsix (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

Delete The Female Network sources count as a single source for notability purposes. The remaining sources are trivial mentions or primary sources. Does not pass WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:32, 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. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Carr (artist)[edit]

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

Insufficient notability for WP:Artist; the works listed as Further reading, while indisputably about him, are exhibition catalogues. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm struggling to see why 5 years of edits have been reverted by the nominator - the alleged source of the copyright violation, his website biography, has very little biographical background. On the otherhand I can see there has been some heavy COI editing. Would it not be better to leave the article as it stood, to give clues to his career and background? I had already removed and reworded large parts in June this year! Sionk (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep okay, I'll stick my neck out and say 'keep', on the basis he's exhibited internationally for several decades and been noticed by major publications (suggesting there will be offline sources too). For example his first solo US exhibition in 1989 was reviewed by the LA Times. More recently (but still in the dark ages by internet terms) he's been reviewed by the major Spanish papers, El Mundo and El Pais (with some biographical info). More recently by Catalunya Radio. His Red carpet installation in Singapore was picked up by Art Radar Asia and Time Out Singapore. He's even mentioned in Fodor's Spain as a local star in Catalunya. Sionk (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment. I've no strong feeling one way or the other on his notability. The links you cite look useful. I did a quick Google search, a quick Google Books search and a quick Jstor search; I got several hits, but the majority of them, such as this one, were for another artist called Tom Carr. The criteria of WP:Artist are:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Does he fulfill any of those? As for my edits to the article, there was a massive addition of apparently copyvio material in 2008, as as annotated on the article talkpage, and it had wholly unreferenced since that date. The only inline reference in the whole screed was the spam reference added by COI editor CorneliaHTang about Art Plural Gallery. I noticed and applaud your edits. The article is still without proper references, the only mention of him that I found being on his own website; that is what led me to propose this discussion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews in the LA Times, El Pais and El Mundo could be classed as "significant critical attention", since major newspapers like that don't write on every minor art show. Regarding the exhibition catalogs, it's usual practice in art history to consider catalog essays by art historians as reliable sources since that's a major form of writing about art; some of the cited references are by curators or art bureaucrats so they don't count, but Christine Buci-Glucksmann is a distinguished academic and Vicenç Altaió is an art critic[51]; Françoise Barbe-Gall is a respected author but not an academic or critic. Article is currently free of promotional claims. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:18, 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) 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anusit Termmee[edit]

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

PROD contested, no reason provided. Original rationale remains valid - this young player has not received significant coverage (failing WP:GNG) and has not played in a fully-professional league (failing WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 08:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GS, a young player, so probably WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

I can think the authors uses the data that is correct actually and person ( minus,erase ) show the referent that don't suit the reason such as , he is person play , fully league , then get ( minus,erase ) which , be lieeing has and to oppose at the authors write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kengi1982 (talk • contribs)

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) 01:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ratanai Songsangchan[edit]

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

PROD contested, no reason provided. Original rationale remains valid - this young player has not received significant coverage (failing WP:GNG) and has not played in a fully-professional league (failing WP:NFOOTBALL). Giant Snowman 08:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per GS, has not played in a FPL or played senior international football. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I can think the authors uses the data that is correct actually and person ( minus,erase ) show the referent that don't suit the reason such as , he is person play , fully league , then get ( minus,erase ) which , be lieeing has and to oppose at the authors write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kengi1982 (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom as this individual hasn't had a significant football career. C 679 15:02, 26 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) 10:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Papua New Guinea Seawall[edit]

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

This topic is totaly unverifable. Google search does not give any hit for this ([52]). There is no such a thing as "Category 7 super mega typhoon". See also this discussion: [[53]]. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:30, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Ramirez[edit]

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

Clearly promotional, don't see notability. (Can't verify the claim about being featured in Vibe.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find was a blog post saying that he "hopes" that his upcoming (stalled) James Brown biopic will win some awards. Which filmmaker thinks, "I hope my film doesn't win any awards"? Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the two articles already cited in the article? This appears to me to be substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - Reply Those are passing mentions providing no biographical details in local papers discussing a planned film that hasn't been released. If notability comes from an unknown director announcing a kick starter campaign to back a future film project, and gleaning two or three sentences in the local media, then we basically have no notability standards any more. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I remember seconding the PROD for this. Here's my original statement: "I tried looking for sources but could only find coverage from two local papers. I can't find anything that backs up the claim of being featured in Vibe other than primary sources from Ramirez and junk hits that mirror this article. The Vibe site has zero mentions of him, nor does the Jet website- something that makes me believe that these features didn't actually happen, or at least it was far from the way that this article implies that it did. I tried searching for the Vibe outtakes link below, which was originally 404'd. I found the link and not only is Ramirez NOT featured in the outtakes at all (not even as a photographer), but the link clearly states that the outtakes never appeared in the issue. On top of all that, if the claims of him working for Vibe and Jet in various formats are true, those would be primary links in any case." I'll do another look for sources, but I think that there is still a lack of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did another search and the issue is still the same. There's a lack of coverage for Ramirez to show that he's really been the focus of any in-depth coverage. There are assertions of Jet and Vibe covering him, but I can't really find either source and since he wrote for them, they'd be primary sources in any case. I also have to say that the two sources on the article are local sources so they're depreciated as far as showing notability goes. I removed a lot of the stuff in the EL section since much of it was either dead or didn't discuss Ramirez at all. Others were just blog hits or other places that wouldn't be usable as RS. The only one that looks somewhat usable is this link, which is only more local coverage. For the claims made in the article, there's a huge lack of coverage in reliable sources and all we have are three local sources- not really what I'd call in-depth. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garett Whiteley[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another example of too soon. Not yet notable and considering his one and only fight at top tier was a loss it may not happen.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One top tier fight (a loss) doesn't meet WP:NMMA and he lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:43, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Gilliam[edit]

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

Doesn't look like he passes WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or will anytime soon. Two top tier fights but both losses and nothing of note since. Also completely unreferenced.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Unsourced article about a fighter that doesn't meet WP:NMMA. The entire article is just a relist of his fight record from Sherdog.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:54, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borislav Ivanov[edit]

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

Technical nomination only. Fixing a malformed nomination by Chesszorro. (talk) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A note on the article's talk page refers to a previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todor Dankov , which appears to relate to a footballer by the same name, not this chess player. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable chess player without any real sport or other achievments. FM is not enough to get a Wikipedia article. Usually IMs or GMs are supposed to get an article here. Chesszorro (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ivanov has become an absolutely notorious figure in the last year. Plenty of articles have been written in reliable media sources concerning Ivanov's exploits. Ivanov's latest escapades in his 4.Oct chess tournament have been extensively covered in the press. This might be a bad-faith retaliatory nomination also, as the Bulgarian Chess Master Tiger Lilov, a Wikipedia regular editing under the handle User:Chesszorro, seems to have a Tupac vs. Biggie Smalls type rivalry with Ivanov. Lilov even has created and posted some anti-Ivanov videos on Youtube. Fishface gurl (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.Chess Master Ivanov's brazen and infamous cheating has created a sensation in the chess world and made news beyond. This, combined with his bold personality, have made him something of a media sensation in his native Bulgaria. The game of Chess may never be quite the same after his exploits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.62.17 (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage [54] [55] [56]. The unspecified and unproven manner in which Ivanov was suspected of cheating is of greater lasting interest than which titles he did or didn't achieve along the way. ―cobaltcigs 07:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per significant coverage in both specialist and non-specialist sources, including [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70] and [71]. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a significant example of chronic cheating at high level professional chess; there was significant response from other OTB chess professionals, several dozens refused to play at tournaments where he was playing; significant discussion in serious circles by chess professionals, fraud and cheating professionals, and statisticians specializing in chess fraud. The poster who wrote above that this case may change the face of professional chess' approach to cheating is probably correct; this is a significant case of brazen, bold, cheating. Several technologies and disciplines have been engaged to detect it. And thank you to Toccata quarta above for providing a fine example of how to cite sources. Talkingfacts (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkingfacts (talk • contribs) 18:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Sasata (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. As detailed above by me, easily meets any standard of notability.Talkingfacts (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very widespread coverage in international media, even in non-chess specialist media. This is not a single event, but a series of events. Note that the Youtube coverage by Lilov is not a reliable source (it is one player's opinion, self-published), and should not be used in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lilov's analyses of Ivanov's cheating games are helpful instruction in understanding how to detect Ivanov's cheating. Although they are self-published, they have been embedded by chessbase, which is a reliable source, in its news items on the Ivanov scandal. The content in Lilov's videos is reliable; it is composed of two things; 1. analysis of how Ivanov's moves are computer moves, and not human moves, and 2. analysis of how the consistent amount of time Ivanov took for each move is not human-like, but computer-like. There is discussion of Lilov's notablity in Lilov's Afd discussion page, and I have commented extensively there on this subject. In my humble opinion, the Lilov videos are not central to the Ivanov scandal; rather, they popularize it, and provide useful instruction to the news content. This is not an appropriate place to discuss whether one source or another is a reliable source for Ivanov's bio. This is a discussion of Ivanov's notablity, and the consensus is overwhelming that he is notable, and should not be deleted. Talkingfacts (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His cheating - whether he actually did it - is notable enough, there are sources.2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable (the main newspapers in his native Bulgaria and in other countries have covered his case and he has appeared on popular talkshows), not only due to the cheating allegations, but also because of his rapid rise in chess and results achieved against experienced grandmasters (there is absolutely no concrete evidence against him, so the victories attained by Ivanov cannot be declared null and void).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.7.102 (talk) 08:23, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Capitol shooting incident (2013)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. This event does not meet WP:Notability guildlines. Martin451 02:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this topic passes the General notability guideline with flying colors; it has 22 sources. I feel that this article passes NOTNEWS. The guideline exists to limit routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities from inclusion. This event is not routine reporting. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does it demonstrate that it passes NOTNEWS ? LGA _talk^edits 07:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not many people in the course of United States history have been shot to death by police while attacking the White House, the Capitol, or both. Yes, it was in the news. But that does not automatically exclude it from notability. If there is a "List of people killed attacking the US Capitol or White House" then by all means merge it there. Edison (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The woman concerned was not attacking the White House, or the Capitol. She was mentally ill and trying to visit Obama who she though was talking to her. This is not more notable that any other tragic shooting of an ill person. It had already been redirected to List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2013#October 2013 but that redirect was undone.Martin451 20:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event was unusual enough and of sufficient significance to transcend WP:NOTNEWS, it meets the general notability guideline, and is likely to be a notable incident cited in future works about security in Washington, DC and other national capitals. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How so ? and WP:BALL applies to the claim "is likely to be a notable incident cited in future works about security in Washington", when it is, then it is notable and not before. LGA _talk^edits 07:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails the Wikipedia is not a newspaper policy clear and simple in that this is just a news story, the article fails to demonstrate what if any lasting effect it has or will have, nor how the event had any significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group, there is a absence of any significant or in-depth coverage in that all the sources are routine primary news reports and all from the 24 hour news cycle after the event. WikiNews is this way -----> LGA _talk^edits 07:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A deranged person behaves weirdly around the White House/Capitol and gets shot. Very tragic for certain. Unnecessary, possibly. Encyclopedic? Absolutely not. Made some noise in the news for 1 or 2 days, seems to have been forgotten by now. If ever it turns out to leave a lasting impact, the article could be resurrected, but at this point it is glaringly evident that right now there is nothing lasting in evidence. --Randykitty (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the news for "1 or 2 days"? There have been new reports and commentary in a wide variety of outlets every single day. Try searching "Miriam Carey" in GoogleNews. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because WP is not a newspaper. It was only notable on the day it happened, but it has no wider context in an encyclopedia.—GoldRingChip 11:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The unique circumstances of the event are well beyond the commonplace crimes etc. to which WP:NOTNEWS is addressed. SteveStrummer (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a news item that has no lasting notability. A mentally ill woman tries to visit the president and ends up dead. Tragic yes, but not encyclopaedic.Martin451 20:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that simple description turns out to be entirely correct, have you never heard of Samuel Byck? SteveStrummer (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I gingerly suggest that someone stealing a gun, killing a police officer, killing a pilot while trying to hijack a plane in order to fly it into the White House, and finally committing suicide when the plan failed is just a teenie weenie bit different. --Randykitty (talk) 22:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unique circumstances. not common one event.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The last two !votes refer to the event being "unique", without any further specification. Any event will have some special particularities, of course. In any case, what's so uniquer about this? Deranged person thinks she communicates with the US president, drives to the White House, flees, and gets shot near the Capitol. She was unarmed, I can't see this as an "attack" on either the White House or the Capitol either. Nothing special here, in short. --Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violence at the White House and a killing on the Capitol grounds are nothing special? Reporters and journalists disagree with you: they are incredibly unusual events, which is why they made headlines all around the world and continue to be examined. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When it comes to an event like this, you just have to wonder. It would seem that personal opinion is replacing policy. With this event, you have something that occurred. Obviously, it would be wrong for the news not to report it. So they reported it. Meanwhile, nothing happens. Nobody gives this event a second thought a day after. The policy this would fall under is WP:EVENT. It is hardly satisfied, as long-standing coverage is not found, so, as a failure of the policy, it should be deleted. However, people are giving the standard "clearly passes GNG" and "it's unusual" comments that you find everywhere. It's obviously not notable. If people feel like challenging the current guidelines, so be it, but as of now this is clearly unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a crime dictionary for everything that happens involving a person and a gun. Beerest355 Talk 00:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, can everyone stop saying this is "obviously notable" or "obviously not"? It's condescending and rude; if this were obvious one way or another, we wouldn't be having this debate. Now that I've got that out of the way... keep per the longstanding practice that when people die in altercations at the White House or Capitol, we write an article about it. I doubt most people have heard of a lot of the past shootings at the other buildings, but that doesn't mean they aren't notable. They are discussed for years after, as they have long-term effects on the District's security structure, and because, simply, they're rare. Now, rarity doesn't mean automatic notability, of course. For instance, tonight a woman was arrested on the floor of the House; I happened to be there, and according to a cop I talked to, this is quite rare... But we can probably all agree that that doesn't deserve its own article, nor even probably a mention in any other article. But here's the difference: If in two years the Capitol police step up their security substantially, Miriam Carey will almost certainly be mentioned, while today's probably-mentally-ill stenographer almost certainly will not. This story will be in the news, on and off, for months if not years. It's not just the rarity, it's the combination of the rarity and the amount of coverage.
Perhaps I'm slightly biased here, because this was a few blocks from where I live, but I think it makes sense to have articles on this incident and all ones like it. As to policy... someone please quote me the portion of NOTNEWS that says we can't have articles on headline-making unusual news stories. NOTNEWS seems to mostly address routine news stories, which this was anything but. On the other hand, notability is not temporary. Personally, I think we'd all be better off if people cited NOTNEWS less... You can want a current-events article deleted without having to fall back on that. It seems like one of those policies that's intended for a very specific type of article, and is taken to be something far broader. I think there's an essay somewhere out ther about the dangers of concise policy shortcuts, and how easy it is to make it sound like they support an extreme position... — PinkAmpers &^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 11:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The location of a persons death does not make it wp:notable. You are using wp:crystal to claim it may change security in the future. Notability guidelines do not claim a death on the US Capitol is any more notable than at the Bundestag, Kremlin or Downing Street. Martin451 21:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unique circumstances- this was the US Capitol, during a government shutdown SOXROX (talk) 02:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do unique circumstances make it WP:NOTABLE. Notability is established by long term third party mentions, not by being unique. There are all sorts of crimes that are unique, but completely un-notable.Martin451 21:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article fails WP:NOTABILITY and is a good example of a criteria for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. The topic will not be notable 5 years from now, and its occurrence during a government shutdown is arbitrary; this event would still be an unnotable news event if it had occurred an any other given week. This type of topic can be transwikied to the Wikinews depository as it does not belong in an encyclopedia. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, this article will remain a perma-stub with little chance of expansion due to a lack of notable content about the topic. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of WP:LASTING significance. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep event is notable and deserves article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireflyfanboy (talk • contribs) 00:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources to clearly indicate the subject's notability. Everyking (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable incident, sufficient coverage, and in my opinion the sort of the thing that will be remembered. We can always revisit at another AfD a year from now, it won't hurt anything by existing in the interim while our subjective views gel.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is invalid, and your opinions or any other editor's opinions are irrelevant to the article's lack of lasting notability. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:54, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The County Hound 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. At first glance, it looks like there are a lot of sources. Closer inspection shows most are either superficial mentions or merely proof that a single exists. Other sources are background and bio about the artist, not about this album. Also some questionable sources. There just isn't significant coverage by reliable third party sources. This could be a case of WP:TOOSOON, although the artist's last studio album failed to chart and failed to garner significant coverage, which led that article to AfD, resulting in a redirect.[72] Niteshift36 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very WP:POINTy nomination by a user with a history of bad-faith actions related to this artist and his works. This album has received significant coverage in multiple independent third party reliable sources that discuss the album, its background, the singles released in promotion of it (all also mention the album) and its actual release. This includes HipHopDX (Cheri Media Group), HipHopDX, Fashion Style (used in GoogleNews and has an editoral staff), Mstarz (also used in GoogleNews and has an editoral staff), HipHopDX, RESPECT.[73], stupidDOPE (again used in GoogleNews and has an editoral staff), Complex Magazine, Complex Magazine, Complex Magazine, DJBooth.net, DJBooth.net, among others. The album has been released so no not WP:TOOSOON, charting is not a stipulation of passing WP:NALBUMS, which this album clearly meets. Also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. STATic message me! 01:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of bad faith won't help you. Please try to comment on the issue and not obsess about your personal issues with me. Actually, the album received little coverage itself in third party sources. Another album, Euthanasia got a bit more. This one was mostly just mentioned. Blogs and sources without a reputation for editorial oversight don't become reliable just because they use GNews. In fact, being listed in GNews wouldn't make them pass RS, just ask the blacklisted Examiner.com or Now Public.com. Overloading a list of links to what are pretty much mentions don't add up to significant coverage. A 30 word blurb saying "there is an album coming" isn't significant. And yes, TOOSOON can be applied after a release. If it can apply to already released films WP:NYF and actors who are acting (just not notable yet), why would albums be exempt? You are correct that charting alone is not a requirement. That's probably why I listed the lack of significant coverage of the actual album by reliable third parties as my actual reason. Take note that my comment about not charting pertained to his last album, not this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually every single source I listed has editorial oversight and is a third party reliable source, but then again I am a better judge of that then you since you know nothing about music as has been proved in the past. GNews is just even more proof of their acceptance as news sources and as I pointed out they all have editorial oversight and are not blogs. Again with other sites that are not cited in this article, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You are again just making nonsense, factually incorrect comments. The album has received significant coverage in reliable sources, so it passes WP:NALBUMS. STATic message me! 02:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please try to stay on the issue and not waste my time with your personal opinions on what I do/do not know. That will also save me from having to point out your extensive list of shortcomings. I don't recall calling any of them blogs, but apparently, you have decided that I did and just declared it to be true. You could provide the diff where I called them a blog....or just accept the fact that you fabricated that and tried to make it sound like I said it. Again, a collection of short blurbs stating that an album is coming or that this is a single from an upcoming album really isn't significant. You've spent a lot of time trying to convince people that the sources are reliable or that mentions exist and you've really failed to address my actual point, which is the lack of significant coverage. A hundred mentions don't get you past notability. For someone who "doesn't have time for this", you seem to be hovering over the keyboard, waiting to respond. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Blogs and sources without a reputation for editorial oversight don't become reliable just because they use GNews." Read your response and you'll see it. So now you are admitting that they are reliable sources, and since there is significant coverage in them, that makes this nomination pointless. Also keep your personal attacks to yourself. There is really no point in us having a long winded discussion here, just wait for others to comment so finally someone else besides me can tell you that you are wrong. STATic message me! 02:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said that.....it's a statement about what doesn't become reliable because it's on Gnews. There is no statement that these are blogs. Perhaps I could have been more clear. Perhaps you could have not made the assumption. In either case, I have cleared that up now, so we can all know that I didn't call your sources a blog. Happy? And no, I haven't "admitted" that those sources are reliable. I was quite clear that being on GNews doesn't really make you a RS. Some of those sources you've used are reliable, without question. I never said otherwise. What I've said was that there is no significant coverage about this album. I haven't really attacked you my friend and you have zero room to play the victim in this discussion. Yeah, you're always right, just like you were with the last Cashis related album that went to AfD and you told me how wrong I was and how right you were. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I used Wordcounter.net on every reliable source I provided above, and guess what, none of them are 30 words or less as you claim, so I guess it is significant coverage after all, for the record none of them are under 50. The coverage is obviously there. Not to mention that is not even the entire coverage. We both know you did not do a WP:BEFORE or even bother looking at the references before starting this, again this nomination screams WP:POINT. Also additional coverage not cited in the article includes [74] and [75]. Also do not put words in my mouth I never said that before, and that difference is his debut album was hardly covered at all, nothing about it was covered. This album is quite different. STATic message me! 04:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring thefact that you took the whole 30 words thing way to literally.....Perhaps you should look again. Apparently you just decided to look at everything as being part of the coverage. Take this source: [76]. It actually starts out about Eminem. The part about Cashis is "check out Ca$his' upcoming record The County Hound 2 (release date, October 15). The Chicago rapper recently departed from Shady Records to start his own label, but Em still helped (co) produce four fresh tunes on Ca$his' second studio record. Read on for more details.". Then it's merely a track list. That's 45 words and a track list, just announcing that it I coming. This source [77]: Is another article about Eminem and the only thing about Cashis is "Meanwhile, MLive reports that Eminem is now turning to production, producing four tracks on Chicago rapper Ca$his’ new album, “The County Hound 2.” The songs are titled “Layin’ In The Cut,” “Thru the Glass,” “Ask About Me,” and “Cigarello” and the album will be released on October 15.". 48 words, merely mentioning the album and listing single titles. This source [78] gives us a whopping 53 words, again merely saying it is being release on that day. This one [79] is again, merely saying it's coming. When did 40-50 words merely announcing something is coming become significant coverage? Some of these are just mentions in articles about a much more notable artist. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So now that I proved you wrong with the 30 word thing, you're going to take it back? You can falsely interpret however you want, the significant coverage is there, especially for an independent hip hop artist. You only took four of of dozens of examples. You are also misinterpreting the amount of coverage needed to pass WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. STATic message me! 17:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't be. Because I didn't say it as a literal number. Besides, if you actually remove the crap that is NOT about the album from several of these, it would be 30 words. And I'm not misinterpreting anything. You just don't like it. We're clearly not going to agree on what significant coverage is. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The album has gotten enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Plus the album was just released today so there still could be more coming. Koala15 (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources covered the actual album with more than a paragraph or two? Most of the ones I'm seeing were talking about the artist or a singlualr song, then mention the album. As for the coming coverage (which didn't happen on the last one), isn't our practice to have the coverage, then write, not write and hope for coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the sources primarily discuss the album such as, the two I cited in my last response, the Respect. source, one of the HipHopDX sources, the Mstarz and the stupidDOPE source. Also as long as the sources discussing the singles mention the album its fine, does not carry that much weight, but with all the coverage present in the article and above, it clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. STATic message me! 16:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already know your answer. I asked Koala. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:07, 16 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, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge & Redirect Definitely WP:TOOSOON but I can find no "extraordinary" coverage. It's the same content of every "Next Biggest Rap Star" that we hear week in and week out. Perhaps if the album charts, but the album just released a day ago (from this sign point). Merge to the artist's page at this time Hasteur (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like more of a personal opinion on rap in general than a actual reasoning for it not passing WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. The coverage is clearly there, not MTV or Rolling Stone, but with proper research they are all reliable sources with editorial teams/editorial oversight. On WP:TOOSOON, most albums have articles months in advance, an article being created the day or day after it comes out is what is preferred. STATic message me! 19:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has enough references and information and it passes WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS and WP:MUSIC. Lindenhurst Liberty (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Now we have the critical reviews coming in, HipHopDX, which is considered a professional review site by Metacritic and WP:ALBUMS/REVSITE. STATic message me! 19:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Static's sources. There's not a lot of great coverage, but there's enough to pass the WP:GNG though. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 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 speedy deleted by User:Ponyo per CSD G5 "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: correcting deletion criteria". (Non-administrator thread closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dua Malik[edit]

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

Sources appear to be blogs, wikis and/or fabricated. They do not support the peacock claims in the article. Subject may not meet notability guidelines. Scottyoak2 (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are non-reliable. It reads promotional ...rave reviews.... --Ben Ben (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note - I've deleted the article as G5. There is a promotional sockfarm that continually recreates this article (and many others) using poor sources and falsification of references.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 15:41, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning UK[edit]

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

Entire article is based on unconfirmed reports from a tabloid newspaper (Daily Mirror) User:Bilky_asko ☞ Talk Pagé 00:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A year in advance for this announcement based on tabloid gossip? Not acceptable. We don't have a deadline and there will be literally hundreds of sources when ITV announces a change to their breakfast show...when they announce it, not the 3AM Girls. Nate • (chatter) 01:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be too soon, for despite the amount of coverage, it is still unconfirmed at the moment. May be recreated once sources confirming the rename are available. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 02:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too Soon Executus! If and when the show does change we'll get a good sourced article. The entire article reads like conjecture at this point. Hasteur (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is reliable information about Daybreak being cancelled and replaced, it could be added to Daybreak (TV programme). But this is speculation and very much subject to change, so even merge/redirect isn't appropriate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This Article should only go ahead once confirmation has been given by ITV. --W-wright20 (talk) 6:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete -- There is too large an element of WP:CRYSTAL about this. This is essentially a rebranding exercise (if correct). Peterkingiron (talk) 10:40, 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.