Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 October	8 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 merge to List of Rocko's Modern Life characters#Bev Bighead. I've gone ahead and added in one paragraph from the article to the List of characters. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 01:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bev Bighead[edit]

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

This was at AfD but then withdrawn for no reason. The character is still not notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to List of Rocko's Modern Life characters#Bev Bighead. Not notable, but already discussed in the list of characters. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Rocko's Modern Life characters#Bev Bighead. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close as wrong venue, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mosques in the European Union[edit]

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

As the European Union is an organisation more than a geographic mass, surely it should be 'Mosques in Europe', or for countries such as the United Kingdom where there are disproportionate articles to other countries, split by country. Indiasummer95 (talk) 21:21, 7 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 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close. Wrong forum. Template deletions are discussed at Templates for discussion. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 7 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} 04:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go-Slow Lagos[edit]

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

This article is about an unnoteworthy topic, poorly formatted, unencyclopedic, and provides little to no information of value. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No decent content there; if someone does want to write on the topic, they can easily begin by including it at Traffic congestion#By_country or Lagos, Nigeria#Transportation. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced. And even if traffic congestion is particularly notable in Lagos, Nigeria to the extent that it warrants its own article -- and there's no reason given that it is from the lack of information provide -- the article seems to be mostly about a term for the traffic congestion, not the traffic congestion itself. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 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} 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judo Filipinas[edit]

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

Non-notable group - no references beyond its webpage. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is inconceivable that a 21st century national sporting organisation (or governing body as it was described before I pointed out that it nothing of the sort) in a country with English as an official language could be notable without independent references being findable by Google searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not mean any of the specific criteria for notability of a sports league or organization under WP:SPORTCRIT or the general notability guidelines.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:V. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think it also fails the relevant project's guidelines at Wikipedia:MMANOT#Organizations. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - none of the links found on Google are useable; fails WP:GNG and WP:V. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources and nothing that shows this just created organization is notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It may become notable in the future, but for now, it's too soon, as there isn't much coverage for the organization just yet. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nadja Gontermann[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable radio broadcaster. Has worked on three apparently non-notable radio stations, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG in the article or a Google search. Orphaned since November 2006; can't find a suitable place to wikilink her to at present either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any evidence that she meets notability guideline(s). --Boson (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Boson. The article doesn't provide any suitable references, the Google-books reference I saw noted that the book is based primarily on Wikipedia, and there's little else.--Larry (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Public Real Estate Association[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable organization. Most of the sources in the article simply mention that it exists, not that it does anything of note (other than be related to another article of questionable substance). —Ryulong (琉竜) 20:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the sources not in the article, but readily available from the news, book and scholar searches linked above? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of it really seems to show anything other than it exists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for your speed-reading ability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this nomination seems to be on the basis that there are limited on-line resources and seems to completely ignore the off-line sources which a Google search above says exist. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 2 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) 19:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See [1] for example. And EPRA index should be merged into this article. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:52, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Girl Project![edit]

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

It is completely unclear what this article is about. A musical group? A dance troupe? A comedy team? Notability not met. Other issues as well, for example, the inclusion of Japanese text. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Never heard of this, but reading up on it, it seems this is kind of a sister project to Tsunku's Hello! Project, which means it is not a specific band or group, but a project to foster and develop idol entertainers. It seems the difference from Hello! Project is that this involves the cooperation of four talent agencies with different strengths, enabling the development of multi-talented idols or idols of different talents. That is what at least the news articles say, and since Tsunku's activities are the focus of much attention, there have been quite a number of articles on it: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. Although some of the groups in the project have been notable (e.g., The Possible (group)), the project itself is not a band or a group and cannot be judged using WP:BAND. I believe we just have to return to WP:GNG. I think there is enough coverage to just pass GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 7 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) 01:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Resources[edit]

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

The company is likely to be notable but the present article and all older versions have severe neutrality issues. Better to use WP:TNT and start all over again. The Banner talk 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep -- if you think the article is biased, fix the article. bogdan (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is biased from the first to the last version. Your edits did not make any bit less biased, you just swung the bias in another way. This article is just beyond rescue. The Banner talk 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the current article is beyond rescue, why would blowing it up and starting again produce a less biased article? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Exactly what severe neutral point of view violations are in play here? I've read the article and I do not see anything that would warrant article deletion as a solution. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first version was a copy/paste from some presentation materials of the company, but I believe it could be improved.Acornboy (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of this article, as well as all independent sources, deal with the mining project of Roșia Montană, which is the subject of another article, Roșia Montană Project.- Andrei (talk) 09:46, 3 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) 19:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roșia Montană Project, merging as necessary - given Andrei Stroe's comment, this seems to be a logical outcome. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:04, 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotting (climbing)[edit]

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

This article, along with the one on Spotting (weight training), is basically an unreferenced extended dictionary definition, and not a subject with enough material for an independent encyclopedia article. KDS4444^Talk 21:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may be a bit too much of a how-to guide and in need of improvement but the topic is a valid one for an encyclopedia. References could easily be added. The article is not currently a dictionary definition as it is clearly about the technique of spotting and not the word 'spotting' in this context. JMiall ₰ 22:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as "spotting" is a physical activity in which one person "does" the activity and another person "spots" them to make sure they don't fall or hurt themselves, do you think it would be a good idea to merge the two articles mentioned here (neither of which has any references) along with a redirect from other potential "spotting" articles such as "Spotting (gymnastics)", etc.? Each context is different, but they all derive from the same fundamental concept and it doesn't seem useful to have several articles on the same spotting idea. And I would still like to see a reference or two for any of it. I am very familiar with the concept of spotting with regard to weight training, but am concerned it is like "walking" or "catching" or "yelling" or "hefting" or "sneezing" or "typing" or "snoozing" in that these are just basic human "things" that don't seem to rise to the level of an encyclopedia. But I am totally open to being convinced otherwise! Thoughts?? KDS4444^Talk 18:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a dictionary definition, as opposed to the separate encyclopedia articles that we have now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common idea between the 2 articles is that people 'spotting' are trying to spot something potentially dangerous but the situation they do this in and the the action they then take are quite different, different enough in my opinion to justify to separate articles. If you think the articles should be merged then this isn't really the place to discuss it though. Some of the xxxx-ing articles that you mention do have wikipedia articles, although not necessarily under exactly the same title. I'm tempted to start writing an article on catching - a very encyclopaedic topic that we don't seem to have a good article on. JMiall ₰ 12:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have articles about catching in particular contexts. For example Catch (baseball) and Caught have very similar contexts, but that small difference is enough to make it valid for us to have separate articles. I would very much welcome the supplementation of such articles by a general article on catching, about there must be loads of potential encyclopedic content, such as the physiological and neurological processes that lead humans to be able to perform such a complex act of coordination. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles on spotting in the context of bouldering at Rock and Ice magazine, the Bouldering Book (a blog by a recognized authority), ABC of rock climbing, and Stonemonkey (not sure if this is reliable, but it looks like reasonable info). A search on Google books shows many books that discuss spotting: Bouldering with Bobbi Bensman, Better Bouldering, Girl on the Rocks, etc.. There look to be multiple in-depth reliable sources for this topic, making it notable. The article definitely needs sources and a bit less of a howto style, but these are surmountable editing problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above. It seems that this keeps getting relisted because of the low number of bolded opinions, rather than on the basis of the discussion that has a clear policy-based consensus to keep, so there's my bolded opinion. Given the number of such relistings I think we should have a discussion about deprecating WP:NOTAVOTE, because it clearly isn't being followed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added one reference [13]. Article can be improved, but this is definitely a notable topic. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:11, 7 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) 15:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swangin[edit]

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

Redirect compromise reverted by article author. Fails WP:NSONGS due to failure to chart and insignificant coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 14:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In my view there's just enough coverage - [14][15][16][17][18][19] - to support an article per WP:NSONGS. Gong show 19:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article needs to explained with content from those sources then to establish the notability, since there is no chart performance to establish any. STATic message me! 20:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info from the sources to the article. Gong show 22:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stalley. Not quite notable yet. Koala15 (talk) 23:36, 2 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) 19:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gongshow's additions. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:19, 7 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. AfC draft already in existence can continue to be improve, and eventually moved over this title if/once it is accepted after review. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LogosQuiz[edit]

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

Copied from an early version of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LogosQuiz which is still under review at AFC. The version at AFC is not ready for the main encyclopedia either. The topic may or may not be notable but both this version and the more-complete article at AFC are way too promotional in tone for the main encyclopedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:50, 7 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) 22:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced – and as per YouTube views, I doubt we would count downloads as showing notability. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator I declined the version at AFC, but if it is improved and notability adequately demonstrated, it may be moved into the main article space. If it is not, then it is better to have no article than either this or the now-declined AFC submission. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Torres (musician)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Note that I have nominated her album, TORRES (Album). Watch that AFD, if it closes as "MERGE TO ARTIST" and this closes as "DELETE" there will be a problem. Similar notice placed on that AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see at least a few decent sources, including a review from Pitchfork Media. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This musician meets at least 3 of the criteria from WP:MUSIC, several of the general criteria from WP:BIO, and ALL of the criteria from the "general notability guideline" on WP:GNG, I.E. the musician has been the subject multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. For examples of these reliable sources, please see the reference list on the page in question. Stomachworm88 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources in the article point to this artist meeting WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Don't just say "Yes, it's notable, there are sources, it meets WP:MUSBIO", but examine each one in turn, which gives us:

Native Issue 12 didn't load for me successfully. I think a better source is needed

pigeonsandplanes - what makes this a reliable source?

Lasko - a source defined but not used

Pitchfork - actually a YouTube video, self-published

The Deli - okay, local news coverage not a particularly great source to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSBIO but does count

abubaker - a source defined but not used

In your speakers - what makes this a reliable source?

Listen Before You Buy - this looks self-published and they'll put up just about any band, notable or otherwise

2 x Nashville Scene - okay

songkick.com - what makes this a reliable source?

2 x Pitchfork reviews - okay

Beats Per Minute, Drowned in Sound, Pretty Much Amazing - what makes these reliable sources?

Album of the year - a list of user reviews. Self published source

Adding that lot up, by my standards, gives you coverage in 5 reliable sources. That's just about enough to tip it into notability, particularly since the odds are that more sources will appear in time (but see WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL). Despite what Stomachworm88 claimed above, the article meets none of the "free pass" criteria in WP:MUSBIO, since her album was self-published and has not charted, and her "tours" are not notable enough to be written about in Rolling Stone. On a side note, "Scott decidedly crafted the distinct sound of her debut album" is very much WP:POV, so I've copyedited the article to tone things down a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: It is my intent to revisit Ritchie333's work above (I did something similar for the album, see Talk:TORRES (Album). Who knows, I may wind up withdrawing this or, if I am not convinced, re-asserting that the person fails WP:Notability. It's obvious already that I didn't do my homework before nominating this, and for that I apologize. Trouts and wet noodles accepted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
according to WP:NMUSIC, a musician must meet at least one of the guidelines listed there in order for her to be considered notable. this musician meets at least two of them, IE #1 and #4. so slim yes, but passing yes. and at least two of the references, pitchfork media and drowned in sound are listed as reliable in WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. we must keep Stomachworm88 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how does this reach criteria #4? That's (imho) for people like Daryl Stuermer, who, while never appearing as an official member of Genesis and not playing on their albums, achieved notability by being part of the regular touring line-up. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ok maybe this musician does not meet criterion #4, but she still does definitely meet criterion #1, which is the most important criterion. thus this article is not a legitimate candidate for deletion and we must keep. Stomachworm88 (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TORRES (Album)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG criteria. Note - I am also nominating the musician's page (Torres (musician)) so please avoid closing as "merge to artist" unless that page looks like it will survive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does meet at least 3 of the criteria on WP:MUSIC, the minimum number of criteria needing to be met is at least 1. This article does meet ALL of the criteria from the "general notability guideline" on WP:GNG. This album has received significant coverage from many reliable sources, all of which are independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomachworm88 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC) * Keep added by for clarity. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my issue is the questionable reliability of the sources listed. Could you go to Talk:TORRES (Album) and address 1) why you think each source listed is relaible, and 2) which 3 criteria of WP:MUSIC and which source(s) support each of the 3 criteria, and for each criteria in WP:GNG which source(s) support that criteria? Okay, you don't have to do all of those, technically you just need to convincingly show that one reference is reliable and, using just this reference, show that notability is demonstrated. But I'm hard to convince, and others may be as well. The stronger your case, the more likely I am to be so convinced that I withdraw this nomination. I'm already leaning towards withdrawing the nomination for the artist, I'm holding back because I'm still not convinced the sources listed in the album article that give significant coverage to the artist are reliable, and I haven't had time to re-review the references on the artist's page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

all of the references listed in this album article are registered as "professional critics" on the music aggregator website metacritic, and therefore reliability, credibility, and "mainstream press" are ensured/assumed. for the guidelines... "significant coverage" meaning the sources provide full article reviews, not simply "passing mention." "Reliable" meaning the sources are both published and available. "Sources" meaning...well, notable sources. "Independent of the source" meaning the sources and the subject of the articles are separate entities and there is no conflict of interest happening. So which sources are applicable here? Most of them; as i wrote above, all of the sources are registered with metacritic, and therefore have credibility and meet the "general notability guidelines." so if there is still any question, i suppose it would have to be, "is metacritic a reliable source?" the answer to that, i think, has to be yes. by the way, i do appreciate davidwr helping to clean up the article's reference links and what not; I am still new to creating/editing articles. so thanks! Stomachworm88 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our standards for using sources is different/separate/not dependant on Metacritic, there are many times that they use websites for their review aggregations that Wikipedia does not consider reliable, so it'd be best to directly describe why you think the sources are reliable rather than just depend on Metacritics approval... Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

metacritic tends to be a good gauge for a source's notability. these sources are reliable because they are published, national, copyrighted, archived, incorporated, not user-generated, reputable reviews. therefore it is probably best for someone to describe why these sources are not reliable rather than have to prove why there are. Stomachworm88 (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a history of certain sources in used by Metacritic not being usable by Wikipedia. I'll stop arguing this point though, because regardless, sources found below like Drowned in Sound or Pitchfork Media are in fact reliable sources, so it probably should be kept. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NMUSIC through coverage in reliable sources. Pitchfork Media [20], Drowned in Sound [21] and No Ripcord [22] all have reviews and are all listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE as recommended sources for album articles. — sparklism ^hey! 07:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a side note: the article should probably be moved to Torres (album) per WP:BANDNAME, which also applies to albums. — sparklism ^hey! 07:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the sources mentioned by Sparklism, and a number of them on the article page from the review box as well. There's enough to pass the WP:GNG. I support Sparklism's article rename as well, it doesn't currently doesn't follow WP:ALLCAPS, but his proposed title would. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified by sparklism; subject meets WP:NALBUMS. Gong show 22:59, 10 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} 04:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E Hardy[edit]

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

I'm not finding evidence of notability. The one reference merely lists him as a consultant on a project. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is mentioned as the recipient of prestigious National Award http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v29.n31/story112.html. There are other sources which I have not yet added. User:Jayzburger 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the National Award is, but that isn't what that source says he won. He received a National Science Foundation fellowship. According to NSF-GRF, this is awarded to 2,000 doctoral students every year. I'll be interested to see the other sources, but this award doesn't really set him out from the crowd. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the linked award doesn't really make him notable. Someone who is supposed to be a renowned expert, I would expect to find a list of publications with some impact. However, a superficial google search failed to come up with any publication. Did he actually finish his PhD? What was the title of his dissertation? His profile at linkedin doesn't really support the idea that he meets the notability criteria. And just wondering: how do you know (and what reference can you cite) for the claim that he is also a talented musician, singer, and poet? -- O.Koslowski (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned previously, sources will be added. Here is another source describing emerging issues that are highly valuable to the field of civil engineering: http://www.cvcwa.org/sites/default/files/conferences/05-Pelz%20Hardy-Controlling%20Methylmercury.pdf Also, I am currently trying to locate info on his PhD/dissertation. He is a regular performer at the Oak Park Christian Center. Performances can be found online. User:Jayzburger talk 21:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand what you believe that slide presentation conveys that establishes Hardy's notability. I skimmed through it and then ran a search on "hardy". As far as I can tell, it doesn't mention the man once, let alone is it an example of a secondary reliable source giving him significant coverage. Is this a presentation he created? If so, then it seems that you're thinking something to the effect of, "This man is producing research and presenting findings that I find to be important. Therefore, people should take note of him, and he merits an article on Wikipedia." If that's what you had in mind, I need to tell you that that's not how Wikipedia sets forth the criteria for inclusion. Again, there needs to be significant coverage of the person in reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say what you meant by "regular performer", but singing in your own church, for example, doesn't equate to being a suitable topic for Wikipedia. Also, a Google search for mentions of "oak park christian center" accompanied by the words "charles" and "hardy" yields nothing. Wikipedia is interested that he's a talented performer only if secondary reliable sources give significant coverage to his performance and classify him as talented. Even if there's a video of him online, if you're making the judgment yourself as to his talent, that's insufficient. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did produce the report. See link:http://www.cvcwa.org/conference Also, as noted in the notability criteria, secondary sources do not have to be found online. I have contacted the subject directly for sourcing information. He notably performs on a local/regional scale (the sources for which I have inquired directly) User:Jayzburger talk 5:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete, no indication of actual notability per WP:BIO, reeks of self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing that leads me to believe that the person meets the criteria for WP:SCHOLAR or WP:GNG and I certainly can't find any myself. If the creator does in fact provide actual reliable sources, I'd be willing to change my opinion (I'm skeptical), but as of now, there's no reason for this to be here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of academic impact (there's another Charles E Hardy who has been publishing since the 1970s on forest fires but appears not to be the same person), and student fellowships explicitly do not count for WP:PROF. He also does not appear to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Each editorial response has been given after a very brief skimming of the internet. As found in the notability criterion, the person in the article does not have to be cited online. There are myriad sources attesting to the subjects notability, of which I am currently inquiring directly to the said person. User:Jayzburger talk 5:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)— Jayzburger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The sourcing doesn't necessarily have to be online but it actually has to exist. That to find these "myriad sources" requires directly inquiring the subject of the biography for assistance is not an auspicious sign for the subject's notability.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing doesn't necessarily have to be online and it does exist. I have attended several professional seminars taught by this person. It would be easier to go directly to the source, rather than search libraries or scholarly article databases. However, I am looking into other resources as well.Jayzburger (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance at a seminar does not count as a reliable source. The sources need to be published, they need to be by someone other than the subject and cover the subject in nontrivial detail (rather than merely being by the subject or mentioning the subject only briefly) and (if offline) they need to be verifiable by other people who can look up that publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any reliable sources and there are none cited in the article. Happy to have a look at any sources anyone else finds and change my opinion if appropriate. ~KvnG 17:51, 10 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 Withdrawn by nominator.. (non-admin closure) I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Dietz (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. The only citation given is the artist's own website, and no web searches can find any better references. Only listings at the expected art print vendors. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dietz work in Military Museums

Please keep this article. It is a stub created as part of the Pritzker GLAM project. Dietz has over 40 works in the collections at the Pritzker. His work is also represented in numerous military museums across the U.S. See his entry at AskART.com for more details. TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable sources will be needed to verify these claims. If verified, they would pass the criteria for WP:ARTIST. I am not aware of the status of askArt.com as a reliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the description on AskART from their site: "AskART is an online database containing over 250,000 artists. From its inception the focus was on American artists from the early 16th-Century through the present. However, in January of 2007 the database expanded to include international artists' auction records."([23]) It is a subscription database used by museums and academic libraries. TeriEmbrey (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Book searches were more successful in this case. Given that there is an entire book dedicated to his artwork, I think notability is fairly clear here. Information about being an award-winning artist is substantiated in this magazine and more of his artwork is discussed in this book. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Thanks to JethroBT for finding this book source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 7 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} 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oubliette[edit]

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

Non-notable, of course. Even a list is preferable to a line. Basket _Feudalist 18:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination fails WP:JNN, and (although the NYT link in the article does not provide nontrivial detail about the subject) there appears to be nontrivial book coverage e.g. here and here (unfortunately both paywalled), enough to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These old films might not have as much citations as new ones as they probably have been lost to time, but it stars a host of notables and there is some coverage existing. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is part of a series of films called The Adventures of François Villon. I created The Adventures of François Villon to contain them. The Higher Law (1914 film) should be redirected there as well. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets notability standards for films on it own. The fact that it is a film featuring Lon Chaney doubles that. We have 100s of 1000s of articles that are only a line are two so that is not an automatic qualification for deletion. I am not sure that one article for four films is better than four separate articles. for one thing we will loose the edit histories. I also have a sense that expansion of the articles would be easier if they were separate but I can't back that up with any examples. If enough editors are for merging and redirecting then that would be okay instead. MarnetteD | Talk 00:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per this 1914 silent film having separate historical notability under WP:NF no matter what film collections of which it might have later been a part. IE: "film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." If it somehow remains a stub, that is perfectly okay. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:18, 12 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} 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Church of YHWH[edit]

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

This seems mainly known for dropping is use of Nazi symbols, a one-off event. It seems to have more or less vanished with the exception of a forum[24]. I did find references to its downfall, splits, etc on various forums, but no evidence of notability except for the Nazi issue. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its merely being listed as a hate group appears to be the only thing mentioned about them, apart from the news about disuse of Nazi symbols. So there are some mere inclusions in lists of hate groups, and a single news story. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, one news story is not enough to establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even verify that it still exists. Only a single news story about this group was spread around by the media in 2007; it was syndicated widely. That was it. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. -- 101.119.15.70 (talk) 13:41, 9 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} 04:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pneuron[edit]

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

Company does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP through signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The best source is this Forbes article. Other sourcing in the article is problematic with funding announcements (routine business news), or non-reliable sources. An analysis of the sources was imbedded in the article (which I removed as non article content) and is visible in this version. Whpq (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Delete per nom and per CSD G11. WP:CORPDEPTH says that neither coverage in "media of limited interest and circulation", nor coverage in local media, are enough. Salt to prevent the article from being created for yet a third time. If the article is deleted and someone wants to recreate it, they should contact the closing admin and present additional impressive sources: perhaps significant coverage in The New York Times or the print version of BusinessWeek. But I doubt that any such sources exist. Cheers, ——Unforgettableid (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "independent" coverage is all promotional in nature. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suppose. Gosh, this article has somehow worked its way into my top 10 most edited articles. My patience with helping drive-by, single-item-of-interest editors make something of this has been exhausted. I'll agree that the Forbes article seems to be the best source. Note that two articles link here. Business-oriented architecture is a buzzword-filled orphan that was linked from the May version of this article, which also seems promotional. PricewaterhouseCoopers has a mention based on the Forbes article, in the history section:
In 2013, the company partnered with data integration firm Pneuron Corporation to help firms manage big data.

Should this sentence be removed, as "undue weight" for the last 15 years of PwC history? Who knows how many other firms they've "partnered with" in the last 15 years? I'll need to get to work on something else to avoid staining my top ten with a red link ;-) Wbm1058 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons mentioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 9 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Chansa Kanyanta (Kay Charles)[edit]

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

Article about a musician that was initially BLP PRODed, then speedied twice, then re-created under a separate title, then speedied again and so on by various IPs and SPAs. Beyond the unsourced BLP issue, there is simply no secondary coverage of the person anywhere - only self-generated and social media content. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not close to WP:MUSBIO, way WP:TOOSOON. Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here we have a Biography of living person without any reliable references. Until the secondary, reliable reference is provided to establish notability, the article has to be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. Straightforward non-notable musician case. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:29, 8 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} 13:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kashk (disambiguation)[edit]

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

There's nothing at Abd al-Hamid Kishk that indicates that anyone would be looking for it via "Kashk", so I would remove that link—and then there would no longer be any disambiguation. Nothing links here; I rerouted one link that was pointing here (in the hatnote on Kashk) to Kashk, Iran. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely superfluous after Largo Plazo's sensible changes. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kashk, Iran should be merged to Kashk (disambiguation). Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change of mind: Keep. Kashk, Iran is really the outlier, which I had left alone because it was the older page, but Boleyn has convinced me to move in the other direction, and merge Kashk, Iran into Kashk (disambiguation), as he has done. Still, I got rid of the Kishk guy. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now merged, and I think it's clear this is now a valid dab. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 8 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} 13:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Justice in Utah[edit]

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

Article does not appear to match the title and is more of an essay than encyclopedic. PROD placed but removed by author without modification. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Loriendrew has pretty much summed it up. The article looks more like a school assignment, covering various topics about Utah. This is not an encyclopedia article.--Larry (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 17:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unsourced off topic essay. Someone should probably drop a friendly message to Kailee801, author of this good faith effort, and go over some basic policies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Although it cites a number of reliable sources, it is sadly non-neutral and is structured like an essay - hence a blatant violation of WP:NOTESSAY. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I was going to suggest a userfication of this article and hoping that User:Kailee801 could be given the chance to clean this article up and find something to salvage. The problem is that almost everything in this piece is already found in better detail in other existing articles on Wikipedia with the possible exception of the content on homosexuality, and even that is somewhat covered under LGBT rights in Utah. Not perfectly, and a Homosexuality in Utah would be an interesting article, but I don't think this would even make a good stub for an article like that. I agree that a friendly note thanking the good faith effort of this user at least trying to do something useful for Wikipedia is warranted, but this article does need to be deleted in its current state. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a horribly POV-pushing article. To beging with, when did Serbians and Greeks become "non-white". This is clearly not how the US census bureau has ever sued the term, Iranians, Yemenses and Egyptians are white to the Census Bureaua. Census figures are the only workable ones we have on percentages of whites, so things are more complex than can be seen from this article. Also, the over-focus on Salt Lake City in an article supposedly about Utah just does not work. Anyway, the title itself is not really neutral.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced original essay (a.k.a. "Original Research"). Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone recording laws[edit]

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

This article is useless or harmful, I suggest it be deleted or heavily reduced

Even though the introduction states it is about rules on participants recording their own calls (which is contradictory to the title) the article is a mess of wire-tap and private persons' call recording rules, casually mixed toghether. A few sections are good, such as for example Latvia, Denmark, which say that people can record their phone calls. Others are misleading and misplaced, such as section on India, dealing with wire-tap rules. Some also discuss illegal phone intercepts. Germany is a mess with contradictory statements in the introduction (why have Germany in introduction at all, it she mother of "Telephone recording laws"?) and country's section.

It would be useful to have possibility of learning what are the relevant rules accross the World, however, those things are completely different from the rules on wire tap and somewhat different from business phone tape rules. The article as it is now shows intention to emphasize this difference, but achieves the opposite. Those two - criminal and civil rules - should not be put togeher in one story, much less in a senseless mix. Bete (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality in an article is no reason to delete, poor quality is a reason to warn and improve. 173.48.112.24 (talk) 10:26, 7 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 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:HURT and WP:USELESS are not reasons for deletion. Though the article is in a bad shape, it can be fixed by regular editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't see any immediate harm from this article. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 16:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless there's a better article to merge this into. The subject is notable. Everything the nom lists is reason to improve the article, not to delete it. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a notable topic and already meets WP:GNG. Sure it needs much editing but AfD is not a clean up forum. The way forward is to improve not delete. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and fixable per Whispering and Owen. This is not so bad it needs to be blown up. It certainly could use some major editing, but I don't see any actual legal malpractice in the article. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 8 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 Procedural Close as per below. Ping me on my talk page if you need assistance setting up an AFD, or post a request at WT:AFD. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Patrick Sherrill[edit]

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

TucsonDavidU.S.A. 15:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy procedural close (if this officially exists at all): This AfD seems to be an error. It was put on a Talk page and has no rationale, and the person who created it self-reverted the Talk page edit immediately. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:12, 7 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. While there are opposing views to keep or merge, I feel there is more than sufficient weight to close this as "keep", with a recommendation to discuss a potential merge on the talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spira (Final Fantasy)[edit]

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

not notable, mostly made up of primary sources. Lucia Black (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have multiple sources that cover the development and creation of the world and it is the perfect place to expand on the very unique Al Bhed language which has a unique Japanese to English conversion system that was referenced in many gaming publications of the era. The details about the worlds inhabitants and places are supposed to be covered here, but the concepts of the Sin, Yu Yevon and other parts of the development that is not covered on the Final Fantasy X (Featured Article) page. Taking a few points from the world's development on the main page and expanding with the other relevant material will make this better. The deletion criteria here is simply a matter of not going by WP:BEFORE and Final Fantasy X Ultimania Ω is just fine as a primary source about the development. What better source is there for the development of the game than a book published by the company about the production and design of the game? Many of the interviews and other sources were in print media and not online. It was also twelve years ago that it was released and despite a second game has just been lacking some proper development. Failing that, I could perform a rush job and try and argue WP:HEY if people disagree. This is an important article and it should be kept; deletion is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
anyone else? i can't reply to the person above me as per interaction ban. but this doesn't deny that this is primarily by first-party sources (interviews, guidebooks, etc) and none of the third party sources/opinions. unlike Ivalice.Lucia Black (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. When you're interaction banned, you are interaction banned; saying "I can't reply to them because I'm interaction banned..." is WP:WIKILAWYERING. 2. Then "replying to them without replying to them" anyway is gaming the system. Don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate pages as necessary. Sorry Chris, but the article simply isn't notable. Having development history is not the same as having good reception. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's a well-written article that could be written on this topic. I seem to recall that the game's setting received a fair bit of praise when it was first released and there's probably a fair bit more incoming as the HD version releases in the coming months. I'm confident that a good reception section can be added, it just isn't there yet. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I do not doubt that it's possible, I would like to see a "show of good faith" that reception exists y'know? I see a lot of situations where people say "this could have a good reception", saving the article; this is typically followed by a long stagnation and eventual relisting. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with New Age Hippie, we can't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST or save the article for the possibility of notability without expansion. If we're going to keep this article, it has to prove notability now. Especially considering the past 2 games already released.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree, the above "keep" comment doesn't have any weight unless significant secondary sources are actually brought to the table.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've found numerous secondary sources about the world and context of FFX including heavy coverage of Spira in Imagined History, Fading Memory: Mastering Narrative in Final Fantasy X in Mechademia Volume 4, 2009 and the usage of Al Bhed in Language policy in the making: an analysis of bilingual gaming activities by Sirpa Leppänen and Arja Piirainen-Marsh that is behind a Springer link.[25] More exists on the religious theme in Electronic Game Research Methodologies: Studying Religious Implications by Bainbridge and Bainbridge in Review of Religious Research Vol. 49, No. 1. (JSTOR).[26] These are only English sources, and many more exist in Japanese which shows secondary and academic sources related to the fictional world of Spira. Now, I need to dig up my texts on the creation of the Al Bhed language and some other aspects, but for a fictional world there is enough reliable sources on its creation, its vision and its execution to warrant inclusion. While some of the details definately need to be worked for Wikipedia's usage, I think I've gotten a good set of additions already done and I'm missing the best Japanese sources simply because I can't translate it well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That you got hits with the word "spira" in a search engine doesn't mean WP:GNG is met. It requires "significant coverage", not just mere mentions. From what I've seen of the content you added, I doubt you can build a notable article out of these.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Major Revision: Virtually the only references used are quotes, and most of the text is unreferenced and written in a rather in-universe style. On top of that, Spira just isn't notable enough to warrant this kind of article without some major condensation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fancruft that belongs on a Final Fantasy Wikia project, not in an actual online encyclopedia. Interviews with devs discussing game content does not confer notability to the in-world universe itself. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant content from multiple secondary independent sources. The bulk of sources is made of primary and affiliated sources (the game and Squenix companion media), the others (recently added) are at best inconsequential (a mere mention of the word "Spira" and that's it) or purely off topic. One is even unreliable (a self-published fansite).Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Undecided still. On one hand, it looks like a merge candidate, considering much of the info is redundant to the parent articles. On the other hand, some of the precedents , while I find them baffling, are in favor of keeping it. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pok%C3%A9mon_regions - for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pokemon region could be AfD again at a later time with more outside perspective.Lucia Black (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but so could just about any article. I'm just saying that's the standing consensus at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. Totes nominated it for deletion. At least this article came as a natural attempt to write an article about a subject; the regions page is simply a repository for articles that weren't strong enough by themselves. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing as it's being worked on, I'll wait a bit. This article is comparable to Ivalice. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Wikipedia is no stranger to articles on significant in-universe fictional concepts; what makes this one significantly different to the rest? If it's the sourcing issues, they can gradually be fixed once someone is bold enough to do so. The way I see it is, currently this article does have its problems, but it is salvagable. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to help out w/ the article on the condition that if we cannot find a significant enough number of resources to make the article notable, we will merge the content to relevant articles. Would that sound fine, Lucia? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make it notable, great. But secondary sources and development info aren't going to salvage it. That type of info can easily make its way into Final Fantasy X article. But these type of deals usually end in long periods of searching, then neglect.Lucia Black (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in favour of the article's merge; do you really think I would allow it to get away with stagnation if the conditions are not met? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, I agree with this if others agree as well.Lucia Black (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is now valuable content in the article, but it is blatantly off-topic as it is about FFX and not Spira itself. I don't see this article getting deleted, but we can set out to merge it into Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 as soon as the AfD closes.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think I agree with the merge. I doubt online sources for this game about the world can easily be found, and book sources are very hard to come by. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With over 20 secondary sources having been added I think this meets N/GNG. I've seen pieces of Final Fantasy X World Guide: Yevon's Dogma and People on the Spira and can confirm that the book is not from Square Enix and is not walkthrough or game guide in any capacity, it says so right on the second page. Final Fantasy X Final Strategy is part game guide with a section on the "Analysis of Spira" in its pages and it is also independent of Square Enix. This combined with Washburn's analysis and Hagan and others all show the world is not only studied, but important for reasons completely independent of actually playing the game. Many more sources exist, there are at least 3 more on Al Bhed's cipher/language creation, at least 4 more interviews and about a dozen academic publications in Japanese, and plenty of coverage in old magazines. This page is not a merge candidate either because the setting is best appreciated on its own page and not cluttering up two featured articles. I got more work to do on this, but I think its already notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
need to trim and cleanup a little bit and move any unnecessary information to corresponding article on Wikia. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:39, 7 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) 22:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing in the Concept/Creation section and Analysis section are more than sufficient to elevate this past the GNG, but the middle section, all pulling from the primary source, is a bit excessive. That can be trimmed, but there's no reason to otherwise delete. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a note: I realize many of the early sources are first-party (interviews and materials from Square dev as published by Square) but in such cases, they are on-edge secondary sources since they are transforming information - the ideas they used in designing the game's world. But there are also true secondary sources down in the Analysis, so together, I feel that is sufficient. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although i disagree that this info is "second" party sources due to them being "transforming" but i do believe now that there is at least "efficient" to keep.Lucia Black (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with that comment. The sections Masem mentions indeed provide notable content, but said content is only about the games themselves, and not "Spira" per say. Even if Spira is the world in which the entire game is set, it's a stretch to say that any discussion related to the game can be used to build an article about "Spira". Don't forget that WP:GNG states that sources "must cover the subject directly". See this glaring example: «In Imagined History, Fading Memory: Mastering Narrative in Final Fantasy X, Washburn writes that Final Fantasy X "makes the relationship of memory, history, and the struggle for control of knowledge a central element of both its gameplay and its narrative."» Is this sentence about Spira ? No, it's about Final Fantasy X. Conclusion, Spira is not notable, but the current content is certainly valuable and deserves to be merged where it belongs, at Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2, which are currently deprived of it. I thus invite Masem to update their !vote.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, there is no such thing as "second" party sources. They are either first-party (directly by those involved with the game) or third-party (anyone else). Sources are also determined by being primary (directly talking about the work in detail without any transformation), secondary (talking about the work and making transformative claims like critique or analysis), or tertiary (summarizing the work at a higher level). We require secondary sources to assure that others have explored the concept beyond just reiterating what's obvious in the game, and third-party to show that others besides those involved had interest in it. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what a 3rd party source is. "Critique" falls in 3rd party.19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several different means to assess a source: whether it is independent or dependent, whether it is primary, secondary, or tertiary, and whether it is a first-party or third-party source. Those are all separate measurements. A critique, by definition, is secondary, but it could be first-party (a development giving his own critique on work he did well in the past) or third-party (a game reviewer discussing the world). --MASEM (t) 14:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

then it may have to be cleaned up a bit to remove anything specific to the games, and if the info is greatly reduced, then we merge it. too much in-universe information too.Lucia Black (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denying the sourcing is an invincible ignorance fallacy, where assertions are made with no consideration of objections for the evidence raised. The fact that multiple reliable and independent sources discuss the game world (Spira) and its mechanics, history, lore and religion are evidence enough for notability. An entire book is dedicated to discussing the world that is not in any aspect a "Game Guide" by itself says a lot about it meeting notability. In whole the number and details covered in third party sources surpass Ivalice, which is a GA. The subject has multiple independent articles covering it and more likely to come in the future; especially since a large portion of the world is being redone and improved for the re-release. And one last thing, this is a case where a split is bad thing because would unbalance two FAs and are intrinsically related, the contents are best appreciated in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note: I won't waste my time writing a new comment when the previous one has obviously not been read The sections Masem mentions indeed provide notable content, but said content is only about the games themselves, and not "Spira" per say. Even if Spira is the world in which the entire game is set, it's a stretch to say that any discussion related to the game can be used to build an article about "Spira". Don't forget that WP:GNG states that sources "must cover the subject directly". See this glaring example: «In Imagined History, Fading Memory: Mastering Narrative in Final Fantasy X, Washburn writes that Final Fantasy X "makes the relationship of memory, history, and the struggle for control of knowledge a central element of both its gameplay and its narrative."» Is this sentence about Spira ? No, it's about Final Fantasy X. Conclusion, Spira is not notable, but the current content is certainly valuable and deserves to be merged where it belongs, at Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2, which are currently deprived of it. Additional note: FA articles can still be edited and improved when new sources show up, and since fictional articles have to be primarily based on secondary sources, there is no risk of unbalancing them with secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge mainly per Folken. The analysis section of this page is mostly irrelevant to Spira. There's useful information about the development of FFX here, but it should be, easily can be, and largely already is included in the page on FFX. --erachima talk 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Pretty[edit]

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

"Ron Pretty has been a leading figure in the Australian poetry scene for decades". Sadly, the article doesn't support this claim with any sources, and I see nothing on Google Books, nor any significant, mainstream, independent works discussing him on the web. "he published 230 books of poetry" - impressive, but they seem to have generated next to no feedback I see. The claim to notability rests on "He won the New South Wales Premier's Literary Awards and an AM for services to Australian literature." per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals: "The person's work (or works)... has won significant critical attention." - but is any of those really significant? This is a regional award whose article relies soley on self-published sources, putting its very notability in doubt. As such, while I'd love to see this rescued, currently I am not seeing how it can - but perhaps someone else can find better sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Ron Pretty, hopefully the Membership of the Order of Australia for services to literature should be regarded as a sufficient independent source of significance. The AM is "the pre-eminent way Australians recognise the achievements and service of their fellow citizens." see http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/member_order_australia.cfm#significance
While poetry in Australia is indeed not "mainstream" - it is a miniscule market from an economic perspective - there is much of significance which occurs in Australia that is not. It is precisely these kinds of achievements that honour systems such as the Order of Australia are set up to recognise. To suggest Ron is not significant enough for Wikipedia is to suggest that Australian poetry itself, and also the formal national apparatus by which significance in australian literature is recognised and honoured has no significance. To call it a "regional award whose article relies soley (sic) on self-published sources" is quite inaccurate. An eminent 19-member Council for the Order of Australia considers the nominations. The Council makes its recommendations, independent of government, direct to the Governor-General. It is "regional" only in that it represents an Australian National honour, not an international one. It smacks somewhat of cultural imperialism to suggest that the notability conferred by Australian Literature's pre-eminent honour is "in doubt". I would suggest that statement would need to be supported by some reference to some notion of the inferiority of Australian culture generally if it were to be accepted. — --Paulknight34b (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that the 230 books Ron Pretty published generated "no feedback" also requires verification. There may be a misunderstanding here. In the original context the statement is "During the twenty year period he ran Five Islands Press he published 230 books of poetry", ie: Ron as founder and director of the [Five Islands Press] was the publisher not the author of the 230 books. To maintain that the books generated almost no feedback, one would have to look at the critical reputation of, and commentary about a generation of Australian poets who had works published by the press. This search for the press on wikipedia gives some idea of the number of poets and award winning works published by the Five Islands Press. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Five+Islands+Press&button=&title=Special%3ASearch The statement is either a misunderstanding or simply incorrect. The feedback on the books has been substantial in terms of sales, impact on the Australian literature scene and awards given to the works. --Paulknight34b (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul, thanks for the clarification, and yes, I misread the 230 books part. Still, the article could greatly benefit from showing that this person has been discussed by Australian mainstream media. See also general guideline on Wikipedia:Notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Regrettably Ron was most influential before the internet was widespread, and despite his impact there is not much mainstream media coverage available on the internet. I have reworded so that statements are better supported and included more references including his most recent book on Google and some of the more significant reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulknight34b (talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: his full bibliography is now in the article, and a reference to a mainstream press review of his recent work.--Paulknight34b (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note also that the new years honours, such as the Order of Australia are usually announced in the mainstream press, so his name and citation would be there, but links do not appear to be available online. The lack of links should not preclude notability however... the guidelines do recognise that people can be notable without it being mentioned on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulknight34b (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the 708 entries for Ron Pretty in the AustLit national literary database relevant to this debate? http://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/search/page?query=ron+pretty&facetSampleSize=500&facetValuesSize=10&count=50 Jfk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfknorth (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The initial recommendation for deletion was based on a misapprehension of the significance of the Order of Australia honour, and a misunderstanding of the significance of the Five Islands press work. Also additional objective reviews and references have been added to the article. --Paulknight34b (talk) 02:39, 3 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 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant critical attention has now been documented, and the Order of Australia honour is significant. --Boson (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 17:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (converse) @ 17:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two notable awards, one at the national level, should be enough, and our article is adequately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep two ways. Per WP:ANYBIO multiple awards. And per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 7 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. No consensus to delete; nominator complained that "article read like an advertisment" and the only other participant in the discussion cleaned up the article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Manuals Development Group[edit]

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

I have nominated this page as a AfD because it reads like an advertisment, and so falls under the Wikipedia:G11 Criteria. --Bookbloxer (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they've made Salon and the WSJ. I don't know if that means they meet whatever notability criteria. It's been improved since nom. and doesn't read like an ad anymore. — Lfdder (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am finding some coverage in the news, many reviews from Avsim.com, and a Google book result shows some hits as far as reviews go in compilation collections of the magazines FlyPast and Air Enthusiast. ([27]) I started to add those, but I wasn't given a specific page on the Google Books view and I can't find the specific issue number they appeared in. PMDG's website has some reviews listed, but many of those are coming up as dead links so I can't verify how usable all of the reviews would've been. Some of them look like they might be unusable to show notability, although there are plenty of Avsim reviews. It does have some trivial mentions in various locations as being one of the best or at least as a notable example in the field, as is in the case in this book written by someone who seems to work for the German National Museum for Art and Cultural History. It's all sort of weak so far, but it's not exactly a clear cut case of delete in this instance. In any case, I removed any of the prose that might have potentially been seen as too overtly promotional and I've removed the forum sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Closing admins might want to look at this AfD, as this is somewhat related to that as far as deletion and notability rationale goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The coverage out there is slim, but the company has received multiple reviews from places considered to be a RS as far as we're concerned. Not much is out there, but it's just enough to barely squeak by notability guidelines. There is more coverage out there, but some of it isn't on the Internet for various reasons (magazines folded, pages crashed, etc). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (gab) @ 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video game-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (converse) @ 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 7 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 another admin, and salted). Alexf^(talk) 16:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsOP[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software; article looks like an advertorial. I tried looking for sources online, but couldn't find any apart from the website (lots of mentions of the other Whatsop though, some kind of mobile app). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE Advertisement. Nominated for G11. User spamublocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 14:54, 7 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} 11:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Routes in Mysore[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we don't need an article listing every stop on every bus route in this city. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a valid encyclopedic topic. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 16:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete I agree with the nominator under the basis of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I guess there could be possibly be a scenario in which the specific bus routes of a political division can be notable in and of themselves, but that unlikely happenstance is not apparent here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:28, 13 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) 01:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy Day[edit]

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

After the initial proclamation in 2009, appears to be no significant coverage in the media. No appearance of continued or notable observation outside a few press releases and web blogs. Delete per WP:PERSISTENCE. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it receives little mainstream media attention, Blsaphemy Day has come a rallying point for organizations fighting to end blasphemy laws around the world. It receives frequent mention in outlets related to secularism, atheism and freethought, as a quick Google will demonstrate. I believe that this level of ongoing interest is enough to invoke Notability is not temporary. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: As per nom. All sources about the article subject are from 2009 (excluding the ones that are only used to source that certain countries have blasphemy laws) and has none other from the following years. If the event was notable enough to invoke NTEMP, I would have expected something at least from 2013 covering it in a reliable third party independent source. Since there isn't one, I think this is not notable and should be deleted. I also remind Techbear that WP:SET states that search engine tests are not reliable for that purpose. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was promoted for 2013 by the Center for Inquiry (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/campaign_for_free_expression) and by the American Atheists (http://news.atheists.org/2013/09/30/today-is-international-blasphemy-day/). It received a write-up in The Inquisitr (http://www.inquisitr.com/973933/happy-blasphemy-day-censored/), which seems a sufficiently reliable source to appear in the references to more than 100 Wikipedia articles, and The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/24/the-reason-atheist-activists-are-inviting-people-to-stone-them/). While blogs are not reliable sources for encyclopedic references, I would be happy to provide a score of links pointing to Blasphemy Day activities sponsored by local atheist and freethought organizations around the world.

If we are going to follow the standard set by Wkharrisjr and God Save the Queen, it follows that articles such as United States presidential election, 1996 must also be deleted: how much coverage has that gotten in the media recently? The declaration of Blasphemy Day received considerable attention when it was first declared in 2009. While media attention has waned, it remains a rallying point for numerous organizations and still receives coverage in sources that are used by Wikipedia as reliable sources. Rather than deleting the article, we should be working to update the references and bringing in newer references. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is on an atheist or freethought webpage, that's hardly a reliable third party source is it? The inquisitr webpage uses a blog as it's primary source for the story, I don't think that's reliable because all that means is they've reported someone's opinion as if it were news. Regarding the example of the election, yes it hasn't been in the news recently but it has still received media coverage in a wide range reliable sources after 1996 whereas this hasn't. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:The C of E wrote "If it is on an atheist or freethought webpage, that's hardly a reliable third party source is it?" So, by that reasoning, if some topic regarding the Catholic Church is predominantly written about on Catholic webpages, that makes them unreliable as third-party sources?! How 'bout if most articles about CERN show up on physics websites rather than on "Luddite" sites? -can't use physics websites as reliable third-party sources? More to the point: since you are a theist, and therefore likely biased against atheists, should we consider your opinion to be relevant? Blasphemy Day may be less likely to be touted by anti-atheists, but it's hardly ignored by them. This year, the Free Republic (a conservative and anti-atheist site) did an article that mentioned Blasphemy Day (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2989249/posts), as did the Christian site the Denison Forum on Truth & Culture (http://www.denisonforum.org/cultural-commentary/715-prisoner-requests-dragons-blood-for-wiccan-faith), and many other non-atheist sites. Bricology (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum ad hominem in motion. My opinion is not relevant here but Wikipedia guidelines are and WP:RS with WP:BIASED, WP:GNG and WP:NRV supports my points that this should be deleted because of a lack of reliable sources. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C of E -- I don't think you understand what ad hominem means, any more than you understand what "bias" means. It's not ad hominem for me to point out that you're dismissing a broad range of media as "unreliable" for the fact that they're pro something, any more than it's unreliable for you to post your opinion, given that you're anti- something. You can't have it both ways; either biases are relevant or they're not. My argument is that they're not. Bricology (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dismissing them as unreliable because WP:RS says that they are. No opinion involved here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, The C of E, you clearly don't understand WP:RS, if you think it renders sites like RichardDawkins.net as "unreliable third-party sources", much less sites like The Center for Inquiry -- the very group that sponsors Blasphemy Day! If you were to actually read WP:RS, you would've noticed that, under the heading "Biased or opinionated sources", it says this: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." (emphases added). It also states "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...". By your tortured definition of WP:RS, no website could be used to demonstrate the notability of an event, if that website could be accused of having a position of advocacy. Therefore, no website affiliated with Catholicism or the Catholic Church could serve as a reliable source for information about something that only members of the Church would know or care about, such as Saint's Days. Clearly, that's an absurd standard. Bricology (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just did a Google advanced search using "blasphemy day" and the timeframe of the past year as the two parameters. There were 181 hits (excluding duplicates), including multiple mentions of 2013's Blasphemy Day celebration on the website of the Center for Inquiry (the group that sponsors Blasphemy Day), as well as on the official Facebook page's notice of this year's celebration (17,000 "likes"), mentions of it on the popular RichardDawkins.net, on Fark.com, on NationalDayCalendar.com, on PolicyMic.com and a variety of other sites, blogs, fora, etc. In short, Blasphemy Day has been celebrated -- and documented -- every year for the past five years, and shows no signs of going away. Bricology (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"richarddawkins.net", oh yes very reliable(!) Facebook page likes? Read WP:POPULARITY (and the same point applies to the !vote below.) Blogs? Read WP:BLOGS. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, RichardDawkins.net is a reliable source, as per the standards of WP:RS (see specifics I posted above). You may not agree with their opinions, but that's utterly irrelevant. The only question here is notability. When a website with RichardDawkins.net's Alexa rating, visibility and credibility writes about something, it very likely becomes notable. When many such websites do the same, it easily passes WP:N. Bricology (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Its a "popular" holiday in the skeptic community, I know I've seen a lot about it from CFI and it is spreading outside the community. Way more popular than Boob Quake was. And this is an ongoing event that grows each year.Sgerbic (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Therefore, whether or not it has gotten significant coverage since 2009 is immaterial. Further, I tend to reject C of E's stance that freethought and atheist websites are not reliable sources per se. I believe that C of E has confused "reliable" with "neutral". While Wikipedia's articles must be written from a neutral point of view, the sources used for those pages do not have to be. Just as I would expect fashion-centric sources to cover the latest styles from Milan, I would expect freethought and atheist sources to cover this subject. Context matters and we should judge each source on its own merits and not dismiss them out of hand simply because they have a certain POV. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shinmawa mostly. Also see this book mention and this, for example, as hints of impact and coverage still going on. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:04, 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 redirect to Steven Van Zandt#Personal life. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Van Zandt[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP, no reason given. She is not notable as an actress, per WP:NACTOR (she has not had "significant roles in multiple [films or TV shows]", and she is not notable by her association to her husband, per WP:NOTINHERITED. I suggest delete, though we could perhaps merge/redirect to Steven Van Zandt#Personal life. Giant Snowman 13:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 17:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 17:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Having a role in 1 television show does not make someone notable, unless maybe they have the lead role, which she didn't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Steven Van Zandt#Personal life where she is mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bushranger and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 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 Speedy delete WP:CSD#G5 - creator is a sock. Giant Snowman 13:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Head sort[edit]

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

Unsourced original research. None of the references mentions anything about this technique. Rather, this article seems to exist to promote a non-notable, proprietary software package. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Psychonaut (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'd just prodded this, but it seems that it has already been so. WP:OR personal essay by an editor with a problematic track record of such things. Sorting is a massively studied topic and, like free energy, it is easy for basement geniuses to invent new forms of it. However this is why we require independent sourcing, which this article does not have. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 7 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 Gibraltar Barbarians Rugby Club. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Barbarians Rugby Football Club[edit]

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

I believe this page is a lesser duplicate of Gibraltar Barbarians Rugby Club and since this is less developed than the other, I recommend that this page be deleted or merged and the other be moved into the name as appropriate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (banter) @ 17:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)~~ Gibraltar is not part of Spain. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - you don't need to take this through the deletion process,, just WP:BEBOLD and merge it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. Also agree with Barney. --Bob247 (talk) 21:32, 10 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midual[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." The most recent news, from July 2011, about Midual is at VisorDown, which says the Midual is "a machine that got a fair bit of publicity when it was shown as a prototype back in 1999, but then disappeared without trace." Nothing since. So it fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There needs to be significant, sustained coverage in multiple sources that cover this company/product in depth. The designer and mockup builder, Glynn Kerr, speaks of it in the past tense [28]. If the bike is ever produced, then there will be sources, and then there will be a reason to have an article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this based on the argument "Company still exists, based in the city of Angers (France),official name is RDMO, bike is still in development" made by 88.74.141.162. See whether this IP can improve the article with some current sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 7 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} 12:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learning entropy[edit]

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

WP:N. No evidence that this is a mainstream concept. Only four citations are given that discuss the concept, all of which share a common author, and only one of which appears even to be to a peer-reviewed journal. Hundreds of thousands of papers appear each year, all of which present some new concept, method or argument; but very few are notable. Evidence of other people finding value in the concept and taking it up is required -- notability here for ideas essentially requires them to be mainstream, textbook material; or at the very least to be getting a shedload of citations. Not just a clutch of non-invited conference papers all by the same author. Furthermore, the concept even as presented here seems excessively vague and woolly. The material here fails to define or present it in any way that seems even remotely operationally usable -- from the article, one cannot even tell what the idea is; and it seems to have no relation at all to anything conventionally called entropy, to justify its name. This looks like fringe science and self-promotion, a poorly defined notion falling far short of the notability or widespread interest required for an article here, despite having found somebody at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation to agree to put it into mainspace. It should be removed. Jheald (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in Web of Science for items referencing any work by the researcher who proposed this concept. I found (without being very careful) 16 items, of which 15 are by either the same researcher or his PhD supervisor. The 16th is http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/NEUREL.2006.341187 which I did not manage to access. Thus I agree that this concept is lacking notability at this moment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:COI, the creator of the article being user:Ibukovsky who is clearly the main author of the references. D.Lazard (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks notability, per nom. Ozob (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What parts of the article that can be parsed as English, and not just buzzwords strung together, seem nonsensical. E.g. somehow it's possible to recover the octane rating of gasoline (and not just a number correlated with it) from some parameterized description of an engine's behavior? This seems to be intended to impress and not to inform, and is therefore not encyclopedic, on top of the WP:OR issues already mentioned. As such it violates WP:NPOV: we need a neutral outsider perspective on whether there really is any value in this research, and we're not going to get it from looking at the research itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not even wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I agree on the notability issue and some of the other remarks above - a good lesson how Wikipedia works and good to learn its working well. Thanks for the work of Wikipedia reviewers. User:Ibukovsky, 8 October 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibukovsky (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Through a blazing act of my own ignorance, I didn't notice that the articles were all by the same authors when I accepted this at AfC. Delete per the issues that are well addressed above and WP:SNOW. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 21:46, 9 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Pham[edit]

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

Non-notable, likely vanity page, see: [29] Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously a joke/vanity page. Allah is an akbar (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might wanna speedy that. Definitely qualifies under G3 to me Lazy Bastard Guy 08:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under CSD G3/A7 - I don't think it needs explanation. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 15:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No gray area with this one. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominated for speedy. Andrew³²⁷ 19:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Scarver[edit]

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

Non-notable criminal who is only of any interest because of who he killed. The relevant guideline for perpetrators is that the victim be a "person of national or international renown". The victim simply being notable is not sufficient. Subject also fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Redirect to Jeffrey Dahmer was reverted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Anderson (2nd nomination). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There was substantial coverage of this event so it's perplexing the nom would say it fails WP:GNG. Granted the article is not currently well sourced but my update[30] to the Jesse Anderson AfD showed there are 100s of books, newspapers and magazine articles on this topic on a local, national and international scale. WP:BIO1E is nuanced, in fact separate articles can be justified if the person killed is of high notability, as is the case here. It's hard to understand the nom's belief that the victim, Jeffrey Dahmer, is not a "person of national or international renown" for the purposes of WP:CRIMINAL. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of serial killer groupies Jeffrey Dahmer is not held in any renown. And you're right, the event was covered. The person is not the event. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For notability purposes fame and infamy are the same. People who kill famous/infamous people can be notable. Jeffrey Dahmer is infamous outside "serial killer groupies". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People who kill famous people certainly can be notable, but simply killing a famous person does not automatically confer notability since notability is not inherited. Can you find any sources that substantively cover this individual in any sort of depth, or are you merely plugging his name into Google and counting how many times his name is mentioned without investigating further? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of discussion here is WP:GNG, which says "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that's what this topic has. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the sources that significantly cover the individual (as opposed to the event). "Dahmer was killed by an inmate named Christopher Scarver" does not constitute significant coverage of Scarver, no matter how many sources repeat it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - basic WP:GNG covers this. Green Cardamom is right about basically everything.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some significant coverage. [31] [32] [33] [34] The nominator is incorrect in stating that all of Scarver's notability comes from killing Dahmer. Here is a news piece from 1990 about him, four years before Dahmer's death. Here is one from 1992, and another. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:54, 10 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 Visa (document). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visitor visa[edit]

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

Article content is already (and imho more thoroughly) covered on the following pages:

- Sulfurboy (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Visa (document) as a plausible search term. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Visa (document) - seems like a sensible redirect but the content is covered elsewhere. Stalwart111 07:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 7 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} 11:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arielle Stevenson[edit]

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

No clear indication of notability, no independent references. Unwisely accepted from AfC two years ago. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see where she's written things, but not where she's actually been the focus of any in-depth coverage. I also can't see where any of her articles/shows/photos are so notable that they'd merit a keep on that basis either. She exists, I'm familiar with her work, and I believe I've used her as a RS before, but that doesn't give notability on any of those fronts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being a journalist, even NYT published, isn't notable. Need sources about the journalist or work. Typically with book reviews when/if publish a book. Or a major award such as Pulitzer. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Run-of-the-mill journalist who may have received a bit of coverage in local press due to her age, but otherwise has done nothing and written nothing to achieve notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG based on online sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:40, 9 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) 01:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Rich[edit]

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

apparently promotional article on non notable attorney and author; one non-notable book. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- actually a barrister, not an attorney. It is not clear whether he is practising as a barrister or has become a backroom worker in the media industry. However this is a clear case of notability not being inherited - in this case from his clients. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE #3 (multiple reviews), sources include:

Director magazine[35]
StartupTV Magazine [36]
Huffington Post [37]
Business Matters [38]
BBC [39]
CMI Management Book of the Year [40] (in association with the British Library)
The Times [41]
The Jewish Chronicle [42]
The Guardian [43]
City A.M. [44]

That's 9 or 10 independent reliable sources that cover the subject and/or his works. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC upon a source review, including some of those listed above by User:Green Cardamom. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe his one book could be notable for an article? But if it was just that he would only be known for a single event. The Jewish Chronicle piece on him confers nothing to notability in my opinion, because it is essentially a promotional piece. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article about non-notable lawyer who wrote a non-notable book. Coretheapple (talk) 16:10, 9 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NBN school of engineering[edit]

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

No evidence that this school, est. in 2011, has established notability per WP:GNG. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Non-profit university-level institutions are automatically notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BRANCH and Sinhgad Technical Education Society. This society has about 70 divisions. I don't believe every one is notable enough for a standalone article per WP:BRANCH: "Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What Eastmain said. "In major developed countries, many independent, reliable sources about schools can be found on the Internet, beyond the scope of the trivial. However, outside those countries, and particularly for countries in Asia and Africa, Internet coverage is poor. Where this is the case then, to avoid systemic bias, local sources should be sought."WP:NHS, WP:NONPROFIT Anup Mehra ^✈ 01:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Based upon arguments above. The article itself is not terribly well written, but I'd argue to keep based on the above arguments and the hope that some difficult-to-extract sources could be found. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 02:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a branch listing of the larger school, not independently notable. Allah is an akbar (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Sinhgad Technical Education Society. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or possibly redirect) to Sinhgad Technical Education Society. No evidence that this branch of a larger institution is independently notable, and parts of a university are not inherently notable on their own. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:08, 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 L. Ron Hubbard#Biographies. There's no individual notability here and User:Colliric has already merged the content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The L. Ron Hubbard Series[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NBOOK. Found one somewhat reliable independent source, a Village Voice blog post which mocks it as a scam to take money from Scientology members (cost $750).[45] Regardless of the reviewers opinion, there is little to show notability ie. discussed in multiple independent sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this in principle, as it is the Church's only notable biographical work about their founder, but I agree as the page currently stands it should be deleted because it's too short, but the Link in the template should remain and be redirected to the section on "Biographies" contained in the L. Ron Hubbard article, where this information possibly can be added. So I believe the page should be copied(or rewritten) and put into the LRH article, and then this page be a redirect to that. In fact that is what I will do now. Colliric (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COS religious promotional material of no independant notability or worth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 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) 01:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are other references not included in this article that give the book non-trivial treatment, [46] [47] and [48], this does not, in fact, meet WP:NBOOK, in my view. Jinkinson (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I was going to suggest a merge with the article for L. Ron Hubbard, but it appears Colliric suggested it, and decided to be bold and just do it. I believe the page should be redirected now, unless anybody disagrees with the merge. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 02:29, 7 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} 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Miracle[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK. No bias or opinion re her claim. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 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) 01:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find much: a Google books reference that appears to verify there was a lawsuit as stated in the article, the book written by the article subject herself, and minor mention in a minor Key West newspaper (http://thebluepaper.com/article/welcome-nancy-miracle-from-sardis-to-sicily-the-biography-of-marilyn-monroe/). None of this provides proof of notability.--Larry (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with Larry. She had a lawsuit and wrote a book concerning Marilyn Monroe. This could be included in one line at Personal life of Marilyn Monroe, the most suitable place for it. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:19, 7 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} 14:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swapnil Mishra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Note that all sources used in article are primary, and searches show nothing beyond them. — daranz [ t ] 10:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE standard as a journalist, the company he runs fails WP:ORG, and I couldn't find any independent secondary coverage of the subject (who has heavy web presence, all self-created). Note that may of the interviews conducted by Swapnil are for finuraa.com, which is a pay-for-promotion site. One of the interview subjects is Anamika Mishra (possibly a relative), and the creator of this article has also created Too Hard To Handle, an article on a book written by Anamika (which I plan to nominate for deletion), and has spammed links to these two on other wikipedia pages. Abecedare (talk) 02:05, 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) 01:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:03, 7 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} 12:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Bojan[edit]

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

Self Created Article Niket ★ My Talk Page ★ 16:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Author of the article has provided his own achievements without providing adequate supporting evidences. The author claims to have published a Poetry book but hasn't even provided it's ISBN code. The Author deleted WP:PROD tag without giving any reasons. Niket ★ My Talk Page ★ 17:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidence of Poetry Book. Unfortunately no evidence book or author has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:58, 2 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) 01:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:00, 7 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 Ultra Monsters. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bemular[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman 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) 17:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant list of characters as none of them have notability outside of the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TNN I've noticed you've been nominating several of these Ultraman characters for deletion recently. For convenience reasons, next time it would probably be a good idea to put all of them in a single AFD page (like what was done here) instead of each having its own nomination. The opinions of most people !voting would probably be the same for each nomination anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:33, 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) 01:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ultra Monsters, which already has it in the list. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:50, 7 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} 14:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doseuro[edit]

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

Small business with no relevance at all. Definitely fails even the most inclusive interpretation of WP:GNG Vituzzu (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 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) 01:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find a single independent source that treats this company as a topic. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:02, 7 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) 00:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plus500[edit]

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

Absurdly promotional article for company that is at best borderline notable. It would be better to start over. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article points out the facts about the company, which are written in the neutral point of view. tausif(talk) 09:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

parts that read, "Plus500 was founded in 2008 with the intention to provide retail customers with an easy-to-use online trading platform. This idea was a result of the difficulties encountered by one of the founders when trying to short shares through a through a broker but did not because "the registration process was too complicated and unfriendly to the user" -- section based entirely on what the subject told his press agent, or what the press agent imagined was suitable. Such a phrase, about the origin of the firm because of personal unmet need of the founder, appears in many articles on firms. is not what I think an encyclopedia would mean by either "facts" or NPOV content. Perhaps a PR agent would think it factual, since it can't actually be proven to be false. Similarly with "In one interview, the Company's CEO Gal Haber talked about the intense recruitment process each candidate, which may take about six to ten months of time." DGG ( talk ) 21:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out. Like you said, this article would need a re-work. Let me see if I can do the changes. Thanks,Tausif

Comment -- As a company with a turnover of $50M (presumably gross fee income) and its holding company is quoted in London on AIM, I would have thought the company was notable. The business is trading in derivatives, which may be somewhat esoteric to some people, but that does not prevent it being notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 4 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) 01:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while removing the biased statements as pointed out by DGG. tausif(talk) 09:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wide coverage of IPO in both UK and Israeli press: Telegraph and Haaretz already cited, plus[49][50][51][52] Not much other info but there's a few mentions.[53][54][55][56] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know I'm not helping the backlog with this vote, but it seems all the coverage is promotional, repeating press releases, trying to gain investors. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a good scrubbing to remove promotionality, but there is enough here for notability and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:30, 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) 00:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ishtiaq Baig[edit]

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

Prod declined because "there are sources", but extensive searching failed to find any. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was the actual reason for declining WP:PROD deletion, rather than the lie in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how "basic searches find plenty of sources" is not the same thing as "there are sources". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problematic bit was "extensive searching failed to find any". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My extensive searching failed to find any. I still don't see how that's a lie. I am the one who found nothing of import when I typed "Ishtiaq Baiq" into Google on my own computer. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typing a phrase into a Google web search is not extensive searching. Try the news search linked by the nomination procedure. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I can find that are independent of the subject are passing mentions. Coretheapple (talk) 17:13, 2 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) 01:15, 7 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) 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jahan Shah I[edit]

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

Deprodded on the off chance that outside sources exist. However, the current sources appear to be fabrications, as I get absolutely no hits for those book names with those authors. Nor can I find anything else reputable with "Jahan Shah I" in it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:04, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the two sources, one is in Urdu and one doesn't seem to exist. It stands to reason that if Jahan Shah I was in any way a notable mughal, there would be a reference to him in some English language source or the other but, other than on Wikipedia mirrors, there don't seem to be any. --regentspark (comment) 21:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator and other commenter so far were presumably misled by the unwarranted regnal "I" at the end of the title - the article needs a different title (Jahan Shah (Mughal) would be a possibility if there weren't two actual Mughal rulers also for whom the same name is sometimes used). The subject of the article was apparently one of four sons of Bahadur Shah I who fought for the Mughal throne after Bahadur's death - he was killed within five weeks, but even so does get a bit more than passing mentions in sufficiently detailed histories of India (here and here, for instance). PWilkinson (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense since I don't see the I in any of the sources and he wasn't actually a king. Apparently, he was supposed to rule a part of the declining mughal empire but never actually got around to doing so. Jahan Shah (prince) would be even more appropriate. Regardless, the mentions are still barely passing ones and his notability is questionable (unless the sons of emperors are notable in their own right). --regentspark (comment) 17:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that any serious pretender to the throne of an empire would be considered an appropriate topic for an article by any serious encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course "any serious pretender to the throne of an empire would be considered an appropriate topic for an article by any serious encyclopedia". The devil is, of course, whether this person is considered to be a "serious pretender" or not. I'd expect to see a lot more talk about the gentleman if her were a serious one. Dara Shikoh, for example, is much discussed but young Jahan Shah doesn't seem to get the same respect. Still, I suppose it's a toss up. At least we can be reasonably confident that the chap actually existed so that's already a plus. The other "serious" part of your statement is best left unanswered :) --regentspark (comment) 19:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping slightly irrelevant things small, maybe I should have said "any encyclopedia that aspires to be serious". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty more coverage in these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 3 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) 01:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no requirement sources must be in English. Wikipedia is meant to be a world-wide encyclopedia. Deleting this would just lead to even more US/British bias in coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm not averse to keeping this article (per Phil Bridger), your reasoning is faulty. While there is no requirement that sources must be in English, material in an article should be verifiable. If no editor can verify that the source says what it is supposed to be saying, then we shouldn't include that source because, if we blindly accept non-English sources without verification, we leave ourselves wide open to hoaxes. --regentspark (comment) 02:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Phil Bridger's sourcing convinces me that there is enough here to pass the N bar. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:31, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tekagi-shuko[edit]

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

Article has serious factual shortcomings, unreferenced. As discussed in its Talk page. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The discussion on the article's talk page and the lack of significant independent coverage decides my vote. If good sources are found, I will reconsider. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 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) 01:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article with no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most weeks ranked number 1 (NCAA football)[edit]

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

Non-notable topic (not a recognized measure applied to college football); trivial (of no importance at all); has clear point of view (only covers the AP polls, not any of the other polls); and mere synthesis/original research (no entity publishes number of weeks ranked #1, it's something someone did the math on and put into a google spreadsheet). These problems were first raised in June 2010.GrapedApe (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these issues have been resolved, please refer to summary at the bottom of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.96.141 (talk) [reply]

In your opinion.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mine too go easy on the newbie. Any "original research" and "notability" issues have been addressed with the latest changes in the article and sources provided. I believe they are adequate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all reasons listed by GrapedApe above. Mdak06 (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is a great list article. I would like to see it expanded. I would like to see one for basketball too.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia, also is incomplete with seemingly arbitrary cuttoff (11?) and focus on one poll and only one aspect of that poll. Why not then an article on total appearances or total any possible sports statistic? WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. WP:POV and WP:SYNTH seem to apply per GrapedApe... also seems to have WP:NOTE issues...CrazyPaco (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Associated Press college football poll article. I think the statement that it's OR is inaccurate, as the ESPN College football encyclopedia has the weekly progression of the AP poll since 1936. The "not a recognized measure" is not entirely accurate either, as the team who is #1 in any given week is considered by many newspapers to be the best team in the land at a particular point in the season, and the #1 at the end is considered to be the national champion. That being said, I don't consider this notable enough for a stand-alone article. p b p 01:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To reply:

It is WP:SYNTH (a sub-set of WP:OR policies) because the data is pulled together and synthesized for the purpose of the article, not that the information is unpublished elsewhere. There are no sources that state "Here are the most weeks ranked number 1 for NCAA football," so SYNTH
While being #1 is a recognized measure, and being #1 at the end of the year is a recognized measure, being #1 for the most weeks overall is not.

--GrapedApe (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that the author of this article is the first person to aggregate that data and publish it. p b p 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate on my position -- the fact that this is original research is not the primary issue for me, since that problem could be corrected. The main issue, in my opinion, is that this article is not notable enough by itself to warrant being a separate article. Even if it was expanded to include the same information for the Coaches Poll, the Harris Poll, and whatever other football polls or rankings someone wanted to add, and even if all of the basketball polls were also added, it's still not notable enough to be a separate article. It's nothing but trivia. It's rarely (if ever) mentioned in news reports, as far as I can tell. It's trivia in the same way that "for what weeks were two teams tied for #1 in the AP Poll" is trivia. Could it be added as a subsection of the College Football section of the AP Poll article? Sure, that would make more sense and perhaps be appropriate. But as a separate article, it doesn't pass the notability test. Essentially, this article fails under WP:DISCRIMINATE. That policy states: To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. There is no context that can be provided in this case, because there are no articles (as far as I know) about the topic of how many times any particular team(s) have been listed at #1 in the AP Poll means anything. Mdak06 (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds as if you're moving toward merge... p b p 15:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with a merger. I still think it's essentially meaningless trivia, but I suppose that's not as bad if included as a subsection in a larger article. If it is merged, I'd favor a basic list of all teams who've been ranked #1, ordered by number of appearances -- i.e.

101 weeks: Oklahoma
98: Notre Dame
94: Ohio State

. . .

5: Northwestern, Ole Miss, Purdue

(etc.)

But if it's merged, it needs to have a real source (and not an 8-year-old OU media guide, a bunch of Wikipedia pages, and a homemade Google document). Mdak06 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent edition of the ESPN College Football Encyclopedia that contains a poll progression is probably the source this article needs p b p 04:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to AP Poll. I've heard many a sports talk show discuss "most weeks at #1" from time to time, so I don't see it as original research. How can it be original when I've heard of it before? But I don't think enough is said about it to generate its own article. I think there's room to maintain the data in the main article and we're set.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand would also be an option for me, given more sources found. Would like them to be more mainstream sources, but ah well. I'd hate for the information to be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep list has been expanded enough that inclusion in another article would become clumsy.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation (and if I'm wrong, someone please correct me) is that this article contains original research because it merges data from multiple sources. For example, the article states that Alabama has been #1 for 63 weeks, but the OU source states that Alabama has been #1 for 31 weeks; that information is then merged with data from the other sources (the more recent AP Polls) to reach a conclusion. That's why it's considered original research (I think). Mdak06 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with no on original research based on that. We could easily gather the information in a Wikipedia table in any order with a column "weeks at #1" and then use the Wikifunction SORT to sort the table. That's not original research, that's compiling the research of others. Original research would be having a wiki article for My College Football Rankings.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi, I'm the guy that has been updating this article the last couple of years, but not the original author. I did compile the reference pages and the spreadsheet. This is sports, and stats and their analysis is a central part of the fan experience, especially in older sports. They are a topic of discussion, and several people have told me that they reached this article by googling "most weeks at number one college football", which is the empirical evidence I think you're looking for as far as relevancy. And, it was referenced on ESPN radio when it was noted that Alabama has been at number 1 under Saban for as many weeks as they were under all their other coaches combined (just last week - this is an event of significance to that audience (an audience of millions) that might have been missed without the article.) It goes to "11" because some Michigan fans were upset that they were squeezed out of the top 10.

Take a look at the stat pages for Baseball (example - under "See Also" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_with_1,000_runs_batted_in). Stats in sports from different perspectives are important and relevant, and it seems trivial to single this one out, or that College Football stats are somehow non-notable. The external accesses to the article would indicate otherwise. (Sorry, I don't mean to sound cranky. Just sharing my experience around the article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.184.201 (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why this article is worthy of existing as a separate article, and why it doesn't make sense to merge this data into the AP Poll article under the College Football section? There's no text in the article that suggests why the statistic itself is significant, and even if there were, it's questionable whether this particular statistic rises to the level of "separate article worthiness." Contrast this article to the article "College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS." That article goes into significant detail as to why simply being ranked #1 for the last week of a season is considered significant. It would seem to make more sense to have this data (the number of times a team has been #1) listed in the context of the entire AP Poll article (in the same way that the AP Poll article lists the #1 vs. #2 games). Keep in mind that the existing Most weeks ranked number 1 (NCAA football) page can be set up to automatically redirect to the appropriate subsection of the AP Poll article, if the data is merged into that article. Mdak06 (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be tough to say for any article I guess. What is the criteria? The fact that this has been a separate article for years, and that it is conceded that it is in fact notable to enough fans to get all the way in here and note it as such would be enough to say that things are quite alright. This baseball stat page - List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs batted in - is the reference I meant to make earlier. Based on the criteria you mention (not a good explanation of why it is actually important, it could be rolled in to a single page with other stats, etc) you'd think it would not exist. Yet it does, along with the dozens of stats linked in the "See also" section, all with their own page, which are a small subset of the stats for that single sport. One might think that 1,000 RBIs and 1,000 runs could be on the same page at least, yet they are not, and for good reason to the audience that cares. So I'm not sure how to answer, it seems like a question of relevance has been turned into a request to meet halfway, which is a different sort of thing. I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 21:37, 4 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) 01:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I like this stat, and I think the initial reasons in the GrapeApe comment are not accurate. Never done this before but this is a neat list so thought I would chip in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.31.3 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TRIVIA pretty clearly applies here, even if we completely ignore WP:OR, and if we do the latter, we generally need a better reason to invoke WP:IAR rather than to simply include an indiscriminate list of information. The comparison to the list of 1,000 RBI players pretty clearly fails - you can find easily reliably sourced that career RBIs for a hitter in baseball are something considered notable in the baseball analysis field. You can find no such thing for this list, created by original research. Even ignoring it, it still leaves the keep argument as primarily based on it being interesting and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which isn't close to enough. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question how does WP:TRIVIA apply? I mean, that's from the Manual of Style on how to create article layouts, and it says to avoid creating sections in the article as lists labeled "Trivia" or other such titles. It has nothing to do with notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

"WP:TRIVIA pretty clearly applies here": Bad reference, but to the comment's intent - WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE needs more explanation and refutation of why to make an exception in this case for the external references in popular press and discussions about this statistic

"if we completely ignore WP:OR": externally compiled list is clearly referenced in article

"The comparison to the list of 1,000 RBI players pretty clearly fails": WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is an empty argument. "Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how?"

"it still leaves the keep argument as primarily based on it being interesting and WP:OTHERSTUFF, which isn't close to enough." - intentionally misleading argument - keep argument applies to notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.97.11 (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article updater here again. I just added a link to an external source for this, here. http://www.collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/app_total.cfm?sort=num1app&from=1936&to=2013#.UlQQwiTkujs . I'm not a WP expert on all the rules, and I'm really starting to think that a bias against that is the driving factor in this discussion. I'm a fan of both College Football and Wikipedia, and yet here's a bunch of "experts" saying WP:OR when it is not (I imagine even with this latest reference, the arrogance will still have people saying it is, or refusing to delete their previous, wrong comments.) The stat is referenced externally, yet somehow WP:FAILN is still harped on as fact. Seems more like WP:BELONG to me. How much evidence is needed for these trolls? When pride gets in the way I don't think any amount will suffice. I mean the initial post on this that looked comprehensive on the surface, has been negated point for point. It meets the test of notability (through user comments and a freaking google search of press articles), triviality (Bingo! Externally compiled list of the same data). No WP-expert questions any of this, taking statements such as "same thing in 2010" as a fact. Every "Delete" here, that is still on this page after acknowledging the sources and the adequate notability, really boils down to WP:IDL . I wish the air of sumgness would lead to taking the responsibility to exercise the faux-professionalism to edit away those premature accusations. Guess we'll see how that plays out.

- Comment in my eye, that pretty much kills the whole "original research" argument (which I thought was a dead horse to begin with).--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge I have no strong preference for either deletion of this article or merging this article's contents into the AP Poll article. However, I am against keeping it as a separate article. This article as it exists, in my opinion, violates these Wikipedia policies:

WP:Notability This article, in my opinion, has failed to prove that it meets Wikipedia's criteria of notability. Admittedly, the article has been updated recently, and now states: During debates about which teams are consistently the best over long periods of time, this statistic is sometimes brought up to perhaps compare with the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS, or the List of NCAA football teams by wins or many more such statistic measures to support the debaters point of view. However, the article offers no sources to back up this claim. Claims of notability should be verified by independent sources. The simple fact that a source exists online that lists information does not, by itself, make it notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. As a silly example, I could show a page that lists the average number of passes defended per game vs. FBS teams with a non-winnnig record in 2011. For some statistics (for example, the previously mentioned 1000 RBI club), it is notable because it is often mentioned in the media when an instance of that statistic occurs (for example, recent 1000-RBI milestones are mentioned here, here, and here). While there may be instances available that show that this is, in fact, an often-mentioned statistic when discussing great teams, I have not seen it. If it's out there, please cite the sources and prove me wrong.

Comment: On WP:Notability: here, here, here, here, here, here... seriously, please don't sound so self-righteous, I'm getting convinced you are just trolling this page.

Of the referneces you have given, two are reliable sources but certainly biased (an OU student newspaper and the OU Athletics website - biased since OU is #1 on the list, as opposed to, for example, Sports Illustrated or ESPN), one is simply the list itself (which does as much to promote notability as my statistic I posted a link to above), and the remaining ones are "posts by fans" (the SEC blog, the SEC discussion board, and the Yahoo Contributor post).

Comment:: the guidelines for WP:NOTE are: "Significant coverage" (meets the strict definition), "Reliable" (external editorial source), "Sources" (" There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."), "Independent of the subject" (sources were not produced by subject (unlike one of your sources MLB :), and "Presumed" (again, significant coverage in reliable sources). I don't see which of these is violated at this point. WP:IDL is not a qualifier of notability.

While I don't completely dismiss posts by fans, I don't see that they by themselves establish notability. Any fan can find a place online to express an opinion, be it by their own blog (SEC Sports Fan), or by participating in a discussion forum (SEC Rant), or by writing an article and posting it (the Yahoo Contributor). FWIW, the ESPN radio mention that you stated in a previous discussion is a much better example of an unbaised, reliable source.

ESPN, LA Times, Sports Illustrated. " if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between ~~and~~ after the *, as in " ~~Delete~~ Keep"."

I am going to request that you be civilized in these discussions. I am not trying to sound self-righteous. I asked you to prove me wrong because if you can prove me wrong, that might change my position. Don't get bent out of shape about it. You accuse me of trolling. Just because someone disagrees with your position does not make them a troll. It is your job to assume good faith (see WP:AGF) and you are violating this right now by being accusatory towards others. I am not trolling and your personal attack is unwarranted and offensive. Despite the fact that I and others have disagreed with your position, we have not been calling you names. We deserve respect in the same way that you deserve respect.

This article is being questioned because some of us believe that it does not meet the criteria to be a separate article on Wikipedia. If you disagree, that's fine. If you have arguments that support your position, that's fine. If you call others trolls and assume bad faith, that is completely unacceptable. Mdak06 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::from the guidelines for discussion:

*WP:DISCUSSAFD: avoid [Proof by assertion], which is what these arguments are based on, starting with WP:OR and including the NPOV discussion.

*"Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator. "

*" if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between ~~and~~ after the *, as in " ~~Delete~~ Keep"." Could you please do so? Understanding proper Wikietiquette but intentionally leaving a pattern of groundless opinion (as referred to in WP:AFDFORMAT) is referred to indelicately as trolling.

WP:NPOV As GrapedApe mentioned in the earlier discussion, this article focuses exclusively on the AP Poll and does not take into consideration that there are methods rankings of teams other than simply the AP Poll. The Coaches Poll, the Sagarin Rankings, and the Billingsley Report are all examples of other rankings of college football teams that are very well-known. It therefore does not have a neutral point of view on the subject of college football team rankings.

Comment: It does have to do with one poll, the oldest and most widely referenced. The POV is neutral, others are not included simply because they range from largely duplicative (Coach's), to obscure (most others). Note that in the notability references above, all the references to this statistic are to this poll.

I disagree with your assertion on NPOV. While it is correct that the AP Poll is the oldest measure of college football rankings, and presumably correct (although unproven) that it is the most referenced, it is still simply one method of several that is used to rank college football teams. By not acknowledging the Coaches Poll, which has been around since 1950, and not acknowledging other methods that are used to rank college teams (e.g. computer rankings), you are presenting a bias towards the AP Poll and against other polls and other methods of ranking teams, suggesting that this method is the only method worthy of use for comparison. That is not a neutral point of view. Mdak06 (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up to my comment about NPOV, this shows why merging this article into the AP Poll article is more appropriate than a stand-alone article. The AP Poll article deals specifically with the AP Poll and only that poll, and therefore the list of "teams most often #1 in the AP Poll" is appropriate in that article without the need for lists of "teams most often #1 in other polls or ranking systems." Mdak06 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am the main contributor to this article. I include the AP poll because it is easy and does not require much time, but I do not filter out others who try to add other polls, and wouldn't. I'd welcome it. From the first line of WP:AFD: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." I added emphasis to highlight this point. An argument could be made for WP:NEGLECT, but that is not a cause for deletion.

Given that I do not think this particular statistic is notable on its own, it does not make sense for me to add more text to a page that I do not think should exist. I see the statistic as relatively trivial, and while it may be a reasonably sensible addition to the AP Poll page, I do not think it makes sense to exist by itself.

If I was going to "fix" this problem, I would not add the list of #1 teams from other polls and/or ranking systems, as I don't find them particularly notable either. I would simply merge the data from the existing page into the AP Poll article as a subsection, and make the current page redirect to that subsection. Are you suggesting I do that? Mdak06 (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for WP:AFD suggest you should, not me (please refer to that link, first bullet). I do suggest that if POV is not your issue with the article, then please delete this section of your comments, and address the notability (I provided a summary of how it is determined, plus references in more mainstream publications as you asked for.) It would also simplify this discussion if you also did so for you previous comments, back to the first, which you've clearly shifted position on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SELFPUBLISH At this time, the links to other Wikipedia pages (the AP Poll rankings each year from 2006 - 2013) and the homemade Google document are still listed as references. Both other Wikipedia pages and self-published documents are not supposed to be used as sources, per the links cited above, that are a part of the WP:Verifiability policy.

Comment: This is not an argument for deletion or merging, which is what this page is about. I'll remove the internal references, but if you are familiar with this guideline, please realize you can edit them out on your own.

I have removed the OU reference (at it is no longer used, since the more up-to-date reference covers it) and removed the Google document (which was in violation of WP:SELFPUBLISH). Mdak06 (talk)

For what it's worth, the original research problem appears to have been corrected with the new link that was recently added. But I have yet to be convinced that this article is worthy of being a separate article. It still appears that if anything, it belongs as a subsection of the College Football section of the AP Poll article in the same way that the AP #1 vs. AP #2 games are listed as a subsection in that article. It could easily state that "There have been 44 teams that have held a #1 ranking in the AP Poll" and follow it with the entire list of teams. It would only need the single source, and the existing page could be set to be a redirection page that goes directly to that subsection. Mdak06 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this argument falls under WP:PRETTY or WP:NEGLECT. Guidelines state that in such an instance one should focus on the potential for expansion, keeping in mind there is no time limit for such improvements. Both are faulty arguments for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of issues[edit]

To the moderator, I'm an article contributor and have learned a lot through this process, much of which has made this article better. The above discussion is messy with different people changing opinions, so here's a summary:

The argument for deletion revolves around three issues: WP:OR, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:NPOV.

WP:OR: An external, comprehensive source was added, and the consensus is that this is no longer an issue in any way.

WP:NOTABILITY: Notability has these guidelines:

Significant Coverage: this stat has been mentioned in ESPN, Sports Illustrated, LA Times, and numerous other sources both mainstream and fan blogs, more of which are referenced in the discussion.
Reliable: the original research question has been resolved.
Sources: Numerous secondary sources are cited (such as those in the coverage bullet).
Independent of the subject: all sources quoted have no relation to the poll publishers
Presumed: the coverage in mainstream and fan press of this statistic is brought up often, and it's never a surprise when it is.

So, the topic meets all of these criteria.

WP:NPOV: some contributors suggested that coverage of the AP poll alone was too narrow, but made the mistake to think it was forced. Within the guidelines of NPOV, no one is trying to filter out other polls, and they would be welcome. The AP poll happens to be the most widely used, especially for this statistic (as can be seen in the secondary sources.) Guidelines say that POV alone should not be criteria for deletion regardless (if a spectator who refused to contribute was convinced of it).

Comment further, that WP:NPOV argument is not a deletion argument. To argue that an article be deleted because it covers one poll and not two is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Perhaps there should be a second article for another poll, or perhaps that existing article should be expanded to cover all polls, or maybe just polls considered "the most important" to the sport. In any event, such discussion should be reserved for the articles talk page on how the final article should be developed or perhaps split off. It does not belong in AFD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps.

Those sources are scant and extremely brief. Significant coverage and short mentions in passing are two very different things. It may be enough to get it merged into the AP article, but a scattering of brief mentions over a decade (one of your key sources is simply one sentence in a list of factoids from 2003) isn't enough to establish notability. Take a look at 27 Club and the sourcing for that - that's what a notable list looks like. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "scant" do you mean "the lead line in the SI article" ?? All three articles do mention it, and the are arguably global publications. One was from 2003, one from 2009, and one from 2012. There is evidently "sticking power" here. If it truly is just a "scant" use in articles but not clearly defined, then I would argue that is actually an additional reason to keep this article because the term has clearly been used over time and we should provide the information to back researchers on the use of the term. This is the kind of stuff that should be in an encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even an article. It's simply a single line in a small list of factoids. That's not what significant coverage means. That single sentence gets as much room in that "article" as the list of people who offered Alonzo Mourning a kidney. Should that have its own page, too? This is mostly a bunch of WP:LIKE - the coverage of this issue is extraordinarily brief, with almost outside of a "Did You Know" type blurb. Significant coverage means more than simply mentioning it exists. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists real quick.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not even a list of things, people, places, words, or anything like that. It's a table of stats. A table of stats that has a line or two that has been briefly mentioned in passing a handful of times, ever. There's no actual notability here - it's not even a stat that the NCAA keeps track of or references. It's a non-notable table of information, not something for a standalone wikipedia entry. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it is a list of statistics. The remaining notability issues have all been addressed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is tracked by the NCAA, and referenced by them. Source added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.254.239.1 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a list, not an article, and it meets reasonable standards: a topic that, while a bit almanacky is something that a typical WP user would expect and appreciate; sourced (imperfectly) and a matter of concern and coverage in independent sources. There's a lot of ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT involved in making a call like this. The College football world, unlike pro football, largely revolves around weekly polls and this strikes me as a reasonable "Wikipedia list"... Carrite (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to nominator I don't see your final objection as a reason for deletion. We could overcome "only covers the AP polls, not any of the other polls" by accounting for all national polls: either giving equal weight to all of them (e.g. if there are two polls in a given year, give 1 week to each team that's on top of 1 poll for 1 week, so if you're on top of both throughout the 12-week season, you get credited with 24 weeks) or only counting the weeks in which all the polls have the same team on top. No opinion on your other points, so I'm not going to say "keep" or "delete". Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taelons[edit]

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

The fictional species is non-notable. The individual members of the species are non-notable. A list of non-notable members of a non-notable species is non-notable. No reliable sources indicate that a list of these fictional aliens, several of whom do not actually appear in the series but are merely "mentioned" in passing, is Wikipedia material. PROD removed without explanation by IP with literally no other edits. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. It was a low-rated TV series. There are only three Taelons with individual articles, and two of those should also be deleted: Quo'on and Zo'or. Not sure about Da'an - delete or possibly redirect to Earth: Final Conflict? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 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) 01:08, 7 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 Arminianism. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-arminianism[edit]

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

Unit has had zero sources since 2009 and has no links to it.

The term Semi-Arminianism does not have representation in WP:RS and is not notable. ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A glance at the Google Books search results linked above would appear to refute that statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The term seems to refer to a legitimate theological position. It may be a term used by others, rather than themselves: I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GBooks shows the availability of sources. As Peterkingiron suspects, I doubt anyone describes themselves as this, but rather i's a description used in controversy. The amount of controversy over topics such as this in the past is perhaps hard for us to realize, but this and related subjects were the main intellectual interest of Europe for many centuries . DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "semi-Arminianism" described in those older sources seems to be a quite different theological point of view from the subject of this article (which, as noted below, is actually Free Grace theology). -- 101.119.15.200 (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources found by the Google Books search linked above showing that a historical theological position known as "semi-Arminianism" is notable, but I am not convinced that that is the same as the more recently advanced position described in our article, rather than just sharing the name. It would take someone with a better knowledge of Christian theology than I have to decide that. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I doubt that the "semi-Arminianism" in older sources is relevant to this article, which discusses the theological position of Dave Hunt and others (sometimes called OSAS Arminianism). I think that's probably a notable position, though adherents would not call it "semi-Arminianism." That means that the article may need another title as well as some sources. -- 101.119.15.200 (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Free Grace theology. On closer examination, the subject of this article (the theological position of Charles Stanley and others) is actually Free Grace theology. Nothing in the article (not even my recent addition) is worth merging into that (much better) article. -- 101.119.15.200 (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a redirect would be appropriate if most sources that use the term, as shown by a Google Books search, are referring to a different meaning. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arminianism. The other candidates for redirection describe a particular instance of this idea, so the more general target is better. The article Arminianism already describes several variations in that theological position. It's not necessary to have a separate article for every shade of a belief, and the article even says this is a subtype of Arminianism. The views of the various churches and theologians mentioned in this article could be discussed in the parent article (I'm not convinced there's anything worth merging.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. -- 101.119.14.85 (talk) 09:56, 2 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) 01:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Arminianism. This topic does not receive sufficient coverage to warrant an article of its own (google turns up only 2,000 or so results), we can easily add this article's whole contents to the larger page. Jinkinson (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source given in the article doesn't mention this term. The term is used a fair amount in 19th century Gbooks, but not in the way this article uses it. My sense is these books are not referring to a actual theological school of thought. The term was more of a way to caste aspirations, a shorthand to suggest that someone was too friendly to the doctrine of free will. Allah is an akbar (talk) 05:38, 8 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truth in Video Game Rating Act[edit]

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

Twice proposed bill that never made it out of committee, got some coverage but doesn't appear notable. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also up for deletion: Video Game Decency Act Sven Manguard Wha? 04:55, 20 September 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) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, educational and historical, good to keep these articles that have good secondary source coverage among multiple different reliable sources, to reflect for posterity the tenor of the debate during that particular time period in history. — Cirt (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Could the nominator please explain why these articles could not be merged into, and redirected to, the appropriate article on censorship. These bills presumably amount to criticism of, and opposition to, existing law. (2) I am not interested in applying a requirement for continuing coverage to extant creative works. A document is not an event that is over and done with. It is a piece of literature that can be evaluated as such. The provisions of these bills could presumably be introduced or reintroduced tommorrow, or a hundred times, either in the same or a modified form, into any legislature in the world. James500 (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has not explained why he thinks these bills are not notable. The fact that these bills have not been passed is not relevant. A draft bill, never introduced into any legislature, would be notable if it received sufficient coverage. Like any other piece of literature. James500 (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps these could be redirected and merged into a single article? These kind of bills seem to pop up all the time, and it might be useful to be able to discuss them in a wider context of video game censorship legislation. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 7 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) 00:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Y. Chenevert[edit]

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

Contested PROD : This article has a number of issues, some can be fixed by editors more familiar with the area than I; However the one area that can't be fixed is the subjects lack of notability, the article is almost completely sourced to the subject, either to his self-published book or to his own website. I have failed to find any online reliable sources that cover the subject at all (there is blog post at Mountain Express) Google and Bing searches for "Chenevert artist" both come up blank for coverage. In the internet age it is inconceivable that a notable artist would have zero coverage. Clearly fails both WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR and also WP:GNG. LGA _talk^edits 11:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He donated his work to the National Museum of Commercial Aviation and this counts under WP:ARTIST #4D "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". The problem is the word "several" as the National museum is just one. However the source also says "All of Marc’s aviation artwork is included in this gift to the Museum with the exception of his Braniff International Airways drawings (which he plans to donate to a group in Dallas, Texas). This group is currently working towards a Braniff International Museum that will be exclusive to historical Braniff memorabilia, art and artifacts, including artworks by the renowned Alexander Calder as well as those of Marc Y. Chenevert." So if you count this second non-existent museum it would be "several". Another problem is the complete lack of sourcing for WP:GNG, nobody has written about Chenevert anywhere (in reliable secondary sources). My guess is this artist will become better known now that donated artwork where it can be exhibited and written about, but it will take some time to see if that happens, so WP:TOOSOON. --

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The National Museum of Commercial Aviation is actually more than one museum. There is the Commercial Aviation Museum, the Delta Airlines Museum and Heritage Center at NMCA and the Commercial Aircraft Museum. The Braniff Commons Museum and Library exists and has for over a year and currently houses the Braniff Flying Colors Collection. The museum will, in late 2014, move into a new facility. The statements above in the DELETE section have been pulled from a press release that was written on Mr. Chenevert's behalf by a former Braniff employee who was assisting with the media coverage on the Chenevert Collection donations and was not completely correct in it's statements about the Braniff Commons Museum and Library. At no time does the Chenevert Wiki article reference or use the Chenevert Press Release as a part of its reliable sources as is implied here.

Mountain XPres Newspaper in North Carolina has written about Mr. Chenevert's donation, however, one Wiki user has removed the citation from the Chenevert stating that it is a blog that references the Chenevert website. Mountain Xpress is a valid newspaper of the Asheville, NC area and a credible reference. There are additional Chenevert citations from AIR FORCE TIMES newspaper that have been accessed but have not been received from the AFT Archive. Once they are received then they will be added.Mmb777e (talk) 01:24, 4 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) 00:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A nice enough fellow but there isn't enough here to meet notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably very good at what he does, but the lack of independent sources means that he can't possibly meet WP:N. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:45, 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, given there are no reliable sources. The main author has vanished, and there isnot much sense to userfy, though if someone wants to work on the article, any administrator including e can restore and userfy it.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Langford Now (Selections From Her One Woman Show Live and Direct)[edit]

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

Album lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Lack reviews, charting, awards. Only references are shops and a discogs listing. A search found no good sources to show notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. While there's a lot of coverage of other aspects of her career, I can't find much about this album: no detailed reviews, just mentions in more general articles about her performance in a revival of 9 To 5, etc. The title doesn't fit usual titling policy, which is to not include subtitles like "Selections From Her One Woman Show Live and Direct", so I don't think a redirect is necessary. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the fact that this is a new article created by a newbie editor who needs time to learn the ropes and improve the article as well as his editing skills until I learn I invoke Wikipedia:Ignore all rules Robcamstone (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That sounds like a good reason to Userfy (although the author has apparently vanished), but ~~I'm not sure someone who's been editing for a year and a half can be considered a newbie~~ still the album is not notable as noted above. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suphot Dhirakaosal[edit]

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

At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 September 8, a majority of participants are of the view that the previous AfD should have been closed such as not to allow a standalone article. Because the DRV was much more in depth than the AfD, I'm renominating the article and asking the people who opined in the DRV to make their views known here. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 07:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my previous nomination. fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. being an ambassador does not confer automatic notability. all I could find is 1 line mentions confirming he is an ambassador. Even the Thai coverage I found was one line metnions. Not enough evidence of indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as would have been my contribution had I thought the previous AFD was going to be closed as anything other than delete. Diplomats are not inherently notable and there's not much of anything to substantiate notability here, certainly not the the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required by GNG. There are passing mentions, photo captions and rumours of appointment or removal to/from various posts but nothing by way of substantive biographical coverage. Stalwart111 10:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a significant mention of Dhirakaosal that I found: [57].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sourcing: [58] [59] [60] [61] [62].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found a couple more sources: [63] [64].--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly plenty of passing mentions but not a lot in the way of significant coverage. A lot of that is commentary/coverage of other issues by him, not coverage of him. They don't talk about his role or his biography, history, etc. Being the consul general or ambassador means he was the go-to-guy for commentary on the relationship between those two countries. Much the same way as the spokesman for any large organisation or government department. That doesn't really make him notable, in my view. We're constantly being asked to judge the notability of journalists and "industry experts" who provide commentary and so are mentioned in news articles constantly. But while they don't need to be the focus of coverage, the coverage still needs to be about them in some way. Instead, we have coverage of other issues where he has provided input. Stalwart111 01:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my previous argument that, as ambassador to Russia, he is one of the most important Thai diplomats and we should presume that significant coverage (such as that found by User:The Devil's Advocate) exists. Coverage may well be in sources which are difficult or impossible to find on-line for English-speaking non-experts. (Note that I'm arguing for presumed notability, not inherent notability.) Pburka (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)i[reply]

being ambassador to Russia is not a criterion for notability. There is no inherent or presumed notability of being ambassador to Russia. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed by TDA and [65] (mentioned in the DRV) which is an instance of more personal coverage. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (copied from the deletion review): After some twenty minutes looking at Thai-language sources on Google, the only thing close to in-depth that I could find was this somewhat brief interview with his wife by Manager 360 Magazine (a reliable source) in 2004. (This is the one mentioned by Hobit above.) It mentions their marriage in 1977 and his postings in Hanoi, Geneva, Rome, Los Angeles, Kuwait, the UAE and Yangon. It discusses their family life with two children (from her perspective), but that's about it. The rest of Google results are trivial mentions, either news pieces mentioning him doing something in his capacities as consul/ambassador, or in relation to political news / legal cases concerning Thaksin Shinawatra. This doesn't preclude the existence of off-line coverage elsewhere, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT - mentions not significant enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathlibrarian (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that WP:BIO is met here. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though not all ambassadors are considered notable here, I think a great many will be, including one who is the ambassador of an important country to a world power. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 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) 00:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has had a long and distinguish career, serving in many countries where the primary language is not English which complicates the writing of this bio and the search for sources. I have put a lot of the very basic details into the article. I've only been looking at this briefly, but it seems his time in Myanmar is not surprisingly (being his last role) where his most visible achievements have been. I don't fully grasp the sources, but it seems that his involvement was pivotal in the Chinese-owned hydroelectric power facility in Myanmar that exports power to Thailand - an arrangement that is seen as a Chinese-Thai-Myanmar cooperation that is well-understood to have a development goal of assisting Myanmar. Dams in Burma has a bit of info about this, but not much. Perhaps Paul_012 might be able to explain this better, or correct me where my Google Translate skills are leading me up the garden path? John Vandenberg ^(chat)
Weak Keep, given the sources already provided by The Devil's Advocate. I expect that we'd find a lot more in the Thai or Russian languages, but I don't have either of those. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Sikhism[edit]

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

While the topic per se may be valid, this is a piece of WP:OR and WP:POV (the section on weaponry, for example). WP:TNT is required if the topic itself is to be retained Fiddle Faddle 10:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a hypocrisy if it can criticize harmless and peaceful religions like Jainism but then defend Sikhism. If you feel that it is from a point of view and is baseless and sourceless then take a look, so far I have provided evindence from the Guru Granth Sahib itself. For weaponry you can search up all the stroies of Sikhs misusing their weapons. I was still working on it but since you want to delete it why should I waste time here. -Manpreet Kaur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manpreet kaur101 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is defending Sikhism, nor attacking it. The article is not up to the standard we retain here. That is all. Fiddle Faddle 11:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then how am I to bring it up to the standard you retain here? --Manpreet kaur101 (talk) 11:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding on your talk page. Fiddle Faddle 11:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before this entry is closed, I would like to tell to Manpreet kaur101 that there's no problem if you made such page, but point is that criticism is not always based upon whether the subject or it's elements are peaceful or not. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and other religions currently have similar pages. Lordmacdonald (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but notice we never seem to have any articles which praise the topics which are criticised. Such coverage always has a negative and hostile bias, contrary to WP:NPOV. Warden (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete An attack page contrary to core policy and WP:SOAP. Warden (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To cite WP:NPOV that would require that this page be not possible to be written neutrally, yet I don't think you are making that claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title frames the topic in a way that is inherently biased. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish polemics. Warden (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The title? There are a very large number of criticism of X articles and I don't think any are inherently biased because of that. The article as it stands at the moment is not a Polemic. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know if there is a valid article to be had on this topic, but this is not it. This is an opinion piece, and has no place on Wikipedia. If there is a valid article to be had, I think it should be started from scratch using reliable sources. LadyofShalott 17:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I have tried to neutralize the worst of the editorializing, but I still think the article should be rebooted. LadyofShalott 17:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep At present it's not an attack page, but merely unsourced. No one appears to be arguing that the topic is not notable. There appears to be a tradition of criticism which satisfies GNG: [66], critique through Sikhism studies is discussed in sources:[67], at the very least it appears that a neutral article can be written with the sort of critique that Sikhism studies provides. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 1. AfD is not for cleanup. 2. This is surely sourceable; see WP:BEFORE. 3. Currently NPOV. 4. There's a whole category of such articles, and a navbox, too! Bearian

(talk) 18:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above, plenty of precedent for this type of article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is part of a wider series of 'Criticism of (Relegion)' pages, so it should be kept. Videomaniac29 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps editors should look at the article. The sole 'valid' line remaining is "Sikhism has been criticized in one way or another by proponents of other religions. ", a line that is actually all waffle. All else has flags requiring citations, and that is just one paragraph. Fiddle Faddle 13:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article at the moment is bad, but the real question is can a good article be written. Most of the sources are not in English so it may be quite difficult to work with if you are an English speaker, but there is the potential that someone can improve this. Since the topic is notable, the stub provides a starting point for people to work from, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely. The question for all articles here is whether they assert sufficient notability to remain here, and whether that notability is verified in reliable sources. Many topics may have good articles written about them. Fiddle Faddle 09:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete. I wholeheartedly agree with the above keep !votes. AfD is not for cleanup, the subject is inherently notable, and this article just needs some attention. The reason I'm going with delete is that seems that no one at this time (including myself) is willing to give this article the attention that it needs. Rather than have a one-sentence sub-stub lingering forever more, it might be best to just delete the article for now and wait for someone who is willing to create an actual article to come along to recreate it. To me, having no article is better than having an article with no meaningful content.-- ShinmaWa^(talk) 16:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn given the fact the article has been rebooted. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 06:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topic is perhaps valid, but there is nothing here worth preserving at this point. Completely unsourced essay content needs to go.--Mojo Hand (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the additional content added by User:Atethnekos is enough to fix the fundamental problem and to make a valid start of it. Kudos to Atethnekos.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic content and possible original research. Nothing in the article is a notable criticism of Sikhism (a criticism would have to be discussed in reliable sources before it was mentioned). The one remaining criticism is trivial (compared to criticisms of misogyny, warmongering, child abuse, totalitarianism, support for slavery, etc, levelled against Abrahamic religions) and there are no sources to show either that it has ever been made except by the editor, or that it's important in any way. As above commenters say, nothing worth saving: no encyclopedic content. I'd be very happy to see a proper article on this subject, but this isn't even a beginning. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added some sourced material for something to build on. (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Sikhism&diff=576183398&oldid=576135578) --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : So much more can be added into this subject. No need to delete such page at all. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the article stands today, WP:TNT has taken place. It is now a radically different article from the one I proposed for deletion. I would not consider nominating the current article, and thus withdraw the nomination. I suggest, though, that this discussion run its course and be closed in the usual manner. It seems to me to have had too many opinions expressed to be closed as withdrawn. Fiddle Faddle 23:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent, I already made few changes in the article, which clears much of the issues that we had with the page, previously. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per nominator's withdrawl. The article has been wholly re-written, and fits in the larger set of criticism articles. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Iranian people by net worth[edit]

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

Mostly sourced from the unreliable propaganda site Iran Focus. Additionally, we don't have a list of Jewish people by net worth, even though one can find less dubious sources for the latter [68] (List of Jewish American businesspeople doesn't even come close to having the same scope.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if any reliable sources can be found, in which case clean up so that it is in line with the template, which lists by citizenship, not descent. I rather doubt, for example, that #1 Pierre Omidyar is an Iranian citizen. The nominator hasn't provided a valid reason for deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to write a new article, if you can find sources for that. The main issue is that the wealth most of those of Iranian citizenship is hard to find in any reliable sources. The top 5 of the guys listed here (minus Babak Zanjani) aren't Iranian citizens, as far as I can tell. For the actual Iranian citizens, the sources would be basically just Iran Focus. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I qualified my vote. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I would not trust Wikipedia editors to properly synthesize from multiple sources a top of this kind, because each source may use different methods for estimating the wealth of people who aren't all that transparent about it and various sources cited are not making their estimates at the same time either. Thus the result can only be a low-quality WP:SYNT, although not because it's necessarily designed to push some predetermined conclusion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are from Forbes, and indeed a single list of "the world's billionaires". Further, these lists of Fooian people by net worth appear pretty standard, judging from Category:Lists of people by wealth. Perhaps there should be a discussion regarding all of them at once, but otherwise it's pretty arbitrary just to single out this list, unless there's something necessarily different about calculating the net worth of Iranians as opposed to other nationalities. postdlf (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something like List of Italian billionaires is indeed based on a single (2008) Forbes source [69] (thus at least is a valid comparison/top at a single point in time, even though in the minds of Wikipedians it seems that financial data and the ranking it entails doesn't change over time). This "Iranian people" list however is structured by "Iranian descent" and the most cited reference in it is Iranfocus. Like I said, we don't have an article for Jewish descent either. The last Forbes article on "Millionaire Mullahs" was from 2003 [70]; it doesn't unfortunately inform on the net worth of any single individual. The 2008 or 2013 Forbes billionaires list does not include a single Iranian citizen, probably because no firm data can be obtained. They don't even list Babak Zanjani [71] at all. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The collection of obvious sources into a table is NPOV writing, not Original research. It's a valid topic, as it would be for any major nation. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Compiling an ordered list of financial info from sources without even giving the years (which differ) is sophomoric writing at best, but welcome to Wikipedia. Which reliable sources are about this "major nation" again? Current Forbes listings have zero Iranian citizens. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. I'm troubled by the fact that this is a cobbled-together list from different sources and time frames, rank-ordering their wealth when the original sources did not do so. The nominator's concerns are well-warranted. Also the title is incorrect and many of these people are not Iranians but have fled the country. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No need to delete article, just add dates and nationality in a new column. Moreover lead section clearly states "Iranian OR Iranian origin" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.174.113 (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I can help making it better. Don't see any reason to remove. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:13, 10 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Mountain Lithonia Road[edit]

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

This article shows no notability as to why it should exist. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows oodles of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not at all notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Coverage must be actual substantial coverage about a topic, and not mentions in lists or as part of regular news reporting. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of coverage of the actual road including a major road widening project, the Olympic torch being carried on it, the major health facilities being constructed on it, train collisions, a marathon course using the road, Wade-Walker Park beign off it etc. etc. etc. This is a very notable road. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some articles on the widening project which might push this into notability. But even then, are we saying that road is notable if it's construction is covered? I'm not sure that it's enough. As for the others - that things are on it, or that a road is used, does not seem to make a road notable. I don't see how any of this is more than routine news reporting, which is not sufficient to warrant inclusion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - Notability is not inherited because the Olympic torch was carried on it. If this was a freeway, it would be notable; if it was a state or US-signed route, it would be notable. It's none of the above, and the only argument for it being notable seems to be based on either routine coverage or inherited notabiity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:02, 10 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} 14:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Stewart (trombonist)[edit]

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

Article's only two citations are both dead links. A search for other reliable references on this individual only show his name appearing in lists of other musical performers. Does not appear to meet the notability guidelines for such performers. Failing the appearance of at least one reliable third party reference that is not trivial, I propose that the article be deleted. KDS4444^Talk 15:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching for the Shell/LSO competition, I see so many winners yet so few mentions of it by those who weren't winners that I don't believe it to be notable. Subject is not Principle Chair in LSO. I modified the search terms and still didn't find any secondary sources. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article asserts LPO not LSO, either of which would be sufficiently notable, but I couldn't find that either. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Searching for sources is difficult as there's the far more notable Dave Stewart who played with National Health and Bruford (oh and some bloke who used to play with Annie Lennox). Anyway, an Allmusic page here shows he has appeared as a session player on multiple notable albums, and there are other passing mentions here, here, here, here confirming his reputation, plus a Sound on Sound article written by him here. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Weak delete' -- just a little under the notability bar for a freelance musician -- a permanent chair in the LSO or LPO would be enough for me or a solo recording at a high level, but being a session musician with some reviews by him isn't enough yet. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This source cites his then recent departure from the LPO. Another Sound on Sound source sees him going into depth about arranging and quotes him saying "here's a brief description of an orchestral session I did in September this year". It's published by a third party and going through their editorial standards, so I don't think it qualifies as self-published. He seems to be a semi-regular at SOS and other pieces written by him are here and here (although the National Health / Bruford Stewart has also written for them, so take care when searching for sources). Not the greatest claim to notability, but hopefully there's enough there to convince you he meets WP:GNG. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:21, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional refs. See changed vote above and below. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Also from me Ginosti (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- We have masses of articles on bands of whom I have never heard. I do not see why we should not keep articles on orchestral musicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If so, the solution would be to cull the irrelevant bands, not to water down wikipedia further.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- changed from weak delete above. Our criteria for notability for orchestral musicians (not from another rule, godforbid, but from precedent) is still quite nebulous and still too undefined to judge borderline cases with particular confidence, but Ritchie333 convinces me that the encyclopedia would be more helped than harmed with the inclusion of this article. I'd support a keep or no consensus judgment. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ultra Monsters. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultraman Taro monsters[edit]

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

This is a list of mostly single episode "monsters of the week" that do not establish any sort of overall notability. There is no use in covering them in a list, as anything pertinent would be described in a proper episode list. There is nothing worth merging at this point, so deletion would be the best option. TTN (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly restructure turning the page in an episode list. I agree with nominator that "anything pertinent would be described in a proper episode list" but currently THIS ONE is that list, even if it currently it is differently organized emphasizing the "monsters of the week"-charachters more than the episode titles. The page surely needs to be improved, we can restructure it or even let its current structure adding some datas, I am quite neutral about that, but it is more a question of cleanup than of substance. For now, a bold deletion would be a damage for our readers if not replaced by a proper episode list. Cavarrone 23:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's basically just Ultra Monsters with more in-universe writing. These single-shot antagonists are not notable enough to each get their own write-up. An episode list, perhaps created in the main article, would be more appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or merge with Ultra Monsters Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and trim) into Ultra Monsters per above. No significant coverage from independent secondary sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:08, 4 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) 00:37, 7 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. Between a nomination suggesting deletion, Hellknowz suggestion merging content to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game due to minimal notability, and one other participant intent on the article being kept but having trouble finding sources... I have little choice but to close this as "no consensus" but I recommend continuing the research and potential merge discussion on the talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dueling Network[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

advertising The Banner talk 00:39, 17 September 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) 00:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever can be reliably sourced to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. Advertising or not, as far as WP:GNG is concerned we have ~~two~~ one reliable WP:VG/RS sources covering the game: ~~[72]~~ and [73]. The coverage is not really in-depth ~~and barely scrapes the notability bar~~ -- definitively not enough for a stand-alone article, but enough for a few well-source sentences. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More often than not are blogs not considered to be reliable sources, what would leave you only with Kotaku. The Banner talk 14:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, whoops, my bad. I swear the original link in the search results wasn't to the blog. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think merging this game into Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game article would be good.This is unofficial game simulation of mentioned card game.We have 2 reliable 3rd party sources : 1st and 2nd ref.References number 3 and 5 are taken from official forum of Dueling Network and they are only facts (like number of registred members and formula for elo calculation).This site is very notable since it has 3.5 millions of users and is most popular online game of highest selling trading card game.This article can not be considered to be advertising since it contains only facts.I have found 2 more reliable 3rd party sources, but it was made on sites that are on wiki's blacklist.I think the first 2 references are reliable enough to make this site's notability visible.Also this article can be added to stub.-Midnight modding (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, more often than not, blogs and forums are not considered reliable sources. And of course the "Wikibin The Recycle Bin of Wikipedia!" is clearly no reliable source at all. Beside that, it is quite difficult to see the Dueling Network-forum as an independent source, don't you think? The Banner talk 14:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "..but it was made on sites that are on wiki's blacklist." I think that sums up that they are in fact not reliable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - If some site is on wiki's blacklist, it doesn't necessarily have to mean that every content from that site is bad. Forum of Dueling Network is not an independent source, but is used to citate facts only.Also, one 3rd party source can be enough for references.There are many articles that are much less notable than Dueling Network and it would really be shame if we wouldn't add it to the wiki.And as I said,we can make this like stub if not regular article.-Midnight modding (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - All articles have to comply with the same notability guidelines as outlined in WP:GNG, this is what Wikipedia's "notability" is and not any other interpretation of the word. One reference is not enough, regardless of the article being a stub or not. Stub does not in any way mean notability standards are somehow different, it just means the article hasn't been expanded yet. As for other articles, someone will get to them eventually and either nominate for deletion or add references. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After some additional research I found probably the most relevant sources of all: http://www.trademarkia.com/dueling-network-85322818.html In it ,there is described type of Dueling Network's work, official release date and other relevant informations. And http://dig.do/duelingnetwork.com Midnight modding (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that the sources have to be in-depth (as explained at once again linked WP:GNG). It is not enough to show something merely exists or has a presence. You have to show that third-party sources have given it in-depth coverage. Directory entries, ranking information, company profiles, trademark listings, patent entires, etc. are not suitable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As in the previous AfD, still lacks WP:RELIABLE to establish significance. JNW (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We could keep this article on official facts only.I understand it lacks third party reliable infos, but I also know it is notable enough to be put in wiki.So I'm suggesting to classify it as low-importance video game article with only basic and official informations like it was done in some articles. Midnight modding (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very intent to not actually read WP:N/WP:GNG. "Notability" on Wikipedia does not mean what you think it means. As said before, it is not sufficient to say WP:ITSNOTABLE, you have to show how it is notable by Wikipedia's standards. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up...list of this article's rs is: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DuelingNetwork ; http://www.trademarkia.com/dueling-network-85322818.html ; http://kotaku.com/5919178/yu+gi+oh-bam-might-be-the-best-incarnation-of-the-card-game-ive-played ; https://www.konami.com/ Midnight modding (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only actual WP:RS from those is from Kotaku. TVTropes is user-edited and not reliable, Trademarkia is not in-depth, Konami doesn't lead anywhere. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found one more source http://deck-list.com/yugioh-online-dueling-network/ .Midnight modding (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a reliable source, it's a 1-person website/blog. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it is 1 person website, it is made by somewhat reliable journalist.Also, added some potentially reliable reviews: http://gamervortex.net/port/play-yugioh-online-free/ , http://www.ign.com/blogs/pdw2kx/2012/01/26/pd-reviews-duelingnetwork-com (blog, but made by somewhat reliable journalist), http://www.geekinside.us/tag/dueling-network/ , http://www.dotcomol.com/2013/05/www-duelingnetwork-com-online-dueling-network-card-game.html ,http://dig.do/duelingnetwork.com (contains responsible person advisory-refering to Summary part), http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/rulebook/index.html (not in-depth for the subject, but describing the rules), http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/delancey03_blog/archive/2011/06/16/playing-with-you-39-re-nostalgia-a-dueling-network-review.aspx (blog made by somewhat high reputation member), http://www.yugioh-card.com/en/limited/ (same for rulebook, detailed rules which are followed on site)Midnight modding (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, my friend. Some of your sources are plain nonsense, like the trademarkia and statscrop ones. I am sorry to say, but the more sources you add, the more unreliable becomes the article. The Banner talk 18:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I was adding new sources and forgot to remove those.I'll clean it up.Midnight modding (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 7 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} 12:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-placed non-European riders in the Tour de France general classification[edit]

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

Unsourced article, orphan. NickSt (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced original research.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:06, 10 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} 12:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Massar[edit]

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

Notability far from clear. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was often covered in "Tae Kwon Do & Korean Martial Arts" magazine. He was also profiled in the July 1994 issue of "Fighters Martial Arts" and covered in the April, 1999 issue of "Combat". Papaursa (talk) 19:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

significant changes has been made to the article. can you please remove it deleted status? Antonioyap (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search showed him on several covers of magazines and that should be enough to meet WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to close this as a keep, until I looked closer. The referencing is below sub-par, if that's possible: most of what's been added is general links to general websites; it looks impressive but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. A book hit from Kung Fu: Martial Art and Combat Sport is nothing more than a thank-you by an author (no page numbers...), and Fighting Fit by Eddie Ferrie probably (it's hard to tell) probably doesn't count as a reliable source, even if it does little more than attesting the subject's fitness. Really, Antonioyap, 100+ edits for this? We don't get paid per individual edit (only koavf does, and they're under special dispensation), but more importantly, you didn't add anything of substance verified by reliable sources. So, delete it is for me. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the references I provided above? I've now placed a link in the article to a list of magazines mentioning him (9 times on the cover) and I believe that should be plenty to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken Drmies's advise and added page nos. other additions to make the case stronger. Can i please have your support?Antonioyap (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient coverage showing in the footnotes to pass GNG. A recognized expert in his field. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - THIS Google images search shows two main cover stories on TKD magazine, which pretty much disposes the GNG matter. There is room to improve the article by removing flowery prose and a hagiographic tone, of course. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Carrite's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 13:08, 13 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. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki links[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable enough. Seems to only deal with a feature of MediaWiki, and the only sources are part of MediaWiki's source code. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 05:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ per WP:CSD#A10: essentially duplicate of Help:Interwiki linking. Shouldn't be a redirect, as Help is the proper namespace for such metacontent. Only additional information is too technical for inclusion in Wikipedia (and that's coming from a programmer). —Zenexer [talk] 07:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CSD#A10? The article was created in 2001‎! Christian75 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creation date isn't a hard criterion. By speedy delete, I mean it tentatively qualifies, and that should probably be taken into account. I don't mean there should actually be a speedy deletion when a discussion is already in place. —Zenexer [talk] 10:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, and there's no real benefit to having this in article space that would be enough for WP:IAR. Ansh6 6 6 09:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Or move and expand per Trevj below. Ansh6 6 6 19:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – looking at Google Books it seems covered in a lot of books, and not just two lines. Help:Interwiki linking has nothing to do with the article space. And there is no problem that articles are WP:TECHNICAL#Technical content. Christian75 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Lightweight markup language Redirect to Hyperlink#Hyperlinks in wikis, per WP:BEFORE. I don't think there's a great deal of encyclopedic detail about this topic, but it deserves inclusion within a larger topic area. It's a likely search term. -- Trevj (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki, the "language"/framework behind interwiki links, is already listed on Lightweight markup language. Interwiki links aren't a language so much as an ad hoc feature. —Zenexer [talk] 10:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the markup for an interwiki link exactly the same in all wiki languages? -- Trevj (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After further consideration, I've revised my view above to a more appropriate destination. An interwiki link is a type of hyperlink, so that seems to me to be a good generic target. The subject is already covered there, and so there's no need to merge any content (which is partly WP:OR and how-to anyway). -- Trevj (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This article fits perfectly under MediaWiki#Key_features, if it's trimmed down a bit. —Zenexer [talk] 10:31, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, interwiki links aren't confined to MediaWiki: surely they're a feature of all wiki software. -- Trevj (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: intra-wiki links are the essence of wikis, and general web links are almost universal in wikis, but this describes a niche feature for connections between similar wikis running certain software. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, of course that's right - apologies for my confusion. However, wikis other than MediaWiki can cater for interwiki links, e.g. DokuWiki.[74] -- Trevj (talk) 10:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikilink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) currently redirects to Hyperlink#Hyperlinks in wikis. (Consensus has changed since its RfD in 2008.) -- Trevj (talk) 10:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. OK, I guess an alternative would be to move the content to wikilink, which could then be expanded to cover the more generic topic area. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but am inclined to consider that this topic on its own neither meets WP:GNG, nor warrants deletion (as a valid encyclopedic search term). -- Trevj (talk) 10:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge-reduce & redirect to Wiki (which does not preclude a mention at Hyperlink#Hyperlinks_in_wikis) Coverage in WP:RS sources of this rather trivial feature is usually far less elaborate than the essay we have here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge verifiable information, and the term is mentioned in the hyperlink article (so that is already a suitable redirect target) but parts could be added to wiki (making that a more suitable target), so GNG isn't a reason to delete. Peter James (talk) 19:22, 7 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 Throne. The concern about the previous redirect to Watch the Throne turns out to be not necessary, as despite the "merged content" edit summary, no content was actually merged to that article. Therefore the redirect to Throne is logical and follows consensus; the previous article has been deleted before redirecting, due to the WP:COPYVIO concerns. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Throne[edit]

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

Unable to find any indication that this poem has made the slightest lasting impact. ~~Likely a WP:COPYVIO for presenting it in its entirety(?) too.~~ Apparently not, as the Telegraph printed it.[75] Clarityfiend (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page was a redirect to Watch the Throne until and anonymous IP editor turned it into an article about the poem. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why a redirect there? If anything, it should redirect to Throne. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The redirect followed a content merge according to the edit history. The Throne is a hip hop supergroup (Jay-Z and Kanye West) that made Watch the Throne. If this is indeed a content merge, the redirect should be kept to preserve attribution history. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The fact that a newspaper was allowed to print the poem does not mean that WP is entitled to. Accordingly COPY-VIO may apply. Watch the Throne is an album. Throne is about thrones in general, whereas this poem is a celebration of QEII's period on the British throne. I would not object to a redirect, if there was an obvious target. Perhaps we might merge it inot an article on the Golden Jubilee. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 4 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Throne. Ultimately this poem isn't notable, not yet anyway. It's somewhat surprising that the poem didn't get more notice upon its release, but we can't have an article without some sort of in-depth coverage. Now what I've done is create a redirect (The Throne (poem)) which goes to Carol_Ann_Duffy#Poet_laureate, where I've created a mention of this poem. I've also listed the poem on Throne (disambiguation). I suggest that this term get redirected to throne in specific because ultimately this is the best target for it. Thrones are often talked about in terms of "the throne" regardless of country and I don't think it's entirely appropriate to redirect to anything else. Maybe, MAYBE redirect it to the disambiguation page, but I think that most people searching the term will probably be looking for the basic term for thrones. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What Tokyogirl said- honestly, nothing else needs to be added. Reyk _YO! 23:01, 7 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 Inclubate. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashens and the Quest for the Gamechild[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reliable sources gave this a review and the cast is not notable. PROD rejected without good reason. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 10:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that the cast is not notable. Stuart Ashen has been involved in many notable projects, both on YouTube and with the BBC. He has 437,875 subscribers to his main YouTube channel and 135,711 to his 'Extra' channel. (as of 27/09/13) filmdump.com have reviewed the film, as have other websites. --Dannyp1996 (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Taylor, it matters very little if cast is "notable" or not as notability is usually not inherited. What matters per WP:NF is coverage in independent sources, and we do have a few reviews in a sources that evaluate low-budget indie films that have not themselves been evaluated for reliability.[76][77][78][79] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That Guy with the Glasses is not acceptable as it is primary (they produced the film). The thing I'm worried about is the fact that I got no GNews hits. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor, without the promotional budget of bigger studios with better financed films looking to recoup investment (IE: looking for a profit), a lack of Google news hits is less a concern for a film released FREE only onto youtube (so far). And in reading the article on That Guy with the Glasses, I learned that it was founded not by Stuart Ashen but rather by "Doug Walker, a Chicago-based comedian, writer, and film critic also known as "That Guy with the Glasses"... and Stuart Ashen is a British comedian best known as "Ashens" when he posts on their website. However, the film was produced by ChannelFlip,[80], the same folks who produce other Stuart Ashen stuff, and not by TGWTG. BUT yes... Ashen himself wrote that review and due to lacking independence it for one can be disregarded. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or Incubate briefly per deletion policy. The WUVO magazine interview is a consideration, just as are the independent sources Sci-Fi London and Comedy TV is Dead and DUSA Media Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/Strong incubate per notability and lack of any compelling secondary/tertiary sources being used to their advantage, but nonetheless existing. As noted, the article is mostly plot summary. Some of the reviews linked above strike me as dubious as to whether they're reliable or not, but assuming we take the integrity of the interviews/reviews into consideration carefully, it could amount to something, but unfortunately that just isn't the case now. — Whisternefet (t · c) 03:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate WP:ATD-I This is a tough one for me to evaluate as I think it should be merged into an article that doesn't yet exist - Stuart Ashen has a better claim to notability than the movie referenced above, but Ashen doesn't have a page but this does. Tough one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:49, 7 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} 12:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamillroad Software[edit]

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

I couldn't find any non-affiliated source for this firm's notability. (Re-post of Hamillroad, speedied earlier today; this version looks cleaner.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The article does not assert notability, and I didn't find substantial coverage in Google news. Given the niche appeal of its software, notability may be difficult to establish. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above post - http://www.printweek.com/index.cfm?event=page.search&sSearchPhrase=hamillroad significant news coverage if you search in the right place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.132.130 (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- My impression is that this is a company with three staff members, clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. Despite Hamillroad Software being a small company, its work is significant and revolutionary in the printing industry, as demonstrated by the awards won at the South African Flexographic Printing Excellence Awards last Wednesday, where its products were awarded Best On Show, two Gold Awards and a Silver Award across two categories. Ltcave 22 September 2013
Do not delete. The creator of the Harlequin RIP page thought the company significant enough to warrant two mentions of the company and its products, one of them being the aforementioned product that won the Best On Show awards. As quoted, 'Several third party products add more functionality around the Harlequin Server RIP, including: *Auraia screening from Hamillroad Software – a digitally modulated screening solution claimed to provide the equivalent of very high frequency screens on a wide variety of CtP devices and plates. *FirstProof from Hamillroad Software – providing additional options for soft-proofing of Harlequin raster output.' Ltcave 22 September 2013

Notability is not inherited, and being mentioned in another article doesn't mean someone or something deserves their/its own article. Winning awards, maybe. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, Hamillroad's Auraia Screening is currently in testing at several major national newspapers. Ltcave 22 September 2013
I would advise not to delete. The company's product supports Harlequin RIP, which is now owned by Global Graphics, a big company with a large number of shares. Hamillroad, which has been around since 2002, seems very influential in its niche, as shown by winning awards. Hamillroad also has numerous press releases and events with which it is involved; the company is notable enough for an article. The article, however, does require checks on neutrality and requires more usage of facts and more references and removal of opinions, so as not to be advertising. No conflicts of interest declared by editor. 01:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel I have to respond to the comment "My impression is that this is a company with three staff members, clearly NN", as clearly that does not add to the debate. So what if Hamillroad is a small company? Hewlett-Packard was started by two people, Microsoft was started by one guy, etc... Just because a company is small, doesn't mean it's not doing something revolutionary. Although our FirstPROOF and Lightning TIFF products are not revolutionary (but are good products), our Auraia product most certainly is. It outperforms all existing competitive products from the likes of Kodak (Staccato), Agfa (Sublima), GlobalGraphics (HDS), Esko (Concentric) - and that is NOT my opinion, as we have reports from customer evaluations of the competing technologies where they have proved that (we have superior quality to competitive products, whilst saving more ink than competitive products). Unfortunately, we are not allowed to make those reports public, but if someone wants to mail me and agrees to keep it confidential I can show them. Finally, our Auraia product has won other awards - see http://www.horton.co.nz/?t=12&view=1&newsId=29 where you can see that our first beta site (before we started selling) won newspaper awards on 2011 and 2012. We are now selling this product - it is used in La Voz de Galicia (10th largest newspaper in Spain), Times-Colonist (old newspaper in Canada), StarPress (newspaper in Canada), Sharmans (newspaper in UK), Leopold (commercial packaging in Germany), CrystalMedia (commercial in Australia printing lenticular) and I could go on and on... Acave] 23 September 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.132.130 (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that must be kept confidential is of no use to Wikipedia. Quality doesn't matter, notability does, as backed by reliable sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the reports mentioned above could be made public, in-house competition assessment and customer evaluation won't help much to substantiate WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm not seeing a depth of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Having lots of (even famous) customers does not confer notability. Stalwart111 08:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:34, 9 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.