Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 September 14 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuntz (song)[edit]

Kuntz (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncited article, did some research and no notable sources can be found that detail this song in particular. felt_friend 22:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It pains me greatly to vote this way, as I'm a major fan of the Butthole Surfers, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep the article. It could be redirected to Butthole Surfers or Locust Abortion Technician, but I'm not sure there's any point. Nobody is going to search for "Kuntz (song)". If there isn't a Butthole Surfers wikia, there should be. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to list of MLB seasons, as there is a clear consensus this does not belong as a standalone article. There's significant interest in a merge, so history will be left intact. Whether, what, and where to merge is an editorial decision. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball attendance figures[edit]

List of Major League Baseball attendance figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTSTATS. Taking this article to its logical complete state would include every team from every season since 1871. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear case of WP:NOTSTATS. GiantSnowman 11:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into relevant MLB season articles (i.e. section "2012 attendance statistics" to be merged into 2012 MLB season, ect.) then redirect to List of MLB seasons. Dolovis (talk) 14:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No satisfactory explanation is given for how this supposedly violates WP:NOTSTATS. It's important information, sensibly organized, and absolutely appropriate as encyclopedic coverage of sports. The only specific objection given is that, when completed, the article would be too long in order to cover all the seasons of each league. To which the answer is: So what? Wikipedia is not paper. When the list gets longer, it can be divided into pieces as we do with all sorts of lengthy articles.
I can understand the objections that have been raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football club attendances (2006) with respect to attendance lists that combine different sports. But many of the editors at that AfD have commented that collections of attendance information for individual sports are encyclopedic. Attendance in the major North American sports leagues receives continuing coverage and is vital to an understanding of those sports. Deleting this sourced, important information outright doesn’t accord with WP:PRESERVE and isn’t helpful to anyone. The suggestion to merge this list into the corresponding season articles is something that can be discussed, although it doesn’t facilitate year-to-year comparison as well as this list does, and I don’t see any policy reason why a multiyear list isn't appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per Dolovis. The informtation is relevant and should be kept somewhere, but this is not the place. As the nominator suggests, to actually make this list work it would need to cover all Major League teams since 1871, and that would be too large and messy to be useful. But such lists within the individual season articles are appropriate and relevant, and that seems to be the best place. Rlendog (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Arxiloxos. Unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Football club attendances (2006), attendance figures in leagues like this is normally discussed as a group by reliable sources, which means this list passes WP:LISTN. Merging sounds reasonable, but that can be discussed on the talk-page after this AfD is closed. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete... I'm gonna go with delete here... as this info (in it's present format) simply doesnt make sense as an article... Is the goal to list the attendance of every MLB team from the beginning of the 1900s? Individual team figures can be listed on the team or season pages... and perhaps these charts can be merged to the 2012 Major League Baseball season page (or appropriate earlier seasons) but keeping them in a chart like this is unworkable. Spanneraol (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Birkman[edit]

Roger Birkman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. GHits/News/Books are all to his books or method. GNews is almost entirely press releases. Promotional. Tagged as unref'd BLP without improvement. GregJackP Boomer! 21:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. The "Birkman method is found in books as early as in 1976 (unless it is a different birkman and different method :-). It seems that you run google search incorrectly. I have readily found dozens of independent book references. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you expect something there for a psychologist born in 1916? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are plenty of cites to Freud and Jung on GS and they were born even earlier. However, I am satisfied that other editors have found notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Berkman is a pioneer of the personality test. Although his system is not as well known as Myers-Briggs, it is one of the originals and has made a big impact. 2.5 million people have been tested on it and used by more than 2,000 companies worldwide in 11 languages. See the article "Personality test pioneer". The sourcing isn't great but I think he passes on WP:ANYBIO #2 "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." This is supported by the numerous mentions in Google Books.
    • [1]"As a chartered psychologist I am an expert in many of the most useful career assessments including the Highlands Ability Battery, Myers Briggs Type Indicator, Strong Interest Inventory, Birkman method and more."
    • [2]"There are many approaches: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Birkman Method, Social Style Model, and Five-Factor or Big Five models of personality all have some attractions."
    • [3]"My favorites are: Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, created by a mother-daughter team and based on Jung's work; DISC, which is used almost as much as Myers-Briggs in the business world; The Birkman Method, based on the work of Roger Birkman; [+ three more]"
    • [4]"Psychometric testing and personality assessments like the Myers-Briggs and the Birkman Method tools can also yield some valuable surprises in how you relate to specific others and to the world at large."
    • [5]"Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Birkman Method are two common personality tests. "
    • [6]"..employers for years now have been using psychological assessment tools such as Myers-Briggs type indicators, Thomas International's DISC and the Birkman method to help employees understand their own behaviour patterns."
    • [7]"Some of the most common personality tests include the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, Clifton Strengths Finder, the 16PF Questionnaire, the Birkman Method"
    • etc etc.. do a google search "birkman method" "myers-briggs" to find many more like the above.
-- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- the nomination even notes that his books and methods are notable; this is how academics are evaluated in AfD. The lack of GNews cites come from his being born in the 1910s -- that's not the right place to look for information about a 1916 academic. Green Cardamom's search shows the high importance of his research. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sports in Orlando, Florida#Other football history. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Rage (SSFL)[edit]

Orlando Rage (SSFL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only two links point to this page, including the article's creator's talk page. The article has been created a few years ago and has barely been edited. Also, it is about a football team that is part of the Southern States Football League. The article about the league has been deleted a few years ago. No sources are provided and the only ones available are game results and the team's website. TheMillionRabbit 20:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damu[edit]

Damu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has existed completely without sources, references, or any significant editing since 2009. besiegedtalk 19:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Article now meets minimal standards and apparently has the attention of other editors who are interested in approving it, though it may still be recommended for a merge - if appropriate - or similar maintenance if scope and quality cannot be improved enough to warrant a full-on standalone entry for this subject.besiegedtalk 17:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Google Books (per WP:BEFORE) turns up a variety of references now added to the article. It looks as though its extreme brevity might be extendable too based on some of these discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AllyD's finds and added references. 'Damu Sumerian' also yields over 500 hits in Google Scholar, a significant fraction of which are about the god. There are plenty of reliable sources out there upon which to build an article and both the GBooks and GScholar results show multiple independent sources showing notability of the topic. A notable topic and a stub with reliable sourcing suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- now adequately sourced. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Astral spirit[edit]

Astral spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fringe nonsense presented non-neutrally. "Astral spirits are beings made of life-energy and exist in a more evolved state of consciousness than physical beings... Astral Spirits share the same time and space as we do....An Astral Spirit typically is not of human origin, however. " Come on, really? Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment: I've completely re-written the article and it no longer reads like it did. However I'm not entirely certain that this should really have its own article separate from the main article for the soul. Most of what I'm finding comments upon the term predominantly in relation to the human soul. There are some mentions of it in relation to witchcraft and black magic, so it wouldn't be a perfect merge or redirect to that article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellent rewrite, Tokyogirl79! This is now a well-referenced short article on a real topic in religion and magic. In addition to Tokyogirl79's refs, Astral spirit has an entry in the 1897 Encyclopaedia Britannica, making this topic obviously notable and of enduring interest. A notable topic and a solid rewrite suggest keeping this article. --Mark viking (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I guess it seems notable enough now, but I'd support a merge to Soul if people want to go in that direction. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, Tokyogirl did a hell of a job. I withdraw my nomination, since the neutrality problems are wiped out in the new version.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bartimaeus Sequence. History will be left intact given the interest in merge and/or transwiki. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in Bartimaeus[edit]

Magic in Bartimaeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of the Bartimaeus Sequence through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge - though I agree with the nominators concerns about real world information and third party sources. However, at least some of this information should be documented as part of Bartimaeus Sequence because it is fundamental contextual information for understanding the world in which the books are set, Sadads (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. It could also be merged into Bartimaeus Sequence, but I think anything merged would probably just get cut out as unsourced original research. Background information, glossaries, and other in-universe writing belongs on Wikia, where they don't care about notability or verifiability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Bartimaeus Sequence, I couldn't find any information on this as a stand-alone topic. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. I left a message at the Bartimaeus Wikia to see if anyone wants to copy it over there. [8]-- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm Petera275, in charge of the Bartimaeus Wikia. I'd be more than happy to copy this over, and I thank you very much for notifying me of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.251.131 (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there are several suggestions on what to do, the consensus here is clear that these are not appropriate standalone articles, and they are highly unlikely names for someone to type in as a redirect. If anyone would like them userfied, however, I'll be happy to do that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Ed (Season 1)[edit]

Mister Ed (Season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article substantially duplicates and does not expand upon List of Mister Ed episodes. It was created in July along with Mister Ed (Season 2), which I'm also nominating. The page's creator never bothered creating the Season 3-6 articles. However, he did delete all Season 3-6 content from List of Mister Ed episodes, leaving it in a pretty messed up state.[9] After I discovered this yesterday I repaired the list and redirected the season articles, which have numerous errors, but the page creator insists on keeping both season articles despite their redundancy. A list of most of the problems with the season articles is at Talk:List of Mister Ed episodes. These problems don't exist in List of Mister Ed episodes. The page could be fixed, but they're still redundant as they don't expand upon the main list. AussieLegend (✉) 19:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Nothing not already in the List of article, and capitalized "Season" is non-standard titling. No hope for expansion of plots on what is a general sitcom. Nate • (chatter) 19:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain both and develop
"The page's creator never bothered creating the Season 3-6 articles". You fail to realize this was a work in progress; always assume WP:GF.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"capitalized 'Season' is non-standard titling". This was an accident: correct it an move on.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"However, he did delete all Season 3-6 content from List of Mister Ed episodes, leaving it in a pretty messed up state." The format was grossly incorrect [10] and I meant to give it the proper format. Forgive me for not getting to it and getting sidetracked: relax. This was not WP:DE in any form. A simple communication consisting of "Oanabay04 - I noticed you began improving the 'list of Mister Ed episodes' but have not completed it for some time. Do you intend on finishing it?' Not 'never bothered' or 'pretty messed up' is pretty much fails the WP:CIV ("Don't make snide comments, don't be aggressive), and abuse of WP:POWER, and completed devoid of WP:ALLARGUMENTS.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now concerning the matter at hand. Each season page has not been fully developed yet. and I regret having not added a tag stating they were stubs). What I fail to see is how this does not qualify as separate articles, yet Everybody Loves Raymond (season 1), Everybody Loves Raymond (season 2), Everybody Loves Raymond (season 3), Everybody Loves Raymond (season 4), Everybody Loves Raymond (season 5), Everybody Loves Raymond (season 6), Everybody Loves Raymond (season 7), Everybody Loves Raymond (season 8) and Everybody Loves Raymond (season 9) all do...while not being very different from List of Everybody Loves Raymond episodes (I admit; the plots from the List of Mister Ed episodes page should be removed in order for each Season page to be able to stand on its own). The end goal with the Mister Ed project, as well as future ones of this nature, is to develop each season into a full article with ; akin to List of Friends episodes, and the more detailed Friends (season 1), Friends (season 2). Oanabay04 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AussieLegend. Your talkpage and excessive Barnstar awards suggest that you lack the ability to WP:DISENGAGE and are bordering on WP:DIVA. Please learn to discuss the issue directly first instead if simply reverting edits that might actually help the article. Thank you kindly.Oanabay04 (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oanabay04, please comment on content, not on the contributor. Thinly veiled attacks don't help your arguments.
  • "You fail to realize this was a work in progress" - Edit histories show that you only ever edited the articles for a 24-hour period on 12/13 July. Your first edit to List of Mister Ed episodes deleted all of the season 3-6 content, which was never restored. Since then you've made 900 edits to Wikipedia and none to these articles, so it doesn't look like it was a work in progress.
  • (re capitalisation) "This was an accident: correct it an move on" - I did correct it, by redirecting the article to List of Mister Ed episodes, where all of the errors that had been present in the season articles had been corrected. Clearly that didn't work. The articles need to be moved to the correct capitalisation, merge in all of the corrected content and then expand the articles significantly beyond being simply a list of episodes. Correcting it isn't simply a matter of changing links, as you did to Mister Ed (Season 1), when you broke a series of links including those in the AfD template.[11]
  • "A simple communication consisting of "Oanabay04 - I noticed you began improving the 'list of Mister Ed episodes' but have not completed it for some time" - There are so many cases where editors make peculiar edits that it's simply not practical to ask for an explanation of why they did something 2 months ago. Any editor can edit any article. They do not need your permission to correct obvious errors or apparent vandalism. It was your responsibility not to leave the articles in a state where they don't meet our requirements. If you can't create an article that meets minimum acceptable standards in article space, then you should draft it in userspace and leave it there until it's ready.
  • "Everybody Loves Raymond (season 1)" (etc) - As I've already pointed out,[12] Everybody Loves Raymond is not FA or even GA, so the articles are not good examples. Nor were they split properly. The editor who did so has made the same errors at numerous articles and has regularly been reverted.
Of course, none of this is really relevant to keeping these articles. In their present state they are clearly redundant to the main episode list. If you intend expanding these articles I suggest creating drafts in your userspace, using GA and FA articles as a guide. There are also many non-GA/FA articles that are examples of what you should be aiming at as a minimum standard. The Big Bang Theory (season 1) is one, NCIS (season 3) is not. Given that you've already been "distracted" for 2 months, and I suspect that would have been longer had I not redirected the articles, this would probably be the best option. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware that Everybody Loves Raymond (season 1) was a poor example. It was not marked with any sort of comment or suggestion to mark it for deletion. Put together a complete list of pages that meet proper standards and I will follow those and will work to improve these articles. Thank you for your input.
"it's simply not practical to ask for an explanation" - that is a personal preference.
"Given that you've already been "distracted" for 2 months... - WP:NPA, WP:BULLY, WP:BRICKS. Spend some time reviewing this: Wikipedia:The Rules of Polite Discourse.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've already suggested using GA and FA articles. They aren't hard to find and it's not really up to me to compile a list for you. You would do well to read WP:LAWYER and I suggest you take any valid criticism a little less seriously. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not tolerate patronizing criticism, only constructive criticism.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Mister Ed episodes. I don't see any good reason to split these out at this time. The individual season material can be developed right in the list article until they reach a stage where splitting is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see a consensus yet, but I'm leaning towards a weak keep. This was a cult favorite, and there's no good reason not to have separate articles, other than the difficulting in finding older print sources, such as TV Guide. Bearian (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When splitting episode lists the season articles need to contain significantly more information than just a copy of the episode list that was in the main episode list article or there is no point in splitting the main article. Neither of the season articles contain anything more than just the episode tables, so they are redundant to the episode list. Only seasons 1 & 2 were split. This too is pointless. If you're going to split the episode list then you split all seasons. The two articles that were created contain numerous errors that have been corrected in the main list and therefore need to rebuilt completely in order to incorporate the corrections. This is why I said we may as well start from scratch. A full season article would actually be a good idea but, as you've said, there would be a difficulty in finding older print sources to expand the articles. Until sources can be found, there's very little point in keeping two error-filled articles that are redundant to an existing article. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as my take on this is that it is indeed notable enough and there is the possibility for enough to condone spinout of each season from the list of episodes, but this was a task that was never completed. In the mean time, all of the season pages (currently existent or not) should redirect to the list until the userfied drafts are substantial enough to be stand alone articles. Technical 13 (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Palacio[edit]

Hotel Palacio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am uncertain as to whether the subject is notable, or if the article suggests any notability. The hotel does not seem to have any significant history, structure, ownership, management etc. A Google search does not reveal anything of note that I can find. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even a suggestion of notability. Transwiki the data to WikiVoyage. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of His Dark Materials terminology[edit]

Glossary of His Dark Materials terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list of terms does not establish notability independent of His Dark Materials through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictionary definitions without any apparent outside notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are multiple in-depth sources for Pullman's work, including 2 independent/unauthorised books (Parkin and Jones's Dark Matters[13] and Paul Simpson's Rough Guide To His Dark Materials[14]) and a lot of other media coverage. So it is almost certainly possible to reference most of this to reliable sources. Having said that, a merge may be an option. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid I don't recognise some of the arguments for deletion. Specifically, I don't see 'overly in-depth plot details', the references/examples in the article seem brief and concise to me. Nor does the OSborn argument seem valid, yes these ARE definitions, however it is the contrast between OUR meaning and Pullman's which is partly of interest, and - as in a real dictionary - the linguistic root which is of secondary interest.

Pullman does use and modify and invent 'English' terms, place-names, concepts etc. and then use them to his own purpose. It HAPPENED to be the case that when I read this trilogy, I knew the Latin/Greek origins of some of his terms. Also, the echoes/association between his Muscovy and our Moscow/Russia would be obvious to almost everyone, however very few of us would recognise ALL the linguistic parallels/echoes/subversions of meanings employed by Pullman. I personally found this page useful and educative when I came upon it, which is why I took an interest in it.

As for the 'lack of sources' argument, do we REALLY need to cite a third party source that the original meaning of 'Alethia' is the Greek for truth, and that Pullman's Alethiometer is therefore a truth device/truth finder? There are many examples within this page where the 'authority' to compare the 'our world' meaning with the Pullman usage would simply be a dictionary (Greek, Latin, English, various Scandinavian languages, and, probably umpteen others). To cite a dictionary to show the source of, or prove an association between 'our meaning' and Pullman's use seems needlessly pedantic to me.

I would not be opposed to this page merging with something else, though there do seem to be advantages also to it existing on its own (not everyone is going to be interested in Pullman's 'language games') .... I do however think it would a great shame to delete it.

I am INTENTIONALLY, not making any arguments either for or against the general rules of covering Literature on Wikipedia, partly because I think that it may be the case that HDM deserves and requires particular treatment.Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are plenty of sources covering this dark material such as The Elements of His Dark Materials; Exploring Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials;His Dark Materials Illuminated; &c. And notice that this educational work recommends our page as a good source. Warden (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:NOT, glossary articles do not belong on Wikipedia. Move it to Wikia or a fan site. Relevant sections could be optionally moved into the appropriate articles, as long as they are sourced. The aforementioned sources could easily be used to flesh out the parent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT says nothing about glossaries. WP:DICDEF explicitly allows for them — "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field" — and Wikipedia indeed contains numerous glossaries and so it is evidently our policy to have them. Warden (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be two (wholly contradictory) arguments being put forward for deletion, the first is that the page is 'overly in-depth plot details', the second is that this page is simply a glossary. Since glossaries are allowed, and since a glossary is a useful adjunct to THIS PARTICULAR BOOK, and since also such a glossary of a rational, organised, systematic form is unlikely to be found elsewhere on the net, I cannot see any reason to delete ... Pincrete (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:DICDEF is somewhat unclear on what an encyclopedic glossary is (the link no longer shows useful information for that,) my reading is that this is not such a glossary. The reasoning for this is that encyclopedic glossaries are glossaries needed to be able to read an encyclopedia article on a subject. We have, selecting a random glossary for example, Glossary of arithmetic and Diophantine geometry (or one about religion, etc...), because it is necessary to understand those technical terms to read an article about those subjects.y
This case differs substantially because these words are not likely to show up in an encyclopedia article about His Dark Materials. I find this case analogous to having a dictionary of Quenya. Such a dictionary would run afoul of DICDEF because it is unreasonable for Quenya to show up in a Wikipedia article.
The second part of my !vote addressed a way this article could have skirted DICDEF, by showing that these words are themselves notable (and thus WP:WORDISSUBJECT would apply.) This does not seem to be the case. While books have been published about His Dark Materials, I do not see any indication that the words used in the book could pass WP:GNG.
I do not understand how you see plot details and dicdef as being contradictory arguments.
OSborn arfcontribs. 17:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction seems to be between the accusation of providing EXCESSIVE plot information (the original grounds for deletion) and being little more than a dictionary .... for the record I think you are right, this article IS a glossary (and a glossary of words that would not be found in any 'real-world' dictionary). I think that such a glossary is useful/interesting to the reader, who otherwise would need to be fluent in Greek, Latin and the umpteen other languages Pullman plunders in order to begin to see the games he is playing. Since the article is fairly well, clearly written, I see no benefit to deletion. Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 7 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) 18:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see how those can accomplish much of anything for this article. There is some discussion on the relation between real science and the author's use of it in the fictional world, but that's something more easily summed up in a paragraph in the main article. The real specifics on the actually in-universe stuff is just an analysis of how they function in the fictional world without anything to really provide much of a true real world perspective. TTN (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I just noticed there were actual quotes from the author in one of them. I thought it was just more novel quotes. I still don't think it would require this article to discuss the topic. Putting a section in the main article and allowing it to grow would be the better option, and then a proper article on whatever gets too large could be split out. TTN (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI see that Cerebellum may have made the same mistake as me, namely that "alethiometer" and many other words which are essential to understanding the plot are actually in the MAIN article, not in this glossary. The words in this glossary I would characterise as being 'of interest' rather than 'essential' and perhaps would be better as a section of the main article.

I point everyone to the link that Warden provides above, in which an educationalist recommends THIS SPECIFIC PAGE as a source for teachers and students (she also provides a link to a fan-site with the same information, however the fan-site has since removed that page).

I looked around a few Wikipedia articles on books in which 'invented words/invented meanings' were a significant component (e.g. Clockwork Orange), in many of them there was coverage of how the words were sourced and used, with coverage appropriate to that particular book. In Pullman's case the invention and use are not schematic in the way they are in 'Orange'.

Commenting on the comparison with Quenya, (which I know nothing about), a dictionary of Quenya (or Klingon or ....) would probably present all the same practical problems as a Dictionary of German or ANY REAL language. If we started now we would still be arguing in 10 years time, and the finished dictionary would be SO large and of SUCH marginal benefit to most readers as to be pointless. Neither of these considerations applies here.

I can understand arguments to merge or improve this page, I cannot understand the need to delete it.Pincrete (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • To help explain what's happening here, note that the nominator is engaged in a general program of nominating topics about fiction for deletion and the language of the nomination is cut/paste without any specifics of this particular case. The proper process of considering alternatives to deletion has not been followed per deletion policy. There has been no discussion on the article's talk page nor has the original author of the page been notified. The nominator was previously banned from such activity by the community for a period of six months after he tried its patience with a previous deletion spree. The nominator was absent from Wikipedia for several years following that but here we go again. Unfortunately, Twinkle makes it easy for hostile editors to create numerous nominations without any effort and it's then good faith editors like yourself who have to notice and waste their time in argument. Thank you for taking the trouble. Warden (talk) 10:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list does not currently have any uses to this encyclopedia overall. It does not have anything to establish notability for the topic of the author's overall terminology, and it does not act as a necessary companion article like a character list. These details are not required to understand the series, and anything complicated will generally be discussed in the plot details. Using other series as examples to keep it is pointless because all of the articles are in varying degrees of quality, so their coverage of their fictional words cannot be used as a comparison. You need something like Klingon language. The article itself is a mess, but it is showing the real world importance of the dialog. It needs vast cleanup and possibly a merge into its parent article, but it is at least asserting that discussion about it is relevant. This list exists only through the dedication of fans rather than as something truly encyclopedic like real world discussion of the relevance of his style of writing or whatever else. Wikia is more suited for such topics. There is no need to merge because there is nothing to merge. Inserting any of that into the main article would likely end up with it being cut during regular cleanup, and there is no real way to improve it bar completely renaming it and starting from scratch. That would be the same as deleting it and splitting a proper article out from the main article at some point. TTN (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The value of this page is shown by the reference in the external educational source which is publihsed by the reputable imprint of Routledge. Warden (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple in depth reliable sources found by Colapeninsula, Warden and Cerebellum. There are ample RS for this article. The article is structured according to the glossaries section WP:GLOSS of the Manual of style. The nominator's complaint of overly in-depth plot details makes me wonder whether they have read the article; this article is a glossary of terms in a synthetic language, not a plot synopsis of the novels. A notable topic and no major article problems suggest keeping this article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, when you describe a part of a story, whether it is character actions, settings, or objects or whatever that is in-universe, that's plot detail. Because characters, settings or objects don't exist independently of the fiction that features them. "plot" does not refer only to a "synopsis", it's everything that forms a fiction. So yes, this article is plot.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever can be sourced to His_Dark_Materials#Settings, otherwise Delete. A plot-summary article that violates WP:NOTPLOT and thus does not establish notability through significant coverage in secondary sources. Sources brought up in the discussion don't provide significant coverage, only plot rehash without any kind of commentay or analysis whatsoever that could help build a "reception" section. Because per WP:NOTPLOT, "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception and significance of notable works". This really doesn't pass notability for a stand-alone article, but as a compromise, whatever plot clarification readers might need (and can be sourced) can go to His_Dark_Materials#Settings as indicated.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be useful if those who assert that too much of this page is un-sourced, would point out which parts NEED or WOULD BENEFIT FROM 'sourcing'. We don't need sources for words or events within the books, since the book itself is the source. We can of course have different opinions about whether any of those events/words etc. contribute anything to the coverage and whether the descriptions of those words or events is as accurate, clear and neutral as possible, but generalised comments about the lack of sources are not especially constructive, when what the article attempts to cover are FACTUAL MATTERS within the books.Pincrete (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notability discussion, thus involving a specific level of sourcing which is detailed at WP:GNG, and primary sources (ie the books) don't correspond to that notability requirement. That the article only covers "factual matters with in the books" is the very reason why it's up for deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Touché .... I did not express myself very carefully/clearly. What perhaps I should have said is that much of the "un-sourced" information in this Glossary relates directly to factual matters within the book. There may well be the need for outside sources for the fundamental assumption that Pullman's linguistic inventions are a significant component of the book, in context, I think that would constitute 'notability'.Pincrete (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns aside, you're right, and that's why I recommend for the content to be trimmed down to most important terms be merged into His_Dark_Materials#Settings.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Basically, I agree with Warden: for sufficiently major works of fiction articles like this help the reader and provide information important to understanding the work. I think they should be encouraged. BTW, has anyone made a proper source in professional sources for secondary material ? There's an immense and growing amount on Pullman, so the article has potential for expansion. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After boiling off the excess discussion about the award and the AfD at ru.wp, the consensus is clearly to delete for lack of notability. —Darkwind (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Zagraevsky[edit]

It looks like there are a bunch of copyvio pictures uploaded to Wikipedia and then bot-transferred to Commons as a result of these articles. Pffff - more cleanup to do
Sergey Zagraevsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). I put some more comments on his talkpage. See also deletion discussion for Mario Zampedroni - he is listed as the sole source of that article on a non-notable artist. Jane (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Ozolina, who has written the article, is the press secretary of Zagraevsky.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is interesting. so probably that whole Artists rating page should be deleted too. I noticed they only have about 50,000 artists, and I can only guess what percentage of that qualifies as "apprentice". The BBC's Your Paintings website has about 30,000 painters hanging in museums, and assuming they have mostly English artists, then this 50,000 is not nearly useful enough, plus it's a closed list. It has in any case not been useful on Wikipedia, because these articles are practically orphans. Jane (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whereas I see how one can argue that Zagraevsky is notable, I do not see how the Artists rating can be notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there is no evidence about it; for example, I searched Заграевский (his surname) in both museums (State Tretyakov Gallery and State Russian Museum) and there wasn't any result. It is quite likely that "his works" in museums and private collections are fake information based on nonexistent reliable, published sources. Jmvgpartner (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article went through an AfD on the Russian Wikipedia in 2012.[15] The result was Keep due to his winning the Honored Worker of Russian Culture Federation which was considered a significant prize. That would be WP:ANYBIO #1. Many other sources were posted in the AfD and on his wiki page. Probably the Russian version of the article needs to be translated to English. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To further add, the closing admin at the Russian Wikipedia determined this topic is notable based on a lengthy AfD investigation there. The closing rationale was because the Honored Worker honor is significant. I trust that judgement is probably accurate since no one challenged the closing admin or renominated the article. Further, the Russian AfD and article are so loaded with sources it could probably pass on mere WP:GNG grounds alone. COI is not a reason to delete, only a reason to examine sources and content more closely. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closing admin said "The first source confirms he won the заслуженного работника ("Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation"). The "source to confirm" he won the award is here.[16] It appears to be an official press release from the Kremlin. Signed by President Medevdev. This appears to be a significant honor (confirmed by the Russians at the Russian Wikipedia) and passes WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Russian Wikipedia does not consider the Honoured Worker to be sufficient for passing WP:GNG. The closing admin must have been plain wrong.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And accidentally he was later desysopped for gross policy breach on a regular basis.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "gross policy breach" in the Russian AfD. If the admin did something to get de-admin'd then they would have investigated past problems and fixed it. Or someone would have challenged the closure, or attempted a new AfD - none of those things happened. Attacking the admin is a logical fallacy that doesn't negate the position that the award is sufficient to pass ANYBIO #1, it's given (or announced) by the President of the Russia to a limited number of recipients, the award is of national scope and has a long history. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a Russian Wikipedia administrator for two years and closed thousands of AfDs. There is no policy which claims that Honoured Workers are notably. On the contrary, ru:Википедия:Кавалеры высших наград государства does not list them as notable. The closure was clearly erroneous, and, as I mentioned earlier, the closing admin was subsequently desysopped by the arbcom, in particular, for having no clue while summarizing discussions. Instead, Zagraevsky should have been evaluated against WP:GNG.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That list is the very highest honors of state. The rule the admin cited[17] is more inclusive and not limited by such elite awards. You say the AfD should have been only evaluated along GNG, but then what's the point of having other notability guidelines, we have multiple paths to notability, not just GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Wikipedia may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia, so, we can not assume that its rules apply here too. We have to evaluate if Zagraevsky meets the standards for notability here, for example, as mentioned in WP:CREATIVE:
  1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors: as you can check, there is no proofs.
  2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique: as you can check, there is no proofs.
  3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews: as you can check, there is no proofs.
  4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums: as you can check, there is no proofs.
So, If the 'only one' argument (the Prize) is shaky, how can we evaluate his 'automatic' relevante? In fact, the rule governing this award does not provide background to support 'automatic' relevance. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 03:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it clear, I am not saying he is not notable, I am saying the distinction of the Honoured Worker is not sufficient to establish notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russian English 
Почётное звание «Заслуженный работник культуры Российской Федерации» присваивается высококвалифицированным работникам учреждений, организаций и органов культуры, искусства, образования, полиграфии, печати, радио и телевидения, участникам самодеятельного творчества и лицам, участвующим в работе организаций, учреждений и органов культуры на общественных началах, за заслуги в развитии культуры и работающим в области культуры 15 и более лет.

The honorary title "Honored Worker of Russian Culture Federation" is assigned to highly qualified staff of institutions, organizations and institutions of culture, art, education, printing, print, radio and television, members of amateur art and persons, participants of organizations, institutions and cultural agencies, who rendered services to the development of culture and working in the field of culture for 15 years or more.

So, I don't think that it would be WP:ANYBIO #1, because it isn't "a well-known and significant award or honor". Also, Ozolina, who has written the article, is the press secretary of Zagraevsky, and she provided most of the links and info: WP:CONFLICT. There is no evidence about his works in State Tretyakov Gallery and State Russian Museum for example.

By-the-by, Artists Trade Union of Russia —who was written by Ozolina— was deleted in ru.WP where Ozolina wrote and defended the article. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • To further add, the Russian AfD and article are so loaded with sources written by Zagraevsky himself, thus, it seems that it couldn't probably pass on mere WP:GNG at all. How can we assume WP:NPOV when he written most of its "sourses"? So, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and in other cases, that fact qualifies for CSD:G11.
Remember, A notable topic will often be covered by Wikipedia articles in many languages other than English; however, the existence of such articles does not indicate, by itself, that a topic is notable. Other Wikipedias may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia. Notability requires coverage in reliable secondary sources, so, other versions of Wikipedia are not reliable sources. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird, because I was thinking the article about the rating was completely bogus and that maybe the Artists Trade Union of Russia could stay. Now you say *that* one is bogus. Sigh. I suppose I should go read all of those other links posted that were created by User:Ozolina. Isn't there a central place to do this across projects? Like give the Ozalina ones to the Spanish Wikipedia to study, and we'll do the "created by Zagraevsky" ones? It's so much work! Jane (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we look at the last version of this article by Ozolina [18], we see that the article was much better and more informative than now. Since that time it was going worse and worse. Of course, the last version without paintings and bibliography must be deleted. If the article will be kept I think that it must be kept in full version. The subject is really well-known in Russia.--Temp400 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    First edit of this user.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not true. I work in Ruwiki for long time. I've entered here because of strange discussion here: [19]. It has also started from English WIki, someone wrote in Commons that Zagraevsky does not exist, that this person is a fake: "The references are not reliable. For example, you can see that all the references come from the personal web of Заграевский, Сергей Вольфгангович. If not, the references are in web sites where everyone can edit his own name. There is a Library but the founder of the library is the same Zagraevsky. I know because he is in all wikis y all languajes and I've made a research of all the references. Those books don't exist. For example, you have in german many books but all of them were printed with information from Wikipedia in German: diff. All books are from source Wikipedia." And in parallel is the discussion here. Very strange situation, isn't it? Joke or smth else? One can see Zagraevsky, for example, in Youtube, he appears at TV very often. But I repeat that the article in current condition should be deleted or re-written considerably. --Temp400 (talk) 05:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the good advice. I've made a summary version of good English, art and bibliography. I think that the problem is that the subject has activities in different professions, so many people want to see only one of them. For example, German Wiki left only architecture history, because he is a professor of it. But I think that art must be noted too, though many people do not like Primitivism. Of course, now I vote for Keep. --Ozolina (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Strip out all the linkspam, and the unsubstantiated content and stuff only from WP:SPS,and we have next to nothing left. Maybe the author can improve sourcing to a level which is satisfactory to us. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 18:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability concerns, non-encyclopedic. Come back when you're ready...Modernist (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What can I do if there is a great number of Russian sources (some of them are in references) but almost no English ones? I thought that English Wiki is international as English language, so the people well-known in their countries must be included even if they are not known in USA or UK. If I'm mistaken then delete, of course. And then I'll forget about English WIki because it will become not interesting for me. I can work for Russia, my native country, or for the whole world, but not for US or UK, sorry. --Ozolina (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Russian sources are fine on English Wikipedia it makes no difference they count equally. It is possible to read them in English using Google Translate (not good translation but good enough to verify) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as Russian sources are reliable they are perfectly fine to use.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some new references to different scientific and other web-sites. One more thing: I do not understand why Russian Wiki criteria of significance of Honored workers in different spheres, including culture [20], does not work in English Wiki. It is like Legion of Honor in France or Sir in UK. --Ozolina (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Russian Wikipedia does not have a criterion that Honoured Workers are notable, either.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are misrepresenting. English Wikipedia does not have a static list of notable awards that only count in AfD, nor does the Russian Wikipedia. We look at the award and judge based on criteria such as how old it is, who gives it, who has received in the past, and how rare it is - all in the context of the specific article under discussion. This award is given by the President of Russia to only a few people a year. Within the class of people who receive it, regular teachers, it is considered a very prestigious honor. You may disagree with that opinion, but don't say the award is not on some static list and therefore not notable, it doesn't work like that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      My point is exactly this: The fact that someone received this award does not make the person automatically notable. Not here and not in Russian Wikipedia. The rest is plain wrong: there are many more than several people who receive this wawrd annually. This is why articles on Honoured Workers are routinely deleted on the Russian Wikipedia, if there is nothing else to prove notability. Also, you are not correct in saying there are no wawrds that make a person automatically notable. For example, members of National Academies are notable - and Zagraevsky, incidentally, has never been elected to the National Academy. In the context of specific article under discussion, the fact that Zagraevsky owns a paper signed by Putin does not prove anything at all, whatever you think about it.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well since "articles on Honoured Workers are routinely deleted on the Russian Wikipedia" do you have an example of that? Look at the "what links here" for previous deletion discussions. The only thing I see is one case that was Keep. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
village pump discussion, one more, not yet deleted, but see what is consensus in this discussion, deleted, kept, see discussion and closing comments, keep decision overturned, the situation is very close to what we are discussing here. Should this be sufficient to convince you that I am somehow familiar with the Russian Wikipedia policies after serving there three years as administrator? If yes, may be it is time to stop this discussion and turn to Jane's arguments.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here is the information about his scientific achievements (Google translation from here [21]:

The main range of historical and architectural research SV ZAGRAEVSKY - Old white-stone architecture, rannemoskovskogo architecture , architectural connection of ancient Russia and the Roman- Gothic Europe. The topic of his doctoral dissertation - " Architecture of the North -Eastern end of the first third of the XIII- XIV century."


The scientist managed :


- To specify the dates , the initial appearance , a number of other issues, the architectural history of the cathedral - the Assumption in Vladimir, the first of the Assumption ( Ivan Kalita ) in Moscow, Spassky in Andronicus monastery of Nativity in Suzdal, St George in Yuriev-Polsky , Demetrius in Vladimir, the Nativity of the Virgin in Bogolyubov , Old St. Nicholas ( Peter and Paul ) in Mozhajsk ; churches - the Intercession on the Nerl , Trifon Naprudnom , St. Nicholas in Kamenka , St. John the Baptist at The Settlement in Kolomna , Nativity of the Virgin in Gorodnya , Boris and Gleb in Kideksha , the Saviour in Vladimir, Nikon in the Trinity Sergius Lavra , Metropolitan Alexis ( Crucifixion bell ) in Alexandrov , Golden Gate in Vladimir;


- To reconstruct the process of production of white stone in the pre-Mongol Vladimir- Suzdal ;


- Show an incorrect version of the coming to Yuri Dolgoruky building the farm of Galich and determine a direct impact on the architecture of the times Dolgoruky Western Romanesque ;


- To show the key role in the development of Yuri Dolgoruky in Russia Romanesque ;


- To show that the white-stone architecture of ancient Russia was not just building techniques , and expressed the state power and imperial ideology ;


- To show that the direct source of ancient Russian architecture was the imperial Roman cathedral in the German city of Speyer ( Speyer ) ;


- To investigate the origins and circle the buildings of the architect that was sent to Andrew Bogoliubsky Emperor Frederick Barbarossa ;


- Clarify the issues of reconstruction and dating of the palace-temple ensemble Andrew Bogolyubski in Bogolyubov ;


- To show the inapplicability popular in the late twentieth century, the method of drawing up schemes transition building the farm as a self-sufficient basis for the dating of the temples ;


- Define Hellenism as the dominant aesthetic ideology of pre-Mongolian decor of Vladimir- Suzdal churches ;


- " Shed light " on a number of specific features of the ancient architecture of the late start of XIII- XIV century , which is traditionally considered the " dark years ";


- Define the " limit of reliability" of ancient Russian church architecture ;


- To allocate a number of characteristic features of ancient architecture of the end of the first third of the XIII- XV century , allowing it be called the era of " Russian Gothic ";


- Bring new architectural and archaeological evidence dating fidelity four ancient temples Alexander settlement 1510 ties - the time of Basil III;


- To determine how likely the New Aleviz 's ancient temples Alexander settlement ;


- To bring additional arguments in favor of the origin of the stone architecture of the wooden tent ;


- Follow a chain of "nearby " and "distant " grand , and then the royal estates of the XVI century by Ivan III to Boris Godunov ;


- To show that the bulbous shape of the heads of the church appeared in ancient Russia for the first time in the world and has been the most widely-used already in the XIII century, and helmet-shaped appeared much later as the " imitation of the old days ";


- To explore questions of genesis Groin vault and show that it was invented by the ancient Russian masters ;


- To determine the universal ( especially architectural ) purpose the shelf (chorus ) in the ancient temples ;


- To show that in ancient Rus' were common " defense " monasteries and temples.

If the article is kept, I'll translate this into as normal English as it is possible for me )) and include it into the article. Now I do not want to waste time if the article is deleted. Ozolina (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is not a reliable source though since it can be edited by every registered user.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1.Деятели немассового («высокого», серьёзного, актуального, элитарного) искусства — писатели, переводчики художественной литературы, музыканты, актёры, режиссёры, художники, фотографы, скульпторы и т. д., — пользующиеся устойчивой или противоречиво-скандальной репутацией в своём профессиональном сообществе, — независимо от их известности широкой публике. Доказательством такой репутации могут служить: 1.наиболее весомые, авторитетные и престижные профессиональные премии и другие награды (почётные стипендии, почётные звания и государственные награды в области искусства, избрание в состав авторитетных академий

Figures of non-mass art and culture [edit source code]

1.Deyateli non-mass ("high", serious, contemporary, elite) arts - writers, translators of fiction, musicians, actors, directors, artists, photographers, sculptors, etc., - are in steady-contradictory or controversial reputation in his professional community - regardless of their fame to the public. The proof of this reputation are: 1.naibolee weighty, authoritative and prestigious professional awards and other awards (honorary fellowships, honors and state awards in the field of art, election to the prestigious academies)

--Ozolina (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you noticed that the quote does not mention Honoured Workers. Neither other policies do. What is understood by state awards can be anything, and again I am sure you know that Russian Wikipedia does not recognize notability of anybody who ever was decorated by the state.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[23]:

Заслу́женный рабо́тник культу́ры Росси́йской Федера́ции — почётное звание, входящее в государственную наградную систему Российской Федерации. Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation - the honorary title, part of the state premium system of the Russian Federation.

I've just shown that there IS a criterion of significance of state awards in culture for Ruwiki and that Honored culture worker IS a state award in Russia. There is no such criterion in Enwiki so I cannot insist formally on article keeping. I shall not die if the article is deleted, Zagraevsky too ))) But my opinion on English Wiki as a really international source will change, sorry. I thought that, by idea, if an article exists in national Wiki it must exist in English Wiki. --Ozolina (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you, being a COI editor, seem to miss the point. A Honoured Worker is indeed a state award. The same way as the medal "30 years of labor" is. There are millions of people in Russia who are decorated by the state. Therefore, the state decoration does not make people notable. Not in Russia, not in the US, not in the UK, not in Paraguay. The policy which you cited only states that state decorations can contribute as a proof of notability. And they obviously do it in a different way. Someone who has got a State Prize of the Russian Federation is more likely (in fact, almost certain) to be notable that a Honoured Worker, and a Honoured Worker is more likely to be notable than someone who has a medal "30 years of labor". But it does not create notability automatically.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you want my opinion, it should be easier to prove that Zagraevsky passes WP:GNG than that he is notable as a scholar.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for advice. I've done what I could, gave references, and Wiki-community will decide what to do. There are different features of notability in all national Wikis, but if you had known Russian well enough you could have seen that a person with a state award in culture does not can, but must be in Ruwiki. It is a criterion. Honored worker of culture (or police, construction, law etc.) is not like "30 years of labor", it is a special honor for special people, like Legion d'Honneur, given not automatically. Well, it will be really no problem if the article is deleted, because 2 months ago Zagraevsky became a member of Russian State Academy of Arts [24], there is yet no reference on Academy's site, but as soon as it is appears there I'll restore the article and give the reference. I hope that it will be a decisive argument. I've saved the article so there will be no problem to restore. --Ozolina (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, I closed thousands of AfDs in the Russian Wikipedia, and I know that what you say about the Honored workers is not correct. Academy of Arts is obviously a much more serious claim.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Ymblanter, I've looked at your page and seen that your native language is Russian. Then you must know that there are no state awards in Russia only for years of work and all awards are given individually - "for services to the development of culture". And if you are Russian, why don't you offer in Ruwiki to delete the article about Zagraevsky? Where is your logic? May be, you are sure that the Russian article will not be deleted, so you are trying to delete it at least from Enwiki? May be, it is something personal? --Ozolina (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you please abstain from personal attacks in the future. I said above that I do not necessarily support the deletion, and this was not me who proposed the deletion. I actually did not vote on this page. However, I strongly oppose the notion that every Honored worker is notable. This is against the policy. I suggest that you read the whole discussion, since I have already made all these points at this very page. Concerning the Russian Wikipedia, I do not really care what happens there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The statement that there are no state decorations in Russia given for years of work is incorrect, and you can easily check it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • May be such decorations exist in army or police but not in culture. Honored worker of culture or anything else IS NOT given only for years of work. And for Ruwiki EVERY Honored worker in non-mass culture is notable. In the discussion above I've given all references, our colleagues can look who of us is right. Let us end this useless discussion.--Ozolina (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Your references do not actually support your statement. The usual ru.wiki practice is that People's workers are notable, Honored workers are not (solely on the basis of distinction).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      May be we should indeed stop arguing though, I am confident that the closing admin will read the discussion, and the ru.wiki policies are irrelevant here anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ozolina and Ymblanter, the problem is not whether Honored worker is enough to base a Wikipedia biographical article on. The problem is that the article claims he is a painter and an architecture writer. To support THESE claims, we need 1) link to notable paintings and 2) link to publications. Jane (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh no, it was a lifetime achievement, given to people with 35 years of service, relevant to some of the activities discussed in the article. I agree more sources are always nice to have but for the purposes of notability, WP:ANYBIO still applies here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dear Green Cardamom (talk, just to note that 35 years of service - in Russia it is "Veteran of Labor", and it is not a decoration but a pension status, so absolutely other as "Honored worker". And the subject is too young for 35 years of service, he is only 49 ))). Thanks for WP:ANYBIO reminding. --Ozolina (talk) 19:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment : You have to remind WP:CREATIVE too, and WP:CONFLICT. Besides, don't forget that Russian Wikipedia may have different inclusion criteria from the English Wikipedia, so, we can not assume that its rules apply here too, and if the 'only one' argument (the Prize) is shaky, why do we have to assume automatic relevance? so WP:ANYBIO doesn't apply, because Honored worker of culture IS given only for years of work or other lightweight reasons, which I won't mention [here] again, just read Russian Decree of December 30, 1995. "Lifetime achievement"? I don't think so. —Jmvgpartner (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability concerns, non-encyclopedic. Jmvkrecords ⚜ Intra Talk 22:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will be happy to userfy upon request. —Darkwind (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Supply[edit]

Logic Supply (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable company: only local sources, plus fastest growing 5000 . "Fastest growing" usually means "new and not yet notable" DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notable Company: Non-Local links in external reference. Also, cannot find definition of "Non Notable" --John.Donoghue (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Explaining, the external references do in fact contain product reviews, which I apologize for not noticing--I should have checked them more carefully-- and the question is whether they are sufficiently substantial and independent to support the article. (If so, the article would need to be rewritten to emphasise them as references). It's a little out of my field, so I ask advice: if they should be so considered, I will withdraw the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 27 August 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's certainly some coverage there but a good portion of the articles seem to simply be summaries of company-generated content (blog posts, videos and the like). There's coverage of some of their products but coverage of the company itself (the subject of this article) is very thin on the ground. Much of what might be considered coverage is very Burlington, Vermont-centric and is certainly "local" coverage. Most concerning is that in trying to establish the genesis of the coverage (as in, whether it's independent or just a reprint of company promo material) I find myself being constantly led back to this page which suggests the article creator has a not unsubstantial conflict of interest and calls into question whether Wikipedia is simply being used to promote the subject rather than cover it in an encyclopaedic fashion. Stalwart111 10:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feed back. Totally fair to call into question conflict of interest. I thought I was being clear on my COI, as the guidelines are pretty clear that I should be especially clear and be held to a higher stndard in these sorts of cases, that but its clear I was not and will try to remedy that. That said, given the edits and clean up that's been undertaken at suggestion, I think its much more in line with the encyclopedic simplicity and informational with a neutral tone. please let me know if I missed the mark.John.Donoghue (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, you have made a few edits since I posted (like this one) that have helped to improve the tone of the article and remove some of the more promotional content. Maintaining a neutral point of view is a good start and phrasing things in an encyclopaedic fashion helps, but I still haven't seen much effort being put into substantiating the notability of the company itself, which is our inclusion criteria here. What significant coverage has the company received beyond that which is available from local newspapers? What notable thing has the company done or achieved or built, beyond being one of 500 fast growing companies 5 years in a row (a fact which can only be verified by a press release/blog post from the company itself)? And I remain concerned about the conflict of interest (something you openly declared today) which has so far seen you make 14 edits to the article in question, 12 more than the next most prolific editor... me. I commend you for declaring your conflict and I'm not suggesting you have been/are being dishonest about it. I just think you might still be slightly short of what Wikipedia requires for a company to be included here. Under the circumstances, I certainly wouldn't oppose userfication to allow you to continue to work on the article in your own space until some of that significant coverage has been generated. If you hold the role I think you do, you're likely responsible for those efforts too. Spend some time promoting the company away from Wikipedia and then we can cover it here. It's not going to work if you try it the other way around. Stalwart111 05:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. I wanted to make sure I had my COI i's dotted and t's crossed before I waded into the next part. I really appreciate you saying I was not being clear enough so I could fix that. I do have a lot of touches on the article, in no small part because I was having a heck of a time with character inserts and formatting for the side bar and logo, but that's not an excuse. So as to the level of inclusion, I am still not clear on Wikipedia's guidelines on size/significance. Is it a play by ear? Is thinks like the Inc 5000 2013 list a good start? I look at a company page like [Chassis Plans], a contemporary in size, fields, reach and age. Should they be taken down as well? Ok Maybe they need to clean up their self linking referential press releases but I think that sort of info is useful not to the companies, but to searchers and users of Wikipedia. Or at least, it seems like it should be. I am not talking about Wikipedia as a Yellow pages mind you (a horrifying thought), but rather as a quick references source for users to see who a company is without the polish and veneer of their corporate branding and marketing spin. Now, there is definitely a major concern about marketing and COI with companies, and I ran into this when I was working on the CYOA page which required full clarity and disclosure on any and all changes because I agree, its got to be about the information, and information should be neutral. Thank you by the by for engaging in this conversation! John.Donoghue (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inclusion criteria doesn't relate to size but to "notability" - a specifically defined quality here at Wikipedia. You should start by having a read of WP:GNG (Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline) and then WP:CORPDEPTH (the guideline that sets out the level of coverage expected before a company is considered notable). Given you are as free to nominate other articles for deletion as the nominator here is to nominate this one, suggesting that other articles of a comparable quality also exist is not considered a very strong argument. If it, too, is not notable, you are free to nominate it for deletion. While the idea of a spin-free directory of businesses might sound like a lovely idea, Wikipedia is quite particularly not a directory (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Wikipedia's aim is to record companies (and other things) deemed to be of such historical significance that they warrant preservation in the annals of history. We base that judgement on what other people have said (and the extent to which they have said it) in reliable sources. Like I said, consider whether it is worth your while preserving the content in your own space here (which Wikipedia is happy for you to do) until such time as you have generated a few more articles that give the company significant coverage. In reality, that isn't too hard. Then it can be moved back. In that regard, you should also have a read of WP:TOOSOON. If it's not notable yet, you'll do your reputation more harm than good (as you can imagine) by trying to shoehorn your article into Wikipedia when it simply isn't ready. Give it a few months and it might be a different story. Stalwart111 13:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did indeed fall into that trap other articles of a comparable quality also exist. Good call, rookie move. I think I was saying the same thing about the directory though, Wikipedia is not Directory or yellow pages, but rather a resource for information. Totally agree. But I digress, let me refocus back to the Notability. Does "Logic Supply was the first Mini-ITX online distributor in the United States" qualify as notable? I did real the notability standards, and 3rd party articles makes perfect sense and I tried to include ones that were not just regurgitation of Logic's press releases. While some are Vermont based, media sources like the Vermont Business Magazine and The Burlington Free Press have very good reps. Are they not viable?John.Donoghue (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think both the Vermont Business Magazine and the The Burlington Free Press are probably both reliable sources, but that's not really the issue. For a company to be notable we generally expect the company to have been the subject of more than just local coverage (thus my comment above about "local" coverage). Every local car dealership or hardware store is likely to get some coverage at some stage (product launches, business openings, break-ins, sponsorship of a local sporting team, annual sales). It's fairly arbitrary but editors would normally expect coverage from other states, even other countries - verification that the company has made a significant impact, enough to have been noticed by media from outside their area. Being the first online distributor of a particular form factor probably isn't enough of a claim to notability. Had they invented the small form factor, different story. Stalwart111 05:43, 13 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) 17:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The local press coverage doesn't establish notability. On the other hand, Anandtech, and Tom's Hardware are reliable sources which I would use to count towards notability. And although the coverage is not specifically about the company, it's about their products and clearly associates the products to the company in the reviews which are significant. However, coverage in two different sources isn't enough for me. If there were other publications or sources with equivalent coverage, it might push it over for me. -- Whpq (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as everyone above says there seems to be at least "some" evidence of notability and John.Donoghue's contributing to this discussion says that there is an intent on the creator's part to improve this misplaced draft and make the claims of notability more obvious. Technical 13 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hippogriff. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hippogriff (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Hippogriff (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This creature does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go along with what BOZ suggests. Deletion would also be acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an iconic monster of the game since the beginning and was featured in Pathfinder, or merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons monsters (1974–1976). BOZ (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pathfinder is a separate gaming system from D&D and so primary source appearances in there do nothing to establish the WP:GNG threshold of third party sources discussing the subject of the article (the D&D hippogriff) in a significant manner. If you think the subject of the article should be hippogriff (Dungeons and Dragons and clone games, then the Pathfinder is still just a primary source with no value towards the WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to some fanboy site that loves trivia. My search found no third party reliable sources discussing the topic in a significant manner, although google books was being kind of wonky and not letting me get beyond page 6 of the results. It seems possible that this creature /might/ be the subject of such coverage and so if one appears in the course of the AfD, I am more than willing to change my position to keep, but until then failure of WP:GNG means delete or merge. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there seems to be a lack of sources that would ever add the required real world context to this article. Merging totally ignores this issue and just creates masses of large messy unencyclopedic articles, brushing things under the rug for eternity is not dealing with the problems of non-notable fictional content that has no hope of ever displaying real world context. We have been merging things for going on a decade and now we just have larger merged articles that need to be dealt with. Ridernyc (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Hippogriff, which is the same eagle/horse/lion thing anyway. A robust article which talks of the critter from antiquity to modern depictions would be fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hippogriff, as I have been unable to find more than just passing mentions. I totally agree with Casliber; we should look to targeting the original folklore/historical articles when we can't find enough to keep the D&D creature separate, and use the D&D books to expand such articles. I did a small proof of concept article at Sha'ir a few months ago. —Torchiest talkedits 12:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is still primary sources. All the publication in the D&D books can provide is a "Looky, looky, I seen it here!" - no context or analysis which is what encyclopedic coverage is supposed to be.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - our sourcing guidelines are just that - guidelines. If we are talking about a section on a page, or using primary sources to flesh out some noncontroversial details, then that is not a huge problem. Do we need out of universe discussion? Absolutely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood me. I'm not saying we should move the entire D&D publication history into the main Hippogriff article. And using the D&D sourcebooks would not be primary for that article, because the point would be to describe modern culture appropriations of the idea, and mention some of the similarities and differences with the historic/folklore traditions. Look at the Sha'ir article to see what I mean. I didn't mention every little rule and detail, but described a few key distinctions. I think that is a quite legitimate way to go about writing things where D&D has adapted creatures for its own purposes. —Torchiest talkedits 03:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
using the D&D books to talk about the D&D monster is indeed using them as "primary" sources. "An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident;" and "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. ...Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. " so in all practical and rational interpretations what we would be doing: using the books published by D&D to show that the hippogriff has appeared in books published by D&D. the content from here can provide to the mythological hippogriff article is "The hippogriff appeared in 6 editions of Dungeons and Dragons (D&D sourcebook 1) (D&D sourcebook 2)(D&D Sourcebook 3-6)". ... so? as far as any "encylopedic content" when looking at the subject of the article the mythological hippogriff goes, there is no there there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are not primary sources if the subject of the article is not the D&D creature. The subject of the main Hippogriff article is the creature from folklore. It would be quite straightforward and perfectly acceptable to add a new section titled Modern interpretations or something similar, with text as follows:
  • The fantasy role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons includes a version of the creature, which is described as having a horse's "ears, neck, mane, torso, and hind legs" and an eagle's "wings, forelegs, and face". According to the game's rules, the creatures are closely related to griffons and pegasi. –Monstrous Manual, p. 190, TSR, 1993
I don't see that as either a primary source or original research. How could it be? It is giving a particular rules-based interpretation of a creature from folklore. And such a section could be expanded with info from other games or especially Buckbeak from the Harry Potter books. —Torchiest talkedits 13:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
when a source talks about itself, it is a primary source. when a D&D sourcebook is used to describe the D&D monster, it is a primary source, no matter what article it appears in. And while there is no glaring issues wrong with your suggested wording (there is a potential of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE in that the inclusion itself is implying some type of importance of the appearance in D&D), there is also no actual improvement to be gained from such a statement in the hippogriff (mythological creature) article - the critter was one of thousands of critters used in a game -so what. Thats just trivia. If there was a source talking about how the appearance of hippogriff in D&D caused a spur of use in all the other fantasy games that came after or describing how the mythological aspects of the D&D version had been modified to meet particular roles and functions in the game or even that the appearance in D&D meant that generations of game geeks now knew what a hippogriff was, then sure. But if we had those sources, then there would be no reason to merge the hippogriff (D&D critter) article in the first place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm trying to make this clearer. The distinction between the "D&D monster" and the mythological/folkloric creature is an entirely artificial one. D&D adaptations are essentially modern folklore. What I wrote was just a basic example, and hardly the entirety of what could be written. Again, the creature has been used in other games, and it would be possible to write something to that effect. I think there is an important difference between D&D using a creature that is hundreds or thousands of years old and D&D writers making up a completely new creature. In the latter case, I think what you're saying would apply more accurately. And if the hippogriff article were to be expanded to say, good article status, a complete history would necessarily include modern interpretations. —Torchiest talkedits 12:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While yes, a good article on hippogriff (mythological creature) would include content on modern interpretations and placing it in the modern contex, they would need to be third party sources placing it in the modern context and not just "Looky looky!! I seen it here!!!!". I am hard pressed to see any possibilities of expansion beyond what is in your your initial sample that could be written based on the primary sources present and not be analysis, synthesis or personal commentary. Yes it exists, but no encyclopedic context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the beginning of the Characteristics and habits section is pretty precisely the kind of content I'm talking about: "Unlike the proud and majestic hippogriffs of myth, hippogriffs in Dungeons & Dragons are fairly bestial, being far less intelligent than griffons." —Torchiest talkedits 13:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to go with the idea, but beware of original research, I already see a potential issue at Sha'ir.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:36, 17 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hippogriff. Gary Gygax "once received a letter asking how many eggs a hippogriff lays". Gary Alan Fine, Shared Fantasy: Role Playing Games as Social Worlds (2002), p. 33. bd2412 T 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hippogriff, per the reasoning of Torchiest and Cas Liber. The D&D books have adaptations of the historical concept of the Hippogriff and are fine as references showing examples of a modern view of the beasts. --Mark viking (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per the above, with the caveat that as an AfD outcome, that the removal of D&D-related content from the general article would be at least as much editing against consensus as re-breaking out the article without improving the sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • an AfD with a dozen participants cannot mandate that content be maintained forever in a merge target article if the editors of the target article determine that the sourcing / content is not appropriate.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, errr, yes, all material should have sourcing that is true...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best defense against editors with a bad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT for a merged topic is to watchlist the target page and contest any removal of reasonable, well-sourced material. --Mark viking (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such a caveat would blatantly contradict the consensus I see here, and our editing policies. Editors with a bad case of WP:ILIKEIT, trying to game the system by resurrecting a non-notable article through a notable one, would be reported right away at WP:ANI. WP:MERGE does not specify that all content is to be merged, and WP:PSTS clearly advises against basing "large passages" on primary sources. As Hippogriff (Dungeons & Dragons) is based entirely on primary sources and is already quite lenghty, it will need to be shortened to a mention.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hippogriff (or List of D&D monsters) since the article fails WP:GNG, and shorten the content to a mention/example per WP:PSTS.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Several of the "keep" comments self-identify as weak and are based on an apparent feeling that this person should be notable due to their involvement in a webcomic. That may be true but we can't make editorial decisions based on our feelings. Given the weak or questionable sourcing the "delete" camp presents a more compelling argument. Willing to userfy for further development if requested. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Morgan-Mar[edit]

AfDs for this article:
David Morgan-Mar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing but primary sources. Found no secondary sourcing whatsoever, just passing mentions. Last AFD was part of a bundle in 2006 that closed as "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added some secondary sources to go with the one secondary source (New Scientist) already there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, all just passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mentions which appear to be sufficient for Wikipedia inclusion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Appear by whose standards? "Non-trivial third party" is pretty much set in stone, you know. And I don't see how these are non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just passing mentions by whose standards? Newcastle Herald may be a passing mention, but Wired.com (a short article about Morgan-Mar's interaction with Jane Goodall), MakeUseOf (a section on Morgan-Mar's Piet), and e23 (about Morgan-Mar's GURPS & Pyramid work) are not, you know. And I don't see how these are trivial. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The wired link is beyond trivial, calling it an article is a vast exaggeration it's a a one paragraph blurb that reads like a personal congratulatory post a message board. Totally falls short of significant coverage. Ridernyc (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the person whom the article is about, I just want to say that I have no particular stake in whether the article is kept or deleted, and will not campaign for either option. I trust the users of Wikipedia to make a fair decision. -dmmaus (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Out of the 9 sources in the article, 1 (#1) I cannot check as it is not online. 2, (#2, #7) are about Morgan-Mar (although #2 is short.) 1 (#3) mentions him somewhat in passing. The rest are primary sources.
There may be a few more sources on this old revision: Irregular Webcomic! Googling also turned up a few other sources BrickComicNetwork interview, Erdös number (whatever that's worth), something about an art gallery. a blog covering Darths & Droids, another blog covering Darths & Droids. I imagine there would be further sourcing relating to his other projects. OSborn arfcontribs. 15:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The art gallery thing is a directory listing that only mentions him in passing, and the two blogs are unreliable self-published sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The blogs are reliable non-independent sources. Non-independent sources can still be reliable, as in this case. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes them reliable? They appear to be just some random joe's blogs. Are the people who wrote them notable, or experts in their field? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:ABOUTSELF. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Doesn't apply. If David wrote those blogs himself, then they'd be fine. But he didn't. WP:ABOUTSELF is about sources, well, about yourself. And David didn't write either blog. Try again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • You and I are referring to different citations then. Try again, with more specification. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see my confusion. I thought the blogs above were repeats of the ones in the article, including the author's own. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BIO. as discussed above, most of the sources are not indepth or do not meet reliable sources. also trove search doesn't show much either. LibStar (talk) 01:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BIO doesn't require most of the sources to do anything, just that sufficient sources meet the standard. None of the sources on the page are unreliable. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So by that logic, I could have a Wikipedia article because of the three or four articles in my local paper that just mentioned me in passing. WP:GNG, which supercedes WP:BLP, says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I'm not seeing any significant coverage. A whole bunch of name-drops and primary sources do not notability make. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's not the same logic. Wired.com (a short article about Morgan-Mar's interaction with Jane Goodall), MakeUseOf (a section on Morgan-Mar's Piet), and e23 (about Morgan-Mar's GURPS & Pyramid work) are not three or four articles in your local paper mentioning you in passing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of substantial coverage in independent sources. Ridernyc (talk) 02:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The sources are not great, but Irregular Webcomic is a very well-known webcomic and his work on esoteric programming languages is about as notable. I think both things combined justify an article. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required to satisfy WP:GNG and fails to provide evidence the subject might be notable under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are all WP:QUESTIONABLE blogs, trivial mentions, copies of WP articles and WP:PRIMARY sources. Googling turns up nothing useful. This is an easy call. Msnicki (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources might not be the greatest, but he does have an impact with the webcomic, programming language work and his work for Steve Jackson Games. I found some papers written by him on the subject of optics. Jarkeld (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" I found some papers written by him on the subject of optics" does not equate to being notable. anyone can write papers. where is the 3rd party coverage of his "impact". LibStar (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment There's no clear consensus yet as to whether the depth/breadth of coverage is sufficient. -- Trevj (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Trevj (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Novil Ariandis. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 17:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Easy call. Sources are either self-published or passing, trivial mentions, even single sentences. Nothing here approaches WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Rangoondispenser (talk) 16:01, 4 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) 17:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His work on webcomics passes notability. This is a holding article for an artist and his work. The combination of these two subjects is notable. We also have 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could find nothing in WP:ANYBIO or elsewhere in the guidelines to support a claim that his webcomics establish his notability in lieu of sources. And could you point us at the 3rd party sources you rely on? Msnicki (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes[edit]

List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE, WP:N and WP:IINFO. No sources for tables of information containing results of individual game show episodes. List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes#Chaser records section contains tables of WP:OR manual calculations based upon earlier unreferenced information.

This is not a television series with fictional plot synopses that should be chronicled in an article, and the specific details of results from a television game show episode do not meet WP:GNG. Results of an individual episode of a game show are seldomly notable, and rarely covered in any independent source except maybe on fansites. Top-prize winners may sometimes get media coverage and merit mention in the main article, but this is not the case in this article.

Information on individual game show episodes is sub-trivial and not instrumental to understanding the topic in the manner that fictional/dramatized TV series episodes are.

Game show episodes do not develop or advance the show in any way. Episodes that do stand out (introduction of a new game feature, special guest, etc.) are best noted in the main series article as part of its history.

Related deletion discussions of episode listings for game shows:

AldezD (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is nothing wrong with this list of episodes as a page. There are thousands of other "lists of" shows including shows like Red or Black?, Have I Got News For You, 8 Out of 10 Cats, Fake Reaction, Million Pound Drop, Grand Designs - not all of these are hugely popular and successful - however they are still noted. A lot of work and time has gone into creating these over the years and these statistics are in neat, not overpopulated tables with regards to WP:IINFO, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_may_not_be_needed this states that "if the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information.". As seen in all the pages above - this is like the rest and it has been created to list the statistics rather than use space on the main article. Statistics and "Chaser Records" are commonly seen and used, and even mentioned in the show itself so it seems counterproductive to remove these. I would like to point out with WP:N - articles require "Significant coverage"" which applies, "Reliable" - the source is a TV show broadcasted which is directly reliable, sources are NOT required to be available online. As with all the TV episode tables linked above - a reference is not needed for these.

Adrianw9 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your argument is essentially WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Vast listings of game show episode results—which in and of themselves are no different than any other episode within that series—do not meet WP:GNG, and is not what WP:EPISODE is intended to cover as this show does not feature any fictional elements or plot synopses to summarize. Overall records can be included in the main page if you use Template:Cite episode; however, that is entirely different than listing the result of every single episode of a game show. AldezD (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And your argument is essentially WP:UNRS. The only reason you don't like this is because there is no hard web reference on here. If you see all the pages above - they all have long lists of results (some rather extensive) and they are not a problem. The tables are collapsible and not extensive. I have no idea why this is such a problem after four years. Adrianw9 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I cannot find how this violates all these rules so badly! For example, your WP:IINFO so called Violation says "consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists", which has been done neatly. Whether it is important is a matter of your opinion. You've repeated the same example in WP:NOT#STATS. I would say this doesn't violate the WP:EPISODE because it receives fair coverage - take viewers: we list extensive tables for 8 Out of 10 Cats, when it receives half the viewers as The Chase! Adrianw9 (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I dont want to sound too much like "ILIKEIT" but I hage been looking at these tables for years and I've even seen contestrsnts mention stats from here on the show! Its a popular page, neatly presented and a popular programme. Pww901 (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic list! - Fails WP:GNG & WP:LISTCRUFT.-→Davey2010→→Talk→ 19:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons given in the nomination. Edison (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One source in the entire page, and that just deals with the release of taping tickets. Otherwise this sounds like the AfD's the nom listed as examples; complicated way to tell us 'these people won' and 'these people lost' and better on another site than here. Nate • (chatter) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial information, completely unencyclopedic to descend to this level of excessive detail. Unsourced and probably completely unsourceable from reliable, 3rd-party sources. AldezD has already set out the alphabet soup of problems with this article, so I won't repeat the shortcuts. BencherliteTalk 18:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Maybe the information in the article could be moved to another website? Perhaps to a smaller wiki such as one of the alternative outlets listed here, or maybe to a forum or personal weblog. Be careful to follow the requirements imposed by the CC-BY-SA license. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 19:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cruft, though I think the statistics in the "Chaser records" might serve some encyclopaedic purpose, so could be merged back to the show's main article. –anemoneprojectors– 15:43, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually deletion followed by a partial merge would not work for GFDL reasons. However, a redirect with a partial merge would be just fine. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, especially as that section has been edited in this list. I notice that GFDL wasn't respected when splitting this article from the main one though. –anemoneprojectors– 14:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chaser/contestant records section contains large amounts of WP:IINFO. There are currently 18 separate criteria listed. At what point does adding additional criteria/measurements stop, and what are you suggesting to be merged back into the main article that doesn't fall under WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#STATS? Also, each of the records would need to be sourced using Template:Cite episode with the episode date. AldezD (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all of it falls under WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:IINFO, WP:NOT#STATS then none of it should be merged. I just thought those particular stats (specifically in the "Chaser records" section) might be encyclopaedic. I don't see them as indiscriminate information, but as an overall summary of the entire show. Probably only the first four or five columns are needed. These columns are for the entire programme so the source is actually every episode that has ever been broadcast. Obviously 419 citations in a row is ridiculous. –anemoneprojectors– 17:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it would require 419 citations because no-one else has compiled these statistics and recorded them in a reliable third-party source, then those stats too are not worth keeping or merging elsewhere (for the alphabet soup of reasons already given), are in reality unverifiable and are probably pure original research. BencherliteTalk 18:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, unless someone actually has compiled this information elsewhere in a reliable third-party source. I'm not going to try to find out though, so that small piece of information probably won't be merged. –anemoneprojectors– 15:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful, encyclopedic information. I would not oppose a merger or movement, however, but I would oppose deletion.--Launchballer 16:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful and interesting information. L1v3rp00l (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I don't comment on editors but you're right, that is unbelievable. Changing vote to speedy keep on that basis.--Launchballer 11:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing more than unsourced listrcruft of episodes of a conventional game show. Other than the results of straight Q&A segments, there are no elements that differ from one episode to another. There are no panelists that change from week to week, no special segments, no comedic elements, no creative storytelling, etc. AldezD (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really understand what the nominator finds so wrong about these lists - yes, they may be seen as excessive but WP:EPISODE encourages this kind of thing. We shouldn't need to provide 300+ sources for each single result and I do question the nominators WP:COMPETENCE, from articles that are slightly similar (accepted they are different genre shows) like similar AFD. These both have lists of episodes too. I also don't particularly appreciate every argument to "keep" being belittled by the nominator - one of the points of WP is to provide useful and interesting information, so just to brand every one of these as WP:ILIKEIT is unfair. We are pefectly clear of the nominator's reasons. I'd like to know how WP is supposed to benefit from this article's deletion too. Changing to speedy keep.Adrianw9 (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:EPISODE states that "All articles on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, which state that…A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This article has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, and the entire article is entirely unreferenced. The guidelines also state that "While each episode on its own may not qualify for an article, it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page, where all the episodes in one season (or series) are presented on one page…Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory." This article is nothing more than WP:LISTCRUFT, and falls under WP:NOT#STATS, WP:IINFO. Individual episodes of game shows do not meet criteria in WP:GNG.
Additionally, if you have questions or concerns as to my WP:COMPETENCE, open up a discussion at WP:ANI. Comments such as that—which are not directly related to the deletion discussion of this specific article—do not belong in an AfD. AldezD (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly aware of your point of view, thank you very much. I don't need you to repeat yourself again. We will work to add a couple of references but unless you can find a rule that says that every single thing in a table needs to be sourced, then my vote remains to keep. I would describe the article content as significant coverage when 3million people+ watch it when it is broadcast on a popular TV channel. Where are we supposed to get references from? They aren't needed on HIGNFY or QI episode lists. I'm not arguing again on this. Adrianw9 (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A show with high ratings does not constitute "significant coverage" for statistics for individual game show episode results. Yes, the show is a hit—but that does not mean an episode listing of a multiple series game show meets WP:GNG, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Significant coverage would be these individual episodes being described in detail on independent, verifiable and sourced websites. Simply having a television show watched by millions does not automatically validate the tables upon tables of unreferenced information. AldezD (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps rather than continuing to conflict on this an option could simply be to merge back to the original page rather than have it separate. It seemed fine there before - I created the page because perhaps the stats deserved a separate page under WP:IINFO but it seems a lot simpler to merge this article back. Especially the Chaser records section which I think is a worthy contribution. Perhaps as per WP:LISTCRUFT we get rid of the long episode results lists, and then place the summary tables back in the original article. Adrianw9 (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This information does not meet WP:GNG based upon the guidelines linked above, and it does not belong in the main article, either. If you're adding chaser records for individual episodes, use Template:Cite episode, but aggregate individual chaser performances over a period of time/series of episodes using manual calculations based on unreferenced data should not be included. AldezD (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is encyclopaedic and has notable information.--82.45.79.122 (talk) 03:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the information notable? Has it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? –anemoneprojectors– 15:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. List of Doctor Who serials and List of Top Gear episodes are pages that detail episode information of plot-driven or documentary television series with individual episodes that meet guidelines in WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE (speicifically, the plots/documentary subjects of these episodes are detailed and covered in periodicals like TV Guide, other online programming guides, etc.). List of The Chase (UK game show) episodes is an aggregation of unsourced statistics for individual game show episodes that are not detailed in similar television programming guides or other independent sources. AldezD (talk) 18:26, 13 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) 17:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Or we could just put this back on the Chase UK's page, Tipping Point also suffered the same fate.86.30.111.102 (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete per WP:LISTN. Obviously a lot of work has gone into creating the content, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to meet the encyclopedic content guidelines. Much of the information is unverified, resulting in original research. A full merge doesn't seem viable, as the extensive content would then be undue. Perhaps a selective merge would then result in the list being redirected, preserving its history in case anyone thinks that could be used later. -- Trevj (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into the main article and redirect to it. According to the edit summary upon creation of this page, even the creator was sure of whether it was a good idea to split it off (requested discussion on talk page which never happened), so the best option here is to just merge it back in. Technical 13 (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination effectively withdrawn, sourcing vastly improved within the constraints of that which seems available, WP:NPASR if doubts remain about sourcing. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ledger (software)[edit]

Ledger (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability established (tagged since Oct 2011)- no references Vrenator talk 10:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No refs, no evidence of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree with this - it has only basic details so needs more detail and proper sources. Which I doubt will happen as the article is 2 years old! Adrianw9 (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Added two solid cites (lwn.net and linux.com), but as best I can tell there's nothing else out there in the way of reliable sources. If anyone else can dig up a couple of more cites I'm happy to reconsider, but as it stands this doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would have liked to see at least one more source, but I think we can build a solid article with what we have now. Change to Keep. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Added reference from Floss weekly. To cite WP:NSOFT: “It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources[3] for free and open source software, if significance can be shown.” There are sources from 2006, 2011 and 2012, showing that this is no short-term bubble. Coverage in LWN.net is significant in Free Software. (I came here because wanted give the advise to check Ledger and even before I got to send the link, I saw the deletion request on Wikipedia…). Draketo (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain— I have been the maintainer of the Ledger documentation since late 2011. I have to admit that I have never bothered to even look at the WP entry for Ledger. However, if it would make the difference between keeping the entry and deleting I would be happy to bring it up to date. I will not comment on Ledger's notability, except to say I believe all the second sources have been cited.Enderw88 (talk) 03:19, 8 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) 17:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— When listed this article had no sources. That seems to have been rectified now. Vrenator talk 09:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Keep It seems from the sources especially http://lwn.net/Articles/501681/ that this might be influential software. I can say only a "weak" keep because I am not competent to actually evaluate the quality of the sourcing here. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— Ledger is used by not only users such as myself, but nonprofits such as (at least) the Software Freedom Conservancy. There's considerable possibility that Ledger may be used as a base for a more streamlined interface for nonprofits given Conservancy's recent campaign. That seems like a reasonable enough reason to me? --Cwebber (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep— At this point there are three references within the free/libre open source software community as to the software. Considering the balkanization of tech media relative to topical coverage, I will say that that is going to be good enough. If somebody is seeking coverage in the Wall Street Journal, CNET, or the PCMag Digital Network of this program then there is an overenthusiastic application of WP:NSOFT happening here. Smk (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bazim-Gorag[edit]

Bazim-Gorag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of Dungeons & Dragons through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge into Slaad. BOZ (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that for all of these pages, a merge should be proposed before any deletion is proposed. There is no argument that these are, for example, hoaxes or vanity pages. bd2412 T 18:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge discussions are allowed at AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, they're not. See Wikipedia:PEREN#Rename_AFD for a bit of the history. In order for a deletion discussion to be started, there must be a good-faith assertion that an article should be deleted, even if a merger is a permissible outcome. See also WP:SK item 1. Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no indication of notability, and I can't find any sources. This kind of cruft belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'merge or a break-out keep if slaad article becomes too large. Not a hoax. not sure it will get the prerequisite two independent sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note : the claim of independent sources is not met. The only sources are the creator TSR, Wizards of the Coast after WoC purchased TSR , and Piazo which is the officially licensed publisher of D&D content. If you have independent third party sources, please provide them.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • transwiki to the fanboy site. fails WP:N for a stand alone article, so here we should delete or merge if there is appropriate content and an appropriate target article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the great pantheon of D&D personalities, a boss baddie that appears in two dungeons is nothing. I'm not necessarily saying that in order to have an article it has to be at Drizzt Do'Urden level, appearing in several series of books and having a major cultural impact, but it still needs to have notability, and I don't see this as meeting WP:GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Slaad or Delete. No reliable, independent secondary sources, so this fails to establish notability per WP:GNG and can't remain as a stand-alone.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of sources to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Slaad as a possible search term. It looks like it's getting about 1000 hits a year. —Torchiest talkedits 21:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Slaad as a possible search term. Notability is unclear. Deletion should be last resort per WP:FAILN 42of8 (talk) 19:01, 9 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) 17:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arguments above regarding independence of sourcing set the bar too high. Fact is, multiple separate companies have published material detailing this fictional element in multiple separate (although admittedly related) game systems. Jclemens (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the only way they could possibly be considered "separate" companies is if you completely ignore the fact that one was bought out by the other and all its related intellectual property rights, and one is officially licensed producer of content. the bar is no higher here than it is for WP:POKEMON. Your ITICCDMPRIPR position is not one that is supported by any rational reading or application of WP:GNG -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:BLP1E clearly applies here, which is more important than meeting the letter of WP:GNG (which is the only valid "keep" argument that was put forward). If one or more editors feel that UBS#2008-09 U.S. tax evasion controversy isn't sufficiently detailed, I suggest expanding that material into a separate article, where Gadola can be mentioned. —Darkwind (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Renzo Gadola[edit]

Renzo Gadola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article appears not to merit an article under the guidelines at WP:CRIMINAL. By the article and by the stated intent of the article's creator, this is being used as a WP:COATRACK to build the entire scandal and other BLPs around this individual, who does not appear to have been the key player. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of my intentions The idea that I am building the "entire" UBS tax evasion scandal around Renzo Gadola is incorrect. There's nothing in the article that says he is the mastermind of the UBS tax scandal. Why Gadola is significant is that he is the first person who revealed the usage of regional Swiss banks by American tax evaders once UBS, a major international bank, in accordance with its agreement with the United States, cracked down on American citizens' use of its numbered accounts to hide assets and evade taxes. (The final Swiss-American tax treaty was signed a few days ago, so this scandal is ongoing, and it is ongoing because of bankers like Gadola and the bankers he fingered.) He helped the U.S. DOJ and IRS with its crackdown on tax cheats and their enablers using this new venue.

Is he a criminal? Gadola and his confederates urged Americans to defy the US tax authorities. even after the crackdown on Americans and the IRS amnesty. He certainly is a player and he is one of the only Swiss bankers to be brought to justice. Furthermore, he revealed (and participated) in a conspiracy that defrauded the United States government of northwards of US$500 million. Is someone who engaged in a crime that racked up more "loot" than Whitey Bulger, John Dillinger, or any other garden-variety hood with an article in Wiki ver dreamed of qualify as a criminal? I think so. Just because it is a white collar crime doesn't mean that Gadola and his confederates aren't criminals. Their arrest and conviction was covered by the business press.

If Gadola is not included in this encyclopedia, where will researchers find out about him. By a random search of periodical articles that may disappear in time? If he is just a footnote in another article, the significance of his crime and his cooperation with the United States is lost.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 02:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a collection of True Crime stories. Just read the lead of this, that's all it's about is an alleged crime and an arrest. BLP-1E for those of you needing an assessment with a little more substance. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Carrite, it's not about an alleged" crime. The person and his confederate were convicted, while one remains a fugitive from justice. These people were prosecuted by the DOL Tax Div.'s top prosecutor as part of the UBS tax evasion scandal. I rewrote the intro to front-load the info on his conviction and his importance.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to fall under WP:BIO1E and/or WP:BLP1E. He might be worth mentioning in a relevant article, but doesn't appear to warrant a separate article. - Aoidh (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the consensus emerging seems to be that under the bio guidelines, despite his key role in opening up the UBS tax evasion investigation (and helping it widen to other banks), it would be more relevant for him (and his confederates) to be added to an article on say the UBS tax evasion scandal? (There currently isn't a stand-alone one, but maybe there should be.)Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd like to make my case for keeping the article. It's an argument based on five points, other than the fact that I do think that Renzo Gadola does merit an article (which already have been mentioned).
    • Argument number one is the "Hall of Fame" argument, which is basically, since So 'n' So is in the Hall of Fame, Such 'n' Such should be too. (Classic example was Orlando Cepeda and Jim Rice; Rice eventually did get in.) Renzo Gadola's "Orlando Cepeda" would be Rudolf Elmer. There are also many articles in Wikipedia with import far less than Gadola's crime.
    • Argument number two is the criteria for notability as a criminal, specifically, a white collar criminal. I don't think white collar criminals should be "shortchanged" by Wiki as society privileges "blue-collar criminals" who engage in violence. This plays into the "historical" value of someone like Gadola; as his crime was unspectacular in the tabloid sense (though quite spectacular to the financial and regulatory world), this means he has less value as a subject. Notoriety and significance are two separate things. Miley Cyrus comes to mind. White collar criminals might not attract the attention that other criminals do, but that does not mean they are less significant.
    • Argument three: Reading the histories of articles about the Swiss financial industry, there seems to be active censorship going on. Their role in laundering Nazi gold and assets is lacking (as that would be biased, one Wikipedian claims). The UBS article finally did get an injection of scandals after some edit wars, it appears, and while there is a subsection on the UBS tax evasion scandals, it is relatively small. There is no separate article (as there is for the 2011 Rogue trader scandal), and if there was, there is no guarantee this information would be redacted by another editor. If Gadola is mentioned, an internal link cold bring the reader to this page where they could get the details of his crime, rather than said crime being detailed on the page (that doesn't exist right now, but I'm thinking it should -- what a project that will be!).
    • Argument four:I'm in favor of a Big Wikipedia. I came to the Swiss banking scandals via an interest in whistleblowing via an interest in Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. I was once an archivist (not quite a librarian, or am I just being coy?). I believe that BROWSING is one of the best means for stimulating young people, or people of any age. When I go through Wiki, I click on internal links and find new people, new events, new worlds I did not know about. It is a rich experience, akin to browsing in a library, though even more direct and fruitful. (Not to put down physical libraries, which I love. But that browsing is different.) A Big Wiki is my idea of an effective online medium, one which Wiki and only Wiki can do.
    • Because of my commitment to the Big Wiki, I created the article on Perry Fellwock, the whistleblower who first revealed what the NSA was up to back in the early 1970s. There was no Wiki article on him before that. He *is* an historically significant person, but he was not in Wiki. I've spent countless hours helping resurrect old, nearly forgotten African American boxers, who fought before the color bar was lifted and who were largely forgotten. I am proud in what I and others have done, as a person can now discover this incredible history, in which there were "alternate" titles and all these great warriors (and champions), virtually forgotten, and now, not forgotten, due to Wiki. Wiki has a great function, and that is not being an analogue to a print encyclopedia but in being a great cornucopia of information.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Running down the arguments as numbered:
        1. is a basic "Other Stuff Exists" argument. Wikipedia is imperfect; we need not see imperfection elsewhere in it and seek to emulate it here.
        2. is arguing against nothing that I can see going on in the article. The standards being leaned on here, WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIMINAL, I've seen used to successfully shut down articles on non-white-collar crime as well. It gives no reason to ignore those guidelines.
        3. is somewhat strange; even if we accept its supposition of folks going around inappropriately deleting material on the topic, it assumes that setting things up this way will both hide the material from the editing cabal and yet be quite findable with other folks interested in the topic. And it is anti-Wikipedian at heart, looking to avoid having material subject to editing.
        4. is basically a case against WP:CRIMINAL, WP:BLP1E, and just about any other policy or guideline that limits content on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that there isn't a case to be made for changing those policies, but this is not the place to do it. To simply do it for this article is to say let's ignore the standards, because you don't like them.
So no, nothing that would sway me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 10 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) 17:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage by Reuters, the CSM, and the NYT is sufficient for notability of anything at all, and nothing more needs to be shown. The whole idea of our coverage of crime and other events of the sort that are covered in newspapers is that what proves to be of international notice for reasons other than TABLOID is notable. I'm not one of the people who apply the GNG to everything, but for this sort of article, it's a good first guide, better than any we can devise on our own. This is the sort of area where the media are the experts for what is significant. If we do want to deal with significance on our own, the argument that this is a major break in the events surrounding UBS is a good one. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see this lacking significant recurring coverage. Technical 13 (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per good coverage of media (sources). --BabbaQ (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Texas State[edit]

Occupy Texas State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural AfD nomination; this is a prod being converted to an AfD discussion. Original nominator's concern was "Non-noteworthy local protest group." However, the citation of multiple potentially reliable sources by the article lead me to bounce it over here for a more in-depth examination/discussion. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. User beat me over here. Not every Occupy group is noteworthy, and I've found no reliable sources about this specific group in which to build an article on. Would possibly support a merge to a broader "Occupy Colleges" article, but I haven't looked into what our college occupy articles look like currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 27 August 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, Tito☸Dutta 20:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first is as far as I can tell local; the second doesn't mention "Occupy Texas State" at all; the third, I can't tell if it's reliable or not. Ansh666 02:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, I copy and pasted the wrong link above in my !vote. Struck accordingly, and added "(very)" above. I'll try to find the correct link. Thanks for the notification. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Of course, that doesn't disqualify 1/3, just other opinions are needed.) Ansh666 02:36, 4 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) 17:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 strength of the "keep" arguments hinges on the notability conferred by the Kirti Chakra award. While this was discussed, no consensus was reached. —Darkwind (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Chaubey[edit]

Vinod Chaubey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no notability outside the ambush incident.  A m i t  웃   20:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : Vinod kumar Chaubey was awarded Kirti Chakra Gallantry award. RouLong (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No offense on his gallant sacrifice but every year multiple soldiers get it(there is not even a list that is maintained for kirti chakra let alone articles for the kirti chakra honored soldiers). Being first in a newly formed state of chattisgarh is not something to create an article about.  A m i t  웃   00:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as per nomination. At best this is a merge to the ambush incident.  A m i t  웃   00:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Note: I've struck out the 'delete' !vote here - this is implicit in the nomination, and you don't get to !vote twice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence of notability beyond the incident which led to his death. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 04:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable outside of the ambush incident. His medal is a standard "2nd class" gong (no offence meant). The sources also say he violated standard operating procedure and was lured to his death. He was also carrying a mobile phone with him at the scene of the ambush which contained his private informer network's numbers which subsequently led to their elimination.TheWikiIndian (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete : Vinod kumar Chaubey and his sacrifice are is very important to the people of Chhattisgarh and as far as saying that Chhattisgarh is a newly formed state, it is considerable enough to note that no other IPS officer in the undivided state of Madhya Pradesh (out of which Chhattisgarh was carved) has ever won a Kirti Chakra. As far as the comment about not following Standard operating procedures are concerned, I don't think he would have recieved the Kirti Chakra if the Government thought so. Also he was behind the successful elimination of the Maoist Urban network in the cities of Raipur, Durg in which a life sentence has been awarded to two naxalite cadres, Malti and Meena, the former being the wife of the Naxal spokesperson Gudsa Usendi. The excerpts from the book 'Lets call him Vasu' Shubhranshu Choudhry are notable. Considering his achievements and his sacrifice, I think he has more than enough reasons to stand a place in wikipedia. It must also be noted that the Chhattisgarh Government in his honour has launched a book that is being taught in all primary schools of Chhattisgarh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.143.234 (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaubey sacrificed his life fighting for his nation. He Sacrificed his life fighting the undemocratic force which has been termed as the biggest threat to our nation by our own Prime Minister. Before his sacrifice, he blasted the urban intelligence network of Maoist in Raipur. All the person arrested have been convicted till date. Also, he has been awarded Kirti Chakra, the 2nd highest award for bravery given by the Honourable President of India. He is also the 1st person from the state of Chhattisgarh who has been awarded Kirti Chakra. He has been an inspiration for the person in the force and the young crop who is willing to join the force. Deleting this article would mean that Wikipedia does not believe in respecting the true martyrs of India who selflessly sacrificed their life for their country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.7.103 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete : Shri Vinod Kumar Chaubey has been one of the very few police officers brave enough to take a stand against the Naxalite menace which has been terrorising the state of chhattisgarh and eight other states together termed as the Red corridor for more than 3 decades.The naxalite insurgency has been noted as the single greatest threat that independent India faces today by the highest authority in india,the Prime Minister himself.As such the efforts of Mr.V.K chaubey against the scourge that is naxalism has been noted as being Pivotal by both the state government and the government of india(indicated by the latter awarding him with the kirti chakra posthumously).Deleting this article would mean ignoring the importance of the efforts of one of the very few significant persons who have been involved in this 3 decade long bloody war between democracy and insurgency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.7.103 (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.234.121 (talk) [reply]
  • Do not delete : It is a well known fact that the police force of our country is one of the most politicized institutions of civil administration , added to this staff shortage, lack of modern equipment , infrastructure and coordination with the other security agencies make the task of a high ranking police officer indeed very challenging. Unaffected by all these structural constraints shri Chaubey put forth an extraordinary effort in dealing with the menace of naxalism ,in its hottest bed , the region known for its tribal orientation and lack of connectivity.He showed tremendous planning skills and patience while he unraveled the urban naxal communication structure . Not only this , during the course of his career he was posted in some of the most serious LWE districts where he faced multiple threats , attacks and bullet injuries on course to ultimately sacrificing his life on the lines of duty. The reports also suggest that he entered the ambush thrice , rescued his injured subordinates to safety before facing a bullet on his face. He could have just as easily stayed out of it after having crossed the ambush for the first time . This martyrdom of an upright police officer deserves recognition beyond a medal. Thus this article must be preserved in the Wikipedia inventory to honour our true soldiers and inspire the future generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.202.230.53 (talk) 10:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please note that this is not a vote. It is a discussion as to whether this article conforms with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and can be kept accordingly. Multiple postings from anonymous IPs all making the same arguments, none of which appear to address the issue of whether the article conforms with Wikipedia notability requirements, are unlikely to have a significant effect on the final decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are right. Such things should not be decided on voting, but on contructive discussions. The posts, like mine, are anonymous may be due to the fact that i am too lazy to create a wikipedia account. so this must not be the concern for the debate. What i am saying that this article should remain in wikipedia as the person has done a notable contribution for his country,has been awarded one of the most prestigious gallantry award of the nation, is held as a source of motivation for the children and the personnel in the Police training. People are quoting anonymous sources regarding his not following the SOP's and Kirti Chakra award being a second grade award whose record not being maintained. So i would like the debate to remain in an objective and constructive path so that we have a better, reliable and evolving wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.7.103 (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see Wikipedia:Notability (people). Notability isn't determined by 'gallantry', but by the degree of enduring in-depth coverage of the subject matter, as seen in published reliable sources. It appears that Chaubey has received little coverage in such sources for events other than his role in the events that led to his death. As such, normal Wikipedia policy is to cover individuals only notable for a single event in the article covering the event - in this case, the Rajnandgaon ambush. This should not be seen as a statement by Wikipedia that we in any way minimise his role, but instead as a normal editorial practice. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Awards merit under WP:ANYBIO #1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Some described Kirti Chakra as a "second class gong" above and I'm not seeing that. He also won other award so obviously a local officer outside the norm. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Chhattisgarh always have been in the receiving end of media's apathy. National media was covering the fallen pillar of Delhi Metro, when 29 people were killed on 12th of july. The same apathy was seen when 76 security officers were killed in Tadmetla ambush in Chhattisgarh. It was not covered properly by the national media. That is why such articles should not be deleted from Wikipedia, so that people know about such incidents, such sacrifices, which many of times get unnoticed by the national media. We can see the difference in media coverage when a incident happens in Mumbai or Delhi. There is also difference between coverage of incidents of "Religious extremism", and Left wing extremism, Maoism ,Naxalism. As Religious extremism is a global phenomena, and Naxalism is a local phenomena( as per media reporting), even though the latter has caused greater life and property damage. I am not going to gain anything from this article, but still i want this article to remain in the wikipedia as it is only providing knowledge about a person who lived a selfless life. Life of a person is not determined by how long he lives, but by the quality of life he lived. Even 1 act of selflessness makes a person shine among the lesser mortals who criticize everything and everyone , but don't act to make it better.
  • Comment : I would also like to bring the attention of the moderators of wikipedia to a page on Durga Shakti Nagpal, an IAS officer who has been in the news after her suspension. Wide media coverage of her suspension after her alleged crackdown on the sand mining mafia has made her a popular figure and people has also created a page of her on wikipedia. My question is simple, does wikipedia only recognizes the person covered with hue and cry by the national media, even if there is not much substance. I am not compairing the achievements of the two respected public authority, but only pointing to a discrimination based on populism. Sir/ madam, contribution must not be measured by the popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rishabh09 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This page is solely intended for a discussion as to whether the article concerned meets the relevant Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Please stay on topic, and confine any comments to the matter at hand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : We are here to discuss whether this page is worthy enough to be on wikipedia. My earlier arguments are just supporting my main premise that this page is worthy enough to be on wikipedia. But problem here is the people who are deciding the worth are very subjective in their approach. Decision should be objective and should be based on a person's impact on the various dimensions of the society. But many other personalities have their page owing to the popularity in media. So please read my comment based on the contextual argument, rather than a competitive subjective opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.220.81 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decisions will be made according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Clearly falls under the category WP:ANYBIO. Terming Kirti Chakra as a 'second class gong' is uncalled for as the relevant article clearly suggests its importance by stating it as second in order of precedence of peacetime gallantry awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdm.bb (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A simple question. How many Kirti Chakra's have been awarded? WP:ANYBIO gives states that "a well-known and significant award or honor" can be considered sufficient to establish notability - but where is the evidence that the award is significant? The sources cited for the award consist of a press release from the Indian government Press Information Bureau (which includes the award as one of three for unrelated incidents), and a single paragraph in The Hindu. This doesn't look like evidence for a 'significant award' to me - and if it is significant, evidence to demonstrate the fact will need to be provided. So far, all we've seen is unsubstantiated assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing in India is problematic see WP:INDAFD so the level needs to be kept in context, coverage there honoring people is not as prevalent as other countries (as explained in INDAFD). The question is if this award is significant - it is the second highest peacetime decoration in India. Thus in US terms it is equivalent to the Presidential Citizens Medal (second only to the Presidential Medal of Freedom). I don't think anyone would argue that the Presidential Citizens Medal is not a significant award, likewise for the Kirti Chakra. The number of medals given has to be kept into context that India has over a billion people. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have not answered the question. How many Kirti Chakra's have been awarded? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that information is available online. However we can make a rough estimate based on facts known. We know this is a military award given in peacetime (sourced in the article). We also know that the Indian Airforce (IAF) has received the award 34 times total [28] (up to 2005). We know the Indian Navy has received it 5 times. [29] If we extrapolate the Air Force number by a generous 10 times for all the other military branches and police, that brings it up to 340 awardees, which over the course of the award history is 6.4 a year on average. By comparison an equivalent US award, Presidential Citizens Medal, is awarded about 3.9 times a year during its lifespan - however the USA has a population 1/4 that of India meaning the Indian award could be seen as more rare, on a per capita basis, since we would have to multiply the 6.4 by 0.25 to account for pop difference. So there is a lot of room in that 6.4 figure, for example we could double the number of awards to 680 and it would still be in the same ballpark as the US award. Let's say it was 680, it would be statistically odd if the airforce, one of the main four branches of the military, only had 5% of the total awardees, so probably not as high as 680. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : i think your lack of knowledge is creating a problem here. Kirti Chakra or Ashok chakra class 2, is the second highest award given for bravery in our country at peace time. It is equivalent to Mahaveer Chakra, which is awarded during war time. Its record is duly maintained by the ministry of Defence and the Honorable President Secretariat.

I do not have the exact number of recipient till date, but wikipedia itself revealed that it was awarded to only 35 brave person till the year 2005. This makes this award highly prestigious and as compared to Padmashri award,if we only talk about numbers. Kirti Chakra awardee not only gets due credit by the government of India through the press release by PIB, also it is covered by the National print, paper and AIR. It is unfortunate that Andy only reads PIB and The Hindu, otherwise he would have seen the wide media coverage of the Award in all the local and national newspaper. So kindly remain objective during the debate and don't make a comment with partial knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.107.124 (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I don't have 'knowledge' regarding this award - which is why I am asking for evidence that it is of the necessary level of significance to justify the article. As is always the case with Wikipedia, it is down to those who wish to include material to provide the necessary sources. Which still isn't being done. Instead, all I'm seeing is unsourced claims. If this award is significant, prove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence, well lets just start objectively here, the second highest award for gallantry in the USA is the Distinguished Service Cross and wikipedia, the platform we are having this discussion on and the official website of The Government of India says that Kirti Chakra is the second highest award for gallantry in India which is a peacetime equivalent of the Mahavir Chakra. As is widely construed, wikipedia does not favor a particular country so it goes without saying that when more 50 recipients of Distinguished Services Cross can have articles then this page does deserve to stay. Although, it is sad to 'prove' the significance of this award, which the president himself bestows with full state honor. If we talk about numbers, an estimated number of 13400 Distinguished Service Cross' have been awarded till date and that does not make it any less of an honor, does it? So the number of Kirti Chakra awarded is totally irrelevant here. The 'significance' of this award is proved just by saying that it is the second highest award for gallantry in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdm.bb (talk • contribs) 17:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Evidence that the award of this medal to Chaubey was notable would consist of substantial coverage of the fact in multiple sources. Such evidence has not been provided, and pulling numbers out of a hat won't make any difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment :

Andy, if u do not have the knowledge about something then you should neither exaggerate your claim, nor reduce your opinion. Here you are continuously asking about the valor and pride pertaining to Kirti Chakra, and how big an award is that. Lets talk some statistics here, Padma vibhushan Awards, the 2nd highest civilian award in India has been awarded to 288 people till date, and Kirti Chakra only to 35 person till 2005. It is awarded vary rarely and to the person who has shown immense bravery and valor for protecting their country, and most importantly it is given by the President of India, not by any private organisation whose credibility can be questioned. If person of USA, who have won Distinguished service cross can have their wikipedia profile. If person who have only got suspended and have the limelight of media can have their wikipedia profile. Then why you are denying the person who has proved his valor to the Head of the Republic of India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.243.12 (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more pointless unsourced assertions... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Pointless: i have given you the example of how rare is the Kirti Chakra award and how is it awarded by the highest executive of the country. Still you are saying that it is pointless.

Unsourced : kindly see the wikipedia page of Kirti Chakra and Padma Vibhushan 1sta nd then comment. I think you are being ignorangt on purpose. You have not given any objective argument, only your subjective opinion. Better prepare 1st and then come to an adult discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.53.249 (talk) 06:30, 10 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) 17:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My objective argument is that there has been insufficient evidence provided from published reliable sources to indicate that Chaubey meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. We do not cite Wikipedia articles as a source - not that the articles back up your claims anyway. Either provide the necessary citations to back up your claims, or stop wasting other people's time. And as for 'adult discussions', I'm not the slightest bit interested in arguing with clowns who try to rig discussions by signing in multiple times under different IP numbers. This doesn't work - the closing admin will I'm sure take note of the multiple identical comments, all failing to actually address Wikipedia notability policy, and act accordingly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are in the Wikipedia article, and further, they have already been linked by me on this very AfD page for your convenience. And you totally ignored it, while continuing this conversation as if no one has provided sources! Your either not paying attention or engaging in rhetorical games. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citations for what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : 1. Press information bureau is the most authentic source of material in India. If it says that Kirti Chakra or Ashok Chakra class 2 is the 2nd highest award for valor, then there is not much scope for any argument.

2. Referring to the fellow debaters as "clowns" has berated your argument standard. Kindly maintain the dignity of Wikipedia and this page.

3. IP address in itself is an identity of a person. You should not worry about the identity, but about the dimensions of the debate. My name is Rishabh Shukla, and i don't sign in to wikipedia every time i open my web browser.

4. Its is also your onus to provide the source which makes you to say that Kirti Chakra is not as honorary as Press Information bureau, The president of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, and Ministry of Defense, claims to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.59.35 (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Board of Sleep Medicine[edit]

American Board of Sleep Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't tell myself this organization is notable. This Google News search produces (non-paywalled) very little about this organization, but quite a number of passing mentions. Unless I'm missing some more significant coverage, I'm not sure this passes WP:GNG. ~Charmlet -talk- 21:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This board of one of four entities that is at the center of the practice of sleep medicine. Publications about sleep studies and sleep medicine regularly talk about what this board does. Bill Pollard (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being regularly mentioned is not the same as being talked about. I couldn't find anything more than a few sentences in reliable sources, which is not the significant coverage required for WP:GNG. Also, sadly, being at the "center of the practice" does not mean it's notable. If anything, these deserve sections in the article for sleep medicine. ~Charmlet -talk- 00:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NGO meets criteria #1 and #2: national scope, and information about the org's activities is found in multiple reliable independent sources. Countless doctors list themselves as being ABSM certified (thus verifying it's claim as being a notable certifying agency of sleep doctors) and there are some sources that seem to confirm their role in International cerification.[30] WP:NGO is not the same as GNG or ORG, it's an alternative method used for cases like this where a NGO has clear impact within a specialized sphere, but maybe doesn't have the sort of general magazine or newspaper profiles we are used to. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am hung up on the usually notable if part of NGO. I have to say that if we consider every national organization with some reliable sources notable we'd be overflowing with promospam (not that this one is). ~Charmlet -talk- 16:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three additional comments - First, my link to the Sleep Review website apparently requires the user to type 'American Board of Sleep Medicine' or 'American Association of Sleep Technologists' to pull up the articles on them. These search parameters, I found, cannot be entered as part of the website link. Also, we have to look at the importance and scope of organizations. As you say, not all organizations have notability. For instance, state sleep organizations would usually be too small to mention in Wikipedia. There are a variety of smaller national sleep organizations that just are too obscure to bring into Wikipedia. If the discussions on the Board and Association result in keep, I promise I will create an Additional Resources section at the bottom of both articles and place references to publication articles from the three magazines I noted above. In many cases these articles concern debates about how these organizations have been operating. Many of these topics are just too detailed to enter into the Wikipedia articles themselves. Bill Pollard (talk) 10:52, 8 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, | Uncle Milty | talk | 17:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NGO doesn't require significant coverage within a source. When you have 100s of Dr's listing themselves as certified by this org it's fairly obvious the org is notable within the field. NGO allows for this type of situation, a classic fit case. NGO is an alternative method, you don't have to agree to its application, but I think common sense here is that this is a notable organization, and the alt method of NGO works for it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything like 100 passing references equal one significant reference. If anyone does an article search of 'American Board of Sleep Medicine' in Sleep Review, of the numerous articles appearing, about 80 refer to the organization. Of the 80 about 15 have significant coverage of the Board and these can be used to establish notability. Article searches of RT magazine and Advance for Respiratory Care & Sleep Medicine provide similar results. These magazines have websites, so they are accessible. Doing a simple Google, Bing, or whatever browser search does not show most of these articles, so it is necessary to perform article searches. I ask anyone involved in this discussion to please do an article search on at least one of these publications. By the way, User: Green Cardamom, I you just made a good point about having so many doctors being certified by this Board. Certification in a field must be earned; these are not just handed to any doctor. That also establishes notability. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's the accrediting board of a major medical specialty in the US , and therefore notable by common sense, without needing to quibble over what sources are "significant" --which can often be argued either way. I'd be prepared to do it either way in this case, according to what result made sense to me. Organizations of this nature usually have difficulty in sourcing, and in practice, we use :national" as an important and usually a decisive criterion. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the argument to transwiki is not without merit, there is not agreement on which project to send it to and there is a concern that it is copy/paste of another website. There is a clear consensus that this does not belong on Wikipedia, so I am going ahead with deletion. Willing to userfy if anyone wishes to proceed with a transwiki operation to an appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Quranic Du'aas[edit]

List of Quranic Du'aas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of 90 (yes, 90!) Quranic prayers is not an acceptable subject for an encyclopedic article. This is nothing more than copying the prayers from a religious book. An article explaining the Du'ass with a reference to an external source would be perfectly acceptable and more in keeping with the Wikipedia style. Manway 17:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. This would be a perfect addition to Wikisource, but this is not an encyclopaedia article. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's clearly copy paste from a book or possibly even an online discussion forum. This could almost have been speedily deleted. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I didn't try. Three times. --Manway 07:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-do at Wikibooks. Since it contains original translation (and possibly some annotations) it would not be suitable for Wikisource. It would probably be appropriate at Wikibooks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is really very helpful for the Muslim community. It hasnt simply been copied or pasted . A lot of work was done to compile the list. If you let it stay on wikipedia,it will be very beneficial for the Muslims and the non-muslim community can get read it too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islamicdua (talk • contribs) 21:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current title looks to be a valid Wikipedia topic, although the current is more like a book as others have mentioned. So I would suggest a transwiki (not just a delete) and a rewrite on the topic about duaas, with references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's a book. Send it to the correct website. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE Looks like the whole 90 prayers has been copied over into Duaas as well. --Manway 15:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Van Tuyl[edit]

Van Tuyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to indicate this family is particularly notable. Entire article based on creator's own book, effectively self-published (Anundson Publishing is a vanity publisher for genealogists). No member of the family appears notable such that they need this level of family history to place them in context. At a minimum, this appears to be a case of using Wikipedia as a web host, at its worst, as a pointer to the author's book. Agricolae (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC) Additional note: there are issues of WP:OWN involved as well [31], the creator objecting to changes to "My Wikipedia Page" and calling it "my article". Agricolae (talk) 17:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is based on exhaustive historical research published in book form in 1996 under the title "A Van Tuyl Chronicle - 650 Years in the History of a Dutch-American Family". In April, 1997, the New York Genealogical and Biographical Record reviewed this book, stating "This is an extraordinary work, and is highly recommended." All of the claims made in this book, as well as the Wikipedia article are independently verifiable per exhaustive footnote references cited.
The Van Tuyl family played an important part in the early history of New York, as well as the home country of Gelderland.

for this reason, it is "notable" per Wikipedia standards. The article is well within Wikipedia guidelines.

The Wikipedia article makes this historical information available to the browsing public, several hundred of whom read this article in the past month alone. The article has enjoyed continuous public interest since it was first posted in 2009. There is no legitimate case for removing this article. Rory Van Tuyl (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The publisher of the book in question is "R.L. Van Tuyl, distributor". This clearly fails WP:SPS and should not be used as a source. Rory Van Tuyl added text in April 2012 promoting a "Van Tuyl DNA Project" which said " Anyone with a suspected male-line association with the Van Tuyl family is welcome to join the Van Tuyl DNA Project." When this was removed this week 76.103.212.48 (talk · contribs) replaced it 3 times. I hope this isn't Rory Van Tuyl logged out. Dougweller (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to be convinced otherwise, as the timing of the complaint for 'Vandalizing My Wikipedia Page' coming from Rory and the reversions from 76.103.212.48 seem too closely linked to be coincidence and not either the same editor logged out or else a meat-puppet. When the page was originally created, a similar pattern of editing took place and all three, the two IPs and Rory, are being used as SPAs. Agricolae (talk) 00:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Comment The book was published in 1996 and sold out completely that year. It is no longer available for distribution.

this was not a commercial plug, but rather a reference to the best - and most authoritatively researched - book on the topic. I cannot see how using this is in any way commercial. Rory Van Tuyl (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The commercial stuff was promoting the The Van Tuyl DNA Project' with this edit[32] that you added last year and that someone editing from an IP address has been trying to keep in the article. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the original author has replaced the references to his own book with primary sources. Than means it is now a WP:NOR/WP:PRIMARY violation rather than a WP:SPS/WP:RS/WP:COI violation. Agricolae (talk) 03:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability that I can find, self-published or primary sources. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is an interesting work of family history, based on a self-published book, which I have not seen. If that book properly cites its sources AND the information taken from them is accurately reported, then that book is based on WP:RS, and is itself WP:RS, even though self-published. However, it will be better that the original sources are cited directly, as that avoids the question of whether the book is WP:RS. Almost all history is ultiamtely based on Primary sources: some are published; some are not. The WP concept involved in WP:OR is in my view designed to exclude invention from the author's own head. History based on Primary Sources is by its nature based on the most reliable sources. Sometimes it is necessary to compare one source with another, to eliminate bias, but that is the nature of hisotry. My more fundamental question is whether the role played by members of the family either in the history of Gelderland or of New York is sufficient to make the family notable. I am a historian, but not familiar with the detailed history of either. However, I am far from convinced that there are more than a very few people of the surname who are notable. I think the editor would be well advised to think which of the family were notable and to write WP articles on them individually. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Idon;t really know what is meant by a family being "particularly notable", and in any case, the criterion for WP is just plain "notable". There's enough information about all traditional european noble families to justify such articles. I would discourage making articles about all the individuals, but about some of them this could be possible, with enough investigation into sources, for they were a major patroon family in colonial NY State. . DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are over-parsing the language. Not particularly notable = not all that notable = not really notable at all. Nobody whose surname isn't Van Tuyl seems to have noticed that this family even exists. A family that passes so far under the radar is not notable, however noble. This is, in effect, a vanity page for a family historian. Agricolae (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SafeMinds[edit]

SafeMinds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has had a notability tag on it for half a decade now, and I wanted to see if it would survive AfD. Furthermore, this organization does not appear to meet WP:ORG. We should probably merge it into Thimerosal controversy. Jinkinson (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (as I'm not seeing what there is that would be constructive to merge). A look at the article's references illustrates the WP:ORG problem. Aside from a rather thorough drubbing given by a science blogger, there just isn't anything (beyond the organization's own websites) that offers commentary and coverage about this organization, instead of merely mentioning it. And heck, there's only four outside news articles offered up that even mention its existence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although the organization has been mentioned once or twice by Reliable Sources, including the New York Times (cited in the article), there is nothing approaching the significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources required to pass WP:ORG. I agree with TenOfAllTrades that there is insufficient content in the article for a merge; the article mostly consists of information about the founders and officers, none of whom are notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I expected to be able to find enough coverage for this one, but the sourcing is awfully thin and on balance I think there is not enough to support an article. There is an element of "blog famous" and several mentions from within the walled garden, but nothing that I can unambiguously say kicks this over the WP:ORG threshold. The web of board memberships and primary contributorships blurs the line for "independent" coverage, and puffery from ideologically-aligned organizations is anyway pretty low on the list of usable sources. I was expecting more coverage related to the failed AMC ad buy (notability is not temporary, after all), but no such luck. They show up on those charity transparency sites, but those can be essentially autogenerated from publicly available tax documents; their fundraising activities should be added if we keep the article, but this does not establish notability. SafeMinds has an accomplishments page, but it can essentially be summarized as "we issued press releases, engaged in outreach, and supported our board members". - 2/0 (cont.) 22:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, there do not appear to be sufficient reliable sources that mention this organization more than in passing to meet the requirements of WP:ORG. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/redirect. I'll do the redirect, anyone wishing to undertake the merge can pull the content from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinas Affaraon[edit]

Dinas Affaraon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

So far as I can tell, this is another name for Dinas Emrys. Spence claims it's mentioned in The Black book of Carmarthen - sure, there's a Dinas mentioned there, but no Dinas Affaraon. You can read the text at [33]. That says " There is a Dinas on the banks of the Gwrvei, near y Bont NewyS in the parish of Llan Wnda, on the road from Caer Seon in Arvon to Dinas Dinlleu, which suggests itself as the Caer Leu a Gwydion. But we must not overlook another Dinas on the banks of the Llyvni, nor the old encampment, a quarter of a mile distant, on Lleuer Farm beyond Bryn Gwydion". It is mentioned in the Mabinigion but without any association with Druidism, magic, etc, simply as a place where a swine gave a wolf to to "Brynach Wyddel, of Dinas Affaraon". Spence is a fringe writer and we can't use him to establish its authenticity. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is Bard Cadarn, the maker of the Dinas Affaraon page. The fact is that the legend of "the ambrosial city", while little known and certainly subject to question, is a legend still and deserves a page to call its own. It may be nothing more than an almost forgotten story associated with Dinas Emrys, but that does not warrant its deletion. Long before I made the page I saw it on the Mythological place page, but found that no article existed for it. If anything, it made the Mythological place page more complete. A legend with little to no evidence is still a legend and deserves to be told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk • contribs) 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect the title to Dinas Emrys. I can't find anything to suggest that this is anything but another name for "Dinas Emrys", and that the associations with druidry are modern fringe. The material on "Pheryllt" is a separate item; it's only connected to "Dinas Affaraon" is only found in the fringery. The Greer book doesn't even mention Dinas Affaraon in connection with the Pheryllt. I can't find any real sources that discuss Spense's claims about "Dinas Affaraon" even to dismiss them, so there's nothing to merge.--Cúchullain t/c 21:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then why was Dinas Affaraon on the list of Mythological places, and not Dinas Emrys? "A magical Druid city hidden among the hills of Snowdonia" was written there long before I arrived. Why put it there if you did not want a page for it? The two are separate, one is a legend the other a place. Even if nothing solid can be found, a legend it is still, and is respected by modern Druids. Let it be. It does no harm nor takes away repute from the Dinas Emrys page. I would appreciate an answer to my above questions. Why was Dinas Affaraon on the list of Mythological places, and not Dinas Emrys? Why put it there if you did not want a page for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk • contribs) 02:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put it there (You seem to mean me as you asked me this on my talk page). You need to read WP:NOTABILITY as well as WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, but legends may exist through oral tradition alone with no solid historical data to back them up. Such is the case of Dinas Affaraon. Also, why did you go to all the trouble editing the page if you wanted to delete it? Makes little sense it me. Once again, Dinas Affaraon and Dinas Emrys are separate, one is a legend the other a place. Even if nothing solid can be found, a legend it is still, and is respected by modern Druids. Let it be. It does no harm nor takes away repute from the Dinas Emrys page. Moreover, it violates no copyrighted material as legends belong to us all. Again, why did you go to all the trouble editing the page if you wanted to delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

I thought I could fix it, but the more I worked on it the less there seemed to be. Sources turned out to mention just a Dinas with no Affaraon, or simply failed WP:RS. If there's nothing solid it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You have to show that it meets WP:GNG. Copyright isn't an issue so far as I can see. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources would refer to both, both Affaraon and Emrys. Both include "Dinas" and both are located in Snowdonia. The Affaraon article says that another name for it is "Dinas Emrys". It is not called the "the ambrosial city" without reason, for "Emrys", roughly translated, means "ambrosia". They are the same place, in a nutshell. Both complementing the other. Classic example of what happens in the oral tradition: things get separated and blended, but the kinship may still be seen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete and redirect the title to Dinas Emrys (aka Dinas Ffaraon/Pharaon/Affaraon). This is simply Spence's neo-druidic concoction cobbled together out of snippets of (wilfully) misinterpreted references in medieval Welsh literature: it is decidedly not a genuine Welsh legend. Further proof: he writes about "the Pheryllt" as a race of druid magicians inhabiting this lost "city" (actually Middle and Old Welsh 'dinas' = 'fort' not 'city') in the mists of Snowdonia. In fact 'Fferyll(t)' ("Pheryllt") is the Middle Welsh name of the Roman poet Virgil (Vergilius). Virgil was widely held to have been a magician and prophet in medieval Europe, and was also associated with alchemy. Hence eventually fferyll became a noun meaning 'chemist' or physician' but also 'magician, alchemist'; it is the root of the modern Welsh noun fferyllfa (pharmacy) and some other related words. It seems to me that Spence looked it up in a dictionary and then let his imagination run riot! All very entertaining but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia (unless you want a new category, 'Lewis Spence's mythological fantasies'). (Enaidmawr on cy:) 88.104.82.99 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All right, here is a compromise: I will delete everything regarding Spence and leave the rest. If I must, I will remove the entire section dedicated to the "Pheryllt" as well. I will do the first now. Is that enough to satisfy you all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Unfortunately, it's going to leave basically nothing there. The "Fferyllt" information has no association with "Dinas Affaraon" outside of Lewis and possibly other fringe writing. As such it's pointless to keep it here. There is basically nothing that can be said about this name except that it's another name for "Dinas Emrys".--Cúchullain t/c 20:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine as it is, even with "Fferyllt" part gone. Leave the rest, for it gives credit to Dinas Emrys. Basically nothing is better and more than nothing, so there is no need to redirect the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]
At this point none of the material is cited and no reliable sources appear forthcoming. There's no real option here but to delete.--Cúchullain t/c 19:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge -- I know little of the subject. What is the evidence that this is another name for Dinas Emrys? Is that not interpretation? If there is a single allusion to the place, it is probably best merged with the work where it is alluded to (leaving a redirect. If there are multiple allusions or a substnatial amount of scholarly discussion, then the article should survive. However discussion on the content should be on the talk page, not AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article as it's now written after I added reliable sources. It's now made clear that "Dinas Affaraon"/"Dinas Ffaraon" is just another name for Dinas Emrys.--Cúchullain t/c 14:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cúchullain is right. Anyone with a serious interest in medieval Welsh literature will be aware that Dinas Ffaraon is just another name for Dinas Emrys. I suggest copying Cúchullain's amended text to a new section in the Dinas Emrys article and redirecting Dinas Affaraon (and Dinas Ffaraon) to it. (Enaidmawr on cy:) 88.104.80.26 (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Could we get rid of the "considered for deletion" box now? From what my eyes can tell it is no only needed. You all have done a splendid job fixing things up, so to speak, and for that you have my thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Hi Bard Cadarn, why is the above dated 14 Sept when you posted it last night at 23:12, 19 September 2013? Anyway, the answer is that this has to wait until it is closed. That might happen later today, it has to run 7 days normally. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If this is the same as Dinas Emrys, then the outcome should be merge, which will leave this as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Sorry about the date problem; just fixed it. 7 days eh, I did not know that. Well, regardless, I will be happy when this ends. Again, you all have done a splendid job fixing things up, so to speak, so you have my thanks. By the way, I do not think it should merge unless all of the info is added to the Dinas Emrys page. Hence, add a sub-heading to it called Dinas Affaraon/Ffaraon. After all, it is important knowledge that should be included somewhere, so it must either have a page of its own or it must be included on the Dinas Emrys page. I am for the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

W.A.K.O.-W.K.J.F. World Championships 2004 (Ylta)[edit]

W.A.K.O.-W.K.J.F. World Championships 2004 (Ylta) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Event with no sources and one external link to a primary source.Mdtemp (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the following two pages for the same reason.

W.A.K.O.-P.A.M.A. World Championships 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
W.A.K.O.-P.A.M.A. World Championships 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination. I am quite confused by the entries. W.A.K.O. features prominently including (initially) a large image in the header but I could find no mention of these events on the W.A.K.O home page. Perhaps I am not clever enough in my navigation but ......Peter Rehse (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator. That WAKO organization is hardly notable either. Ukrained2012 (talk) 02:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete all First, none of these events have significant independent coverage. Second, WAKO did not hold world championship events in Yalta. Third, WAKO moves event locations around--they wouldn't always be in Yalta. At best these two Ukranian based organizations held events that WAKO sanctioned (although there's no proof of even that) that these organizations called their world championships. Papaursa (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm closing this early per SNOW. There is no need for the discussion to continue here, since the issue is not deletion via our policies. DGG's argument and further comments provide enough of a rationale (in short, there is no rationale for deletion), and his advice re:editing the article should be heeded. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Horvitz[edit]

David Horvitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello, my name is Joe, and I'm an intern and have helped David Horvitz on many of his Wikipedia based projects. His newest endeavor is to attempt to delete his own Wikipedia page.

I want to be able to help him and accomplish that. I'm new to the whol Wiki editing/deleting and I've accidentally thought deleting the content would bring on a deletion, but it brought on moderators claiming me as an abuser and vandal, which is incorrect.

I want to be able delete the page properly and it's public knowledge that the artist wants this to happen, if you can help me with this and provide me the information to do so according to Wikipedia's rules and regulations, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I've attached a link from ArtInfo that mentions this project of his to delete his own Wikipedia page. Any help would be great!

http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/898465/emerging-david-horvitzs-multiversed-multimedia-and-oft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebunkeo (talk • contribs)

Comment-- As far as notability, the current sources are mixed. Many are primary sources but others are legitimate secondary sources. Does the sum total of those secondary sources meet the notability criteria of WP:BLP? Not sure. I think that if Horvitz wants to request the deletion of his WP bio he would need to contact WP:OTRS. Interested parties might want to read this section of the BLP guideline.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , sufficiently notable artist. but remove the self-referential material about his attempt to delete his article on WP. As far as I can tell, both that, and this deletion request are part of a game he is playing with us,. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG, In regards to David Horvitz's "game" of deleting his Wikipedia page
I'd like to explain, if it's not already known, that Horvitz is a conceptual absurdist artist. Such projects in a way is a performance, a commentary on social media and technology. I see no harm in deleting the page for it becomes a form of performance art. I understand there is protocol but to uphold protocol for a situation that will generate no controversy seems silly. To delete would be trivial, so why not support its deletion? A game is meant to tease to entertain, but this is a new form of participatory art with a social commentary about the web and the accessibility to information. It in no way is to undermine WP as an insult or as a jest. This is art and to have the authorization to delete the page would complete the work. I hope you understand and find in favor of assisting in the proper deletion of David Horvitz's WP page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebunkeo (talk • contribs) 19:18, 13 September 2013‎
  • Keep No reason has been given for deletion: we don't delete an article just because someone say they want it deleted. David Horvitz does not own this article, and has no right to demand its removal. He has chosen to make himself a public figure, and can't pick and choose what public media write about him. (Indeed, he has not only made himself a public figure, but has gone out of his way to call attention to himself by means of various gimmicks, such as publicly announcing his attempt to remove this Wikipedia article one sentence at a time.) He clearly satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, having gone to considerable effort to get himself noticed and discussed. As for the stuff about his being a "conceptual absurdist artist", and deleting this article being a "commentary on social media and technology", Wikipedia is not the place for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank You For you time and your consideration, it seems as though Wikipedia is no place for contemporary art for it's regulated and censored by those that deem it an unfit place for such actions and gestures. It's unfortunate the Wikipedia community fails to see the great potential of WP as an artistic medium. But I digress. Thank you and let me know if there is any possibility or under different circumstances that we can work together to allow the deletion of this page. Bests. Joebunkeo (talk) , 13 September 2013 (UTC)
You're right: just as we are not a place for original scholarship, or original fiction, we are not a place of original participatory art. I regard this sort of thing as similar to the attempts of professors to conduct social media experiments on WP by having their students deliberately insert false information to see if it gets deleted. We're an encyclopedia, and people playing this sort of game diminishes the trust users have in the objectivity of the contents. I understand how you can feel there is nothing wrong in using us as a subject for artistic play and experimentation, but what sort of a site would we be that did not defend itself? DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect against vandalism. This is an encyclopedia, not a grocery store, art gallery, brothel or Jain temple. We should have no patience with those who would vandalize us in the name of "art". I sense SNOW coming on. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The absurdist work of art in this case may well be the story of the failure of this notable artist to delete Wikipedia's biography of him. There is nothing absurd about our response. We are creating a free encyclopedia with millions of articles about notable topics. This is one of them. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and it really seems that Christmas is arriving to the Northern Hemisphere. I told to Joe that "being requested by Horvitz" is not a reason to delete the page, and he is not, because he doesn't own the article. Is like if Lady Gaga request her pages deleted, she's the subject of them, not the owner of them. Horvitz is notable under Wikipedia's WP:GNG, and if there is no real reason to delete his page other than a request from him, there is no reason to delete the page. If Horvitz didn't mean to be famous, he shouldn't became famous in the first place. The page should be kept, semi-protected and still having PC-2 per WP:IAR. As long as the Good-Faith Blanking continues, the page shouldn't be blanked or unprotected. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and protect for all the reasons stated above: He is clearly notable. He doesn't own the page. The edits are not NPOV. The editors are clearly too close to him: as David's intern, Joebunkeo shouldn't be editing the page. All that said, make no mistake: this effort to have his Wikipedia page remove is one of David's works. Cullen328, it will a complete work whether he is able to get it deleted or not (we can't stop it). Even provoking this conversation is part of the work. Which brings me to the problem of excluding anything about Wikipedia from Wikipedia: If this ends up being written about by third party sources, we cannot exclude its potential discussion in the article itself.--Theredproject (talk) 14:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep. Per everyone else above. Wikipedia is not meant for personal projects, artistic interventions, pranks, subversive actions or hactivism. It's an encyclopedia and a tertiary source of information, nothing more. These sorts of pet projects are nothing new or original and it is certainly not censorship to keep them off Wikipedia (oh, how I wish people would learn what censorship actually is and stop throwing it around whenever something stupid is removed from Wikipedia. Talk to Syrians about how you're being oppressed by Wikipedia's rules). I'm sure there are plenty of hidden projects currently on Wikipedia that no one has found yet but we certainly cannot be expected play along with something that is frankly not even interesting, and even if it was, we still wouldn't. If Horvitz was not notable, I'd happily !vote for delete but it appears he just passes WP:GNG. But I'm sure now his ego can be massaged a bit but having his notability confirmed and he can play the victim by the oppressive rules of draconian Wikipedia and its anti-contemporary art rules. We're such fascists, aren't we? freshacconci talk to me 14:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence. If Wikipedia's moderators perpetual battle with this artist is actually feeding into it, why do we persist in memorializing him by maintaining a page about him? It seems like a Catch 22, but if WP wants to create a reputable and academic encyclopedia, there should be no toleration and no recognition of such characters no matter the notability. That's my opinion, but I understand currently all the existing information upholds the rules and regulations to uphold its existence, but I'd rather just see gone forever and never to be heard from againThunderheadgw87 talk to me 14:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I am striking the "On the fence" marking, as I assume this is superseded by your "keep" below.) Your opinion that "there should be no toleration and no recognition of such characters no matter the notability" is contrary to Wikipedia policy. We do not keep or delete articles about people on the basis of whether we like or dislike what those people do, and doing so would be contrary to the neutral point of view policy. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence too - where exactly is the significant reliable coverage about Horvitz? People above seem to be arguing to keep the article without providing any evidence. The 2009 LA Times exhibition review is the only reliable coverage I can see, the remainder is written by Horvitz. On the basis of WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE he doesn't meet notability criteria based on the current sources. As a practising artist and long-term Wikipedia editor I find Horvitz's use of Wikipedia in his work very interesting indeed, but let's see the wood for the trees here (or other suitable mashed metaphor). Rather than slap his intern down for the sake of it, let's look for coverage about him. This guy seems to thrive on self-publicity! Sionk (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and Freshacconci. And perhaps Horvitz should move on and play his games on Facebook. Yintan  11:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This discussion is slowly becoming very negative for it is now become a place to pass judgement on the field of art. As moderators we are not here to insult, pass judgement on what is and what is not art. Take the artist and the intern out of the equation. The issue at hand is the validity and purpose of this article. If this article continues to be beacon for debate then is not better to end the debate at all by deleting the article. The artist feeds off our continued discussion. He gains more. What does WP gain? The inner workings and community of WP is being exposed and we are damage control. We must remain unbias and professional. Some of the previous comments seem prejudice. To delete this article will give the artist an ego stroke but I believe it rid WP of a possible avalanche of more and similar activity. Eradicate the pest before it becomes an infestation. I believe WP can afford to delete this article. In the bigger scheme of WP, the lost of this article will actually display WP's mission of cleaning up its encyclopedia and work towards academic credibility.

Thunderheadgw87 talk to me 14:35, 1i September 2013 (UTC)

There is no "pass[ing] judgement on what is and what is not art". The issue is whether the person in question is or is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, whether or not his work is art. We would keep an article about someone claiming to be an artist who satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines whether we think he or she really is an artist or not, and likewise we would delete an article about someone claiming to be an artist who does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines whether we think he or she really is an artist or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stand by my Delete His notability is at question right at the point when we question it. There has been judgement by moderators expressing prejudice and dislike in comments by such users as Orange Mike and Cullen talking about silly things as brothels and Jain temples. There is no need for that in this discussion, but yet no one else has called them out for such unprofessional behavior. Let the editors like Horvitz and the intern be questioned for their intentions and editing behavior, but to allow moderators to express such bias in my mind nullifies any argument. This has escaped the realm of professional maintenance and upkeep of WP policies. I may not fully understand the ins and outs of the notability criteria, but why do moderators overlook such snide comments about the artist, intern, and the so called art at hand? I support a path towards deletion only on the basis that this has snowballed out of control into two sects, Wikipedia as Enyclopedia vs. Wikipedia as Endless Potential for Experimentation and Art. If we are to keep this article, then so be it, but as someone mentioned earlier, find some stronger sources than those currently included in the article and keep the childish remarks out of it. Elaborate on the reasons, the policies, and not on the subject Thunderheadgw87n  11:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aronicimo Richotti[edit]

Aronicimo Richotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Grappler who has only competed at beginner levels so does not meet WP:MANOTE. He doesn't seem to have any significant independent coverage so he doesn't meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A series of "white belt executive" medals does not meet WP:MANOTE. That means he was successful in the older age beginner division--not notable. Also lacks significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudbakers[edit]

Cloudbakers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

CSD declined. Sent here as failing WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle 15:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can not see how this is notable in any way, to the extent I would have considered it for A7 DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, and clearly nothing to do with providing solutions as claimed. W Nowicki (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21 02:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chesa Boudin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chesa Boudin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article deleted at AfD previously, then recreated. Still a non-notable child of famous parents. Not notable as a lawyer, a lecturer, or an author of "uninspired" books. The books got some ordinary reviews, I suppose, but most books do and it doesn't mean that all people who write books are notable. Plus, the discussion of his mediocre books seems a little WP:UNDUE, almost like an underhanded attack. We should enforce prior AfD consensus, and WP:BLP. -- Y not? 15:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A much earlier version was deleted atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chesa Boudin in 2007 in a discussion where I did not participate. I declined a speedy as re-creation, as the earlier discussion obviously did not consider the 2009 book or its book reviews. and suggested it would need another AfD for deletion. I need to consider my opinion about the merits of the present article. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. Reviews in the NY Times,[34] Washington Post,[35] SF Gate,[36] World Affairs journal.[37]. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the clear pass of WP:AUTHOR #3 demonstrated by Green Cardamom. The linked reviews may be all for one book, but they're in such major newspapers that I think we can overlook WP:BIO1E. (Btw, "SF Gate" is actually the San Francisco Chronicle). —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know, colleagues, I just feel like it's a vicious cycle of media coverage. The books were reviewed because of who the author's parents are. The books themselves wouldn't have been reviewed otherwise. It all smells of BLP to me. -- Y not? 13:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not for us to judge whether she deserves to be notable, but only whether she is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Green Cardamom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g5, created by sock of banned User:LumCel. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forge of Empires[edit]

Forge of Empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like paid advertorial created by a suspected writer for hire sockpuppet. Non notable with pretty much primary sources. Fiddle Faddle 15:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g5, created by sock of banned User:LumCel. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Magolnick[edit]

Mike Magolnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to assert notability, but, just as you think it's there it runs away as water through a sieve. Sources, yes, but oh so primary and oh so unreliable. WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT of a non notable but enterprising gentleman. Fiddle Faddle 14:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Graaah, beat me by 5 mins :P. Very poorly sourced BLP (almost all of the references are user generated) of a seemingly non-notable author, who apparently just set up a company. Written like an advert, but I decided not to speedy delete due to the number of (poor) sources. Benboy00 (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infinitecoin[edit]

Infinitecoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement with all primary sources. StipulatedFred (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I proposed this for deletion a while ago due to no reliable sources. The original deletion proposal was removed by the article creator, but no sources have since been put up for this article. Cliff12345 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is clearly no evidence that this is yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Alexandra[edit]

Elle Alexandra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Pron actor lacking GHITS and GNEWS of substance. Aooears to fail WP:PORNBIO. reddogsix (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Searches for RS coverage yield only false positives and passing mentions in press releases. Fails PORNBIO with only minor awards and nominations. Mainstream film roles appear minor failing WP:NACTOR. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to add to the nom's and Gene93k's sound reasoning, but I note the extraordinary insignificance of "Sex Award" nominations, where the subject's primary category has 100 nominees. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at best too soon. Cavarrone 18:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as promotional, per wp:g11 -- Y not? 15:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rustam Jabrayilov[edit]

Rustam Jabrayilov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7 - actually, there is a speedy delete category for this YouTube film, see WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Lightle Who Stole Christmas[edit]

The Lightle Who Stole Christmas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable school film Theroadislong (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antha Scene Ledu[edit]

Antha Scene Ledu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable upcoming film, no coverage BOVINEBOY2008 14:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Gong show 15:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Gong show 15:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In checking in at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, and seeking sourcing assistance from editors more able to research the field of Indian cinema than I, it seems that this topic is unverifiable. We might allow it back if we ever do have confirmation, but for now... no. Thus, I have struck my earlier opinion. This one can go. Keep or Incubate and tag for improvements. The article certainly need sourcing, but its text tells us filming wrapped July 19, 2013 and that promotions will begin September 21, 2013, and the film is slated for release November 2013. Its a Telugu and Tamil film and will need input and assistance from editors better able to find Tamil and Telugu sources. Note: Please check the essay WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs, which may or may notbe applicable here. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I agree with the consensus: By our usual criterion for programs, this is not yet notable. It may be useful, and become notable, but WP is not a directory. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PMID onto PDF using PDF XChange[edit]

PMID onto PDF using PDF XChange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe that this article is on a notable subject. Further, it completely lacks citations and is written in a semi-promotional format. However, I am not confident enough in this to nominate for speedy deletion, especially given that, though I have given more than the required minimum time for editing, it has not been long since the article's creation. Jackson Peebles (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it's an A7 speedy deletion (the closest is "web content", but that's not really the same as downloadable software). It could be a G11 speedy for being promotional, but the language is not really promotional. WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:GNG both apply, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OriginalAuthor I checked the three pdf viewers which i have in use - Adobe, Foxit and what i found to realize the small vb program, PDFXView - whether they have the possibility to automatically printout the file names as known from all web browsers printing html files - they cannot do so, at least, I cannot see that I could tell them. This is the reason I created what I needed. The No. 16990 helper application to handle pdf files might not have the full bibliographical relevance to be included; might be, somewhere into the general PDF under the header neglected functions in current pdf handling programs (and some patches to solve them). I think if the top PDF viewers cannot do such a silly task, it is worth mentioning, somewhere ...

--Ossip Groth (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eluyn Gines[edit]

Eluyn Gines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability - doesn't meet WP"SOLDIER IMO - don't believe he is notable enough Gbawden (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If he gets a star then he'll be notable. At the moment he isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't meet any of the criteria in WP:MILNG. – S. Rich (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Gate to Wire[edit]

From Gate to Wire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a column in a local newspaper. No attempt to demonstrate notability. Was converted into a redirect to the town article but that is pointless. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sure it's an interesting column, but I don't think it's a notable one. Stalwart111 14:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 - There is not even so much as a claim to notability here (unless you wanted to stretch and say it's trying to claim inherited notabiity from the races it covers). The article is "This is X. It is Y. It covers Z and is written by A." And that's it. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply not notable....William 11:41, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was RESULT. KEEP (Withdrawn nomination – Green Cardamom is completely right; I'm actually not sure what I was thinking.}}

ACX.com[edit]

ACX.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ad for non-notable company Prof. Squirrel (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ACX is owned by Audible.com which is owned by Amazon.com and one could make a case of inherited notability. WP:INHERITED is allowed when appropriate, if this content did not exist here it would have to be tacked onto the Audible article and it makes more sense to split it off to a separate article. ACX is a significant and important part of the audiobook industry, an industry more than 50% controlled by Audible (Amazon). Further we do have some sources, [38][39][40][41][42][43].. plus more. To call this article an "ad" suggests it is POV and I am not seeing it, the prose is factual, pithy, and doesn't puff up the topic. However that is a content dispute better resolved on the article talk page and not at AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Red (Taylor Swift album). Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Moment I Knew (Taylor Swift Song)[edit]

The Moment I Knew (Taylor Swift Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unremarkable song. Not all songs of every album are notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The song peaked at #64 on the Billboard Hot 100. I will add this information to the article. TCN7JM 08:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. The song peaked on the country charts and the Canadian Hot 100 as well. TCN7JM 08:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album) - Chart positions, on their own, are not enough to satisfy WP:NSONG. "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I could not find any real in-depth coverage of the song in a Google search; as a result, and as per standard precedent, the song title should redirect to the main article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Red (Taylor Swift album). Agree with Lukeno94. In addition, WP:NSONG also says "songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Billboard is only one such source, and the song itself cannot be considered the subject of those charts. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive Race[edit]

Primitive Race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While supergroups composed of independently notable people are basically always notable, this "group" hasn't actually done anything yet other than make a bunch of Twitter posts. As such, they exist in name only, and so I think this article falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Until we see some evidence of them actually recording, performing together, or otherwise "being" a band, they can't be said to be notable. I've searched around, and can't find any sources that met WP:RS that establish notability either. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As far as I can see, nothing in the article violates WP:CRYSTAL. --Michig (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the group "exists" in the sense that it has enough "reality" to be the topic of a Wikipedia article is where WP:CRYSTAL. It's the same rationale that underpins WP:NFF--we don't create film articles until principle filming has begun, and then only when the filming itself has gotten significant coverage. I don't see why we should have an independent article on a band for which there is, as yet, no evidence for existence other than a bunch of Twitter comments and an Indiegogo project (which, of course, itself, is merely a plan for the future). Of course, if mainstream music magazines start covering the "formation" of this group, then we could consider inclusion, but we need some reliable sources to actually recognize this group's existence before we report on it. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's essentially a sourcing issue rather than anything to do with WP:CRYSTAL. This indicates that the band does exist and is currently recording an album. --Michig (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apparently one of their haters thinks they aren't worthy of a page because they're just jealous. They just released a :35 second sampler clip on Soundcloud the other day. Just because they are doing this as a independent musical venture, and do not have every big name media music outlet talking about them; doesn't mean they aren't credible. Trapjawmusic (talk) 07:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC) — Trapjawmusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment. Marked for deletion? Ridiculous. Primitive Race is a bonified supergroup with a solid pedigree. With the clip on SoundCloud, Primitive Race has already released more music in a few months than Tapeworm did in 9 years, and yet Tapeworm has a page. The fact that this article is even being considered for deletion is absolutely moronic.Elmyr (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And what "main stream music magazines are you exactly referring to? Rolling Stone? Hahaha! Anyways, on serious note; There are plenty of sources that cite them as an actual existing group that has been assembled. You know Google is your best friend, and from the looks of things(your ill thought plan at discrediting a legitimate band) you could use one( a best friend, that is; in case that one flew over your head). Seems the obvious reality eludes you, and the fantasy (i.e. crystal ball theory)as your grounds for argument against their legitimacy, is just as much hearsay as you proclaim them to be, no? Show me where it cites that they do not exist? (again, I point you in the direction of your new best friend Mr.google or Ms. if you need a lady friend). Every one of the articles that come up on Google in reference to PRIMITIVE RACE (The Band) clearly states it's members and who they are and their backgrounds. So if I have a group of friends gather together, does it mean we don't exist because ROLLING STONE hasn't covered said gathering? Do I not exist now, because you have qualms about my credibility because all I have to show for it is some "Twitter comments"? Hmm.. ever read up on existentialism? Or more specific, "Sartre"??? His belief was existence precedes essence. And in fact checking, I actually found that gem here on the Wiki. At least I cite my facts! But enough about me.. Are you able to comprehend what I am trying to explain to you? Your argument is null and void if you only did some fact checking before flapping your gums. Cheers! If you have any more questions you may freely contact me at my twitter chatter page. I am known as @TheBeyst there.. That would be *ahem* THE BEAST.. Think of that carefully before you decide to counter with any idle attacks. Gimme a good rebuttal and you're on.. But so far you have not given much but an empty accusation of displeasure for whatever reason. A group has a right to assemble and in accordance to this assembly they are recognized as a legitimate group, with or without M.S.M. (psst.. that's main stream media. In case you didn't know). Oh and one last thing.. "Notable"?? Not notable? Are you kidding me? Do you live under a rock or are you one of those that has absolutely no knowledge of reputable music that actually takes skill and talent make? I think Menudo is doing a reunion tour, I think they're shoppin for another member..*SMDH* Not notable..! Sheesh.. On second thought.. Please don't try to contact me. You have shown your level of intelligence in the music world to not be worthy of mine. But you get a "B" for effort lil man! Make it a beeeutiful(s.i.c.) day! I know I will!
  • Comment I'm not sure if Trapjawmusic is referring to Qwyrxian for starting this AfD, or myself for asking Qwyrxian about the article on his talkpage. If it is the latter, I assure you I am quite excited this supergroup is coming together. I have been a fan of the Industrial genre and will be a first day buyer if an album does get recorded from this collaboration. That being said, I have concerns with the article that I shared with Qwyrxian. The fact that Twitter posts make up the references coupled with the members listed in the article not matching the bio section in the linked website makes me concerned with the accuracy. I think the article would be better served with more reliable services. I'm also concerned that the article has been edited by Primitiverace which could be a significant COI. I sincerely hope this project gets off the ground, please do not think my concerns are out of jealousy, merely a desire to see an article worthy of both Wikipedia and the musicians associated with this group. Finally, I want to thank Qwyrxian for helping me out on this, I apologize if I stirred up a hornets nest. Lettik (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am trying to understand how a few people here are questioning whether or not the existence of the "supergroup" Primitive Race is real without appearing to have done much research. Some of you should learn the definition of patience. There are several sources other than the Primitive Race Twitter account [1] such as member Raymond Watts from the band Pig's official page [2] and Graham Crabb's personal Facebook page [3] both have commentary from official sources which is exclusive to those persons/webmasters alone, coupled with the Soundcloud audio teaser [4], I think some of these users are making a childish complaint at nothing. This article should not be deleted. Transceration (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC) — Transceration (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please don't call other users, like me, childish. Facebook, another band page--all of this is just more self-published sources. None f it has been independently verified, as far as I can tell. And, as far as patience is concerned--that's, in fact, the whole point. You, or others supporting inclusion of this page, need to learn patience, because until this group actually exists, has toured, produced an album, etc., they don't exist in a Wikipedia sense. At least, that is the position I am taking based on our policies, including WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:RS. If the community consensus is that I (and others agreeing with me) are wrong, fine, the article will be kept. But my deletion nomination was made in good faith. And trust me, this is not about "hating" (as an earlier user said)--I don't even know who most of the musicians in this alleged group are. And it doesn't matter, because the whole point is that we need sources to verify this group, and, to be honest, I really think we need them to accomplish something, before an article can exist. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I never called a user "childish" I said the complaint is. There are several sources and judging from the first comment "this "group" hasn't actually done anything yet other than make a bunch of Twitter posts" is a load of nonsense. There are several members who have been identified to be formed in this group and you ignore the Soundcloud clip. As another commentator highlighted the 'band' "Tapeworm" has a Wikipedia page just fine, so whilst you're at it, why don't you nominate that one for deletion as there was nothing credible released from that project. Transceration (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this, this and this which confirms the band pass WP:NMUSIC criteria #6 "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". Transceration, we have kept the article on Tapeworm (band) because it cites Kerrang!, Rolling Stone and MTV, and if you can find articles in these three publications that talk directly about Primitive Race, it will help enormously with improving the article. The problem with Soundcloud it thatanybody can create music and host it there, and claiming you should keep a band article based on presence there is akin to voting "keep" because they have a phone number and email address. It's nothing special. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A source that was not self-published via Blabbermouth http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/fear-factory-singer-to-perform-at-cold-waves-ii-festival/ Transceration (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Top Ten Horses to run at Gansett[edit]

Top Ten Horses to run at Gansett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable list topic, and contains original research – nine of the horses have been taken from a Top 100 list of U.S. racehorses, and the tenth has been chosen by the article creator as one that "seems appropriate". DoctorKubla (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This whole list is original research. No encyclopedic content to keep. TCN7JM 08:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do NOT Delete- It's a valid list, with researched notes 15:31, 13 September 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedVanderwall (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - This is textbook original research. Unless a reliable source has declared these the top 10 horses to run at this track, WP cannot say that these were the top 10 horses. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Edwards (Australian footballer)[edit]

Ryan Edwards (Australian footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A goal in a pre-season match has no bearing on whether a player passes WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Has to be a competitive game between two professional clubs.Simione001 (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: I created this article because his name was added to Template:Perth Glory FC squad. Trying to disambiguate, I found it quite confusing that there was an English footballer of the same name born in the same year, so I thought it would be easiest to create the article to avoid the confusion. I realise the subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL, but I think it might pass WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 07:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep based on passing gng and being likely (a mild case of crystal balling) to make his NFooty satisfying senior debut when the new season commences in exactly one months time. At worst userfy until he makes his senior professional debut or doesn't, and then delete. The-Pope (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Aside from [44] (which i dont believe is enough) these references are all routine... nothing especially notable here therefore fails WP:GNG. There is no guarantee that this guy is going to make an professional appearance anytime soon if ever therefore i dont think this is a suitable candidate for crystal ball. By all means userfy.Simione001 (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: An AAP story about him being signed on a major news website is significant coverage. Being given #4 to wear indicates that he will probably be in the first team. Deleting this one month before he has a chance to meet WP:NFOOTY is just silly. The-Pope (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That really doesn't satisfy GNG, and it's not significant coverage. It's routine coverage, as it's a routine piece about a completed transfer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - Fails GNG, as he has only received routine coverage, and fails NFOOTY, as he is yet to play a professional game. There is no guarantee that he will ever meet NFOOTY, yet alone in a month's time; he might get a serious injury during training, and have his career ended, or all sorts of other things. Userfying is the best answer here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes GNG per The Pope. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The pope didnt say that the articles passes GNG...Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I did: "weak keep based on passing gng" Since then I've found more refs that show it too. The-Pope (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Coverage is not significant, relates to his famous dad and the fact he has signed for a club. GiantSnowman 17:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your dedication to the sanctity of WP:NFOOTBALL is admirable, but you do realise that this, this or this sort of coverage is the most any Australian domestic footballer in the A-League will ever get, almost certainly more than he'll get when he makes his debut (and satsifies NFOOTY)? Maybe a championship winning captain, or record breaker or something might get a bit more, but that is absolutely the most significant coverage any non-international player will ever get. He's been allocated a low jersey number, he's playing and scoring in the warm up games, he's got dedicated articles in state and national newspapers about him and the season doesn't start for another month (October 13 is first game), so if there ever was a reason to bend/delay the application of the NFOOTY rules for a month, this is it. As the season gets closer, especially if he continues to play in warmup games, people will look for information on him, so even userfying defeats the main purpose we are writing this encyclopedia - which is not to maintain the NFOOTY rules - but to provide verifiable information to readers. The-Pope (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Pope. Seems to just pass WP:GNG, and failing that, this seems a situation where (within the limits outlined above) we can appeal to WP:IAR. Disclaimer: I am the article creator - see above. StAnselm (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The-Pope. Also, there is a family issue here in the notability, as he has joined the team his father coaches and his brother plays in. --SuperJew (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11/G12. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wim Blom[edit]

Wim Blom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is written as a resume. A Google search has found what I see as trivial third-party coverage (mostly mentions of where he had exhibited); Google Books search is more promising, but probably also trivial. Article fails to establish notability per WP:ARTIST. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:09, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed a Copyvio and added a couple of references, but these falls short of meeting the rather stringent WP:ARTIST criteria. Much of the subject's career is pre-net though; if the National Gallery of Canada entry was more than just a bare-bones biography (e.g. works in their collection) that would probably pass, though their database entry may be more due to his curatorial role there. AllyD (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah it's a cut and paste of this[45], which is a CV put out by Ian Tan Gallery, where Blom is currently exhibiting.[46] This article was created by a WP:SPA so it appears possible to be part of a PR campaign (we probably should look at other artists exhibited at Ian Tan to see if they also had Wikipedia article's created by SPAs). There is confirmation his work is in the Canadian gallery[47] but he was an employee there, as a curator.. a serious COI for determining notability in this case. I am unable to confirm the other claim that his works are in the South African National Gallery. So it would not pass ARTIST 4.D. I searched on the awards and they all point back to Blom, as if the awards don't exist, which may be due to lack of online sources, but shows they are not notable. Not enough evidence of a notable artist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21 02:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Seaside Park, New Jersey fire[edit]

2013 Seaside Park, New Jersey fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Yet. Or ever. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps you could explain why it is not notable? To some, a continuing ten-alarm blaze destroying the business district of a town might be notable. 71.178.184.73 (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, at least. It appears that eight blocks and at least 32 businesses were destroyed. A bit of time will allow us to better assess its long-term notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and to further comment on what User:Cullen328 said, not only eight blocks and 32 business but two cities (ok technically they are Boroughs) are now left in shambles because of this blaze. IMHO this does definitely meet all the criteria to be included in Wikipedia. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Recent event, give it some days, should well qualify under WP:NEVENTS. Sam Sailor Sing 08:26, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC) (see MfD --BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP is not a newspaper policy, no demonstrated lasting significance this is at best a local news story only - WikiNews is the place for this. In addressing directly the need time to see if it is notable, main space is not for that, we don't create articles on every high school football player because we need time to see if they make the professional grade. LGA talkedits 09:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle to "Funtown Pier" and expand into article on that pier, with the fire as a section of the article. This is as per other articles on Wikipedia that deal with pier fires, as one might see by searching for "pier fire" on the site. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC) — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 14:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Coverage about this event can currently be found on the main pages of sites such as CNN, the Guardian, and the Sydney Morning Herald, demonstrating international coverage, suggesting notability one would not find in a local news story. The UK and Australian papers refer to the boardwalk affected as "iconic" and "famous" respectively. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was not the first major fire in Seaside Park history. The Freeman Pier (which occupied the same site that the Funtown Pier did afterwards) burned in June 1955. Did that fire get similar coverage or notability? — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 14:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without opinion about the current article, there does seem to be some lasting coverage of the 1955 Freeman Pier Fire, primarily due to the destruction of a well-renowned wooden carousel in the blaze. I'm uncertain whether sufficient sources would exist to support an independent article on the merits, however. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now, merge later - I'm surprised that Funtown Pier doesn't have an article, with all the amusement park aficionados on wikipedia. The event would be better if incorporated into a larger article. It's definitely a notable event. --George100 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Greetings from Canada. My wife is from New Jersey and is really emotionally affected by this event. A landmark has been destroyed that many people hold dear. Oruanaidh (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 32 businesses were destroyed and Gov. Chris Christie toured the area, damages are estimated at multi millions of dollars. [48]. All of this plus in depth coverage makes this pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The difference between this fire and the one that occurred in 1955 is that the Internet did not exist nor did cable television so you didn't get as much in-depth coverage, also remember that news gathering organizations like the Associated Press, Reuters and United Press International didn't provide such coverage like they do now. So no the 1955 fire probably would not pass WP:GNG under today's standards but this fire definitely does because of the massive damage and news coverage. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, historic and noteworthy, thousands of secondary sources covered this. — Cirt (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major event of historic importance. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preps on the Net[edit]

Preps on the Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to violate both WP:N and WP:NOT. According to the Better Business Bureau, the company, Preps on the Net, is no longer in business.(source) The article is also written like an advertisement. Fuzzmartin (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:56, 6 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) 02:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The organization's web site is a dead link. The one reference which sounds like an independent source does not mention the organization. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yadav Kant Silwal[edit]

Yadav Kant Silwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:DIPLOMAT, there is no evidence that this ambassador has " participated in a significant way in events of particular diplomatic importance that have been written about in reliable secondary sources." Triplestop (talk) 04:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to have held three senior government positions. He comes from Nepal - of course there's not going to be much internet coverage of him! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"have held three senior government positions" is not a criterion for notability. please demonstrate how he meets WP:BIO or WP:DIPLOMAT. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is in my opinion. AfD. Opinions count. WP:BURO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 9 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) 02:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Moscow is one of the top and most important half-a-dozen ambassadorial posts for diplomats. Only a very few diplomats from any country ever make it to these posts. To have followed this up by becoming the Foreign Secretary of Nepal, i.e. also head of the diplomatic service, is no mean achievement. He easily passes WP:DIPLOMAT. He was also the Secretary-General of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), an established and important organisation in Asia, and of its 11 secretaries-general to date, only one, who preceded him, does not have a WP article (see SAARC). WP:GNG is not an issue either. Give the man his due. I think the article could be expanded evemtually and reliable sources are available e.g. http://ifa.org.np/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/SAARC.pdf Zananiri (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. The sources provided by User:John Broughton convinced me that the company is most likely notable. It would be nice to have them actually integrated into the article, but at least this is sorted out now. (Closed by the nominator.) Keφr 20:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neustar[edit]

Neustar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Incomplete nomination by User:Mikefromnyc, who gave the reason "page is advertising for a for profit company". I shall remain neutral, although I will note that the sourcing for this article does not look great, and the article does sound quite like an advertisement (in itself WP:SURMOUNTABLE, but we need sources anyway). Keφr 07:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP. I don't see why this page needs to be deleted. The page provides accurate information about a company that provides some internet related services to enterprises and government and it's pretty good information too. It doesn't read like an advertisement to me. -Pavithran (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a good argument. Some third-party sources would be a good argument for keeping. And look at the "Business overview" section, written in vague marketingese. Keφr 18:54, 10 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) 02:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appears to be a publicly traded company on the New York Stock Exchange with $620 million in annual revenues? If this is accurate it is hard to believe the company isn't notable and that there aren't articles covering it.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Then bring some. Keφr 06:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This company administers the North American Numbering Plan and is therefore a unique and key part of the telecommunications system of the entire continent. Here's news coverage from TheStreet.com about their Initial public offering. Shortcomings in the current version of the article should be addressed through normal editing, not by deletion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Frankly, I'm astonished that a deletion nomination is being made for a company that is on the New York Stock Exchange. The NYSE isn't where tiny, non-notable companies have their stocks traded. And if the article is too promotional, the solution is to delete that stuff. (To be more constructive, I've listed some sources - a matter of less than ten minutes looking through Google news archives - at Talk:Neustar#Additional sources.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 03:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. These look rather good. The businessweek.com looked a bit suspicious to me initially, but it seems to be just a formatting hiccup on their site. A few more sources and I withdraw this. Keφr 06:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added some more sources. Also, I note that I've relied on memory a bit too much with regard to the NYSE - with its mergers in the mid-2000s, the listing requirements (minimum size of company) appears to have decreased substantially. Still, Neustar is large enough to be important, and - more relevantly - there are sufficient (IMHO) sources to support this claim. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 admin RHaworth (G3 - blatant hoax). (Non admin closure). Stalwart111 11:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Grimes[edit]

Joanna Grimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this after noticing the PROD for a film she was working on (Vampire's Kiss) and deciding to redirect it to her article. However I can't really see where this person is ultimately notable or that any of the claims in the article are really backed up by any RS. Her IMDb article is pretty scanty and I can't really ascertain whether or not she actually did any or most of the things that are claimed in the article as far as roles go. Either she was one of a score of uncredited extras or it didn't happen. I know that many shows go through scads of extras and many don't get any sort of official notice at all to verify that they showed up, but it's also possible due to the claims here (neighbor to Harry Styles, in the paper every week, etc) that this is a hoax. Either way, the lack of notability seems clear. The tone of this is fairly promotional as well and might be speedyable through that route, but I wanted to run this through AfD to verify if any of the claims are true or if this might be a hoax article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I mean, I know that IMDb is user edited so that it's not the end and beginning of proof, but the lack of an actual entry added with the lack of RS sort of hammers home the lack of notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:00, 6 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) 02:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too soon. Actress has yet to receive substantial coverage in reliable independent sources or to play leading roles. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main article text is the same as the biography contributed to IMDB, so qualifies as a Copyvio? Anyway, no evidence found that the subject meets WP:NACTOR at this point in her career. AllyD (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I took a look at the original editor's page with this edit, which is a pretty blatant hoax. It's been removed, but it kind of all but confirms my suspicions that this is a hoax article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, an elaborate but blatant hoax. I took a slightly closer look at the movie and realized that not only does she claim that it's getting made by Dreamworks and Paramount, but she has two big name stars (Craig Olejnik and Ian Harding) starring in it. It'd be highly, highly unlikely that a film would have that sort of studio backing with stars with that amount of name power and not get any coverage at all. I'm tagging this as a hoax. I should've done this to start with. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Ehrlich[edit]

Jessica Ehrlich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - past and current candidate for Congress who has never before achieved political office or done anything else of note. Ansh666 07:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just because she hasn't won an election doesn't mean she's not notable. I see enough independent coverage to establish her notability. Tiller54 (talk) 18:49, 12 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) 02:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2014 as she fails WP:POLITICIAN and the coverage of her is run-of-the-mill for similar unelected candidates. We should not be hosting what is essentially a campaign brochure but instead should cover her candidacy in a neutral overview article describing all candidates in the race. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a major party candidate for a national level office. We could save a good deal of trouble by simply accepting this as a criterion, and I continue to urge it. But in any case it would be merge and redirect. No argument against redirect was given by the nom, probably because there is no rational argument. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, most of the article deals with things that she's done not related to running for Congress, but I can't see any clear notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Also, her candidacy spans multiple elections, so there's no real clear target. I'm never opposed to a redirect when possible, I just didn't think of it at the time, and looking at it closer makes it seem unhelpful. Ansh666 22:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2014. I would support opening up DGG suggestion in a proper forum, but I fear that there will not be an easy line that could be drawn about what constitutes a "major party candidate," especially in contexts outside the United States or other democracies with a stable party structure. Enos733 (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CJC-1293[edit]

CJC-1293 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I PRODed this in April with the following concern: "Does not meet the general notability guideline. It has received only the briefest of mentions in one paper - I can't find any other information on google books or google scholar." It has now been undeleted via WP:REFUND with the creator stating that because it is being sold, we should have an article about it. I've rechecked for sources and no new coverage has appeared. We do not aim to be list every chemical ever synthesised and I am concerned that us having articles on chemicals such as this adds some legitimacy to their use. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 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) 02:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Nominator's deletions rationale also seems valid. Potentially interesting and exists, but notable? Does not appear so. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Growth-hormone-releasing hormone other than the one referenced paper, I could find not other reliable sources. It is a steroid being sold both for research and bodybuilding purposes, but I don't see any news stories or other research papers that would contribute to notability. --Mark viking (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Growth-hormone-releasing hormone. There's really very little limit to the number of these sort of analog compounds, and there's going to be very little to say about 99% of them, except that some company developed it, it's an analog to its parent compound, and (for anything remotely related to steroids, especially) there's gray market use. Frankly, a rewrite of the GHRH analog drug development section (probably simply renamed Analogs) could be a useful place to redirect a whole swarm of these stubby articles -- this one, CJC-1295, Sermorelin, and possibly Tesamorelin (although there is a little bit more to say there, admittedly). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good case. Since the compound is verifiable, a redirect is reasonable and is more useful for our users. I've updated my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually gone ahead and rewritten (and retitled) the target section in Growth-hormone-releasing hormone, although I haven't actually redirected anything there as of yet. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valid managementese. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Operational excellence[edit]

Operational excellence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

undocumented and totally vague: "an element of organizational leadership that stresses the application of a variety of principles, systems, and tools toward the sustainable improvement of key performance metrics." In other words, a method of planning that uses whatever may be useful. The phrase appears in multiple book titles, but it seems to have no specific meaning. (If it does turn out to be a specific system. this collection of buzzwords could only be promotional, not encyclopedic) DGG ( talk ) 15:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 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) 14:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—There are only a bazillion books that cover this topic, many of which are readable via Gbooks. The article is nearly empty, but it's a super-notable topic. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I share your distaste for vague buzzword-compliant management strategies, the real question is whether this is a notable topic. It seems so. There is a Center for Operational Excellence at OSU business school where you can get a Masters in the subject. The whole of the University of California is currently suffering under a plan for operational excellence. Gbooks shows many books devoted to the topic. GScholar shows 11,900 hits for '"operational excellence" -wikipedia'. The topic seems highly notable and is treated in depth in many reliable sources. The article has problems, but this is a matter of editing. A highly notable topic and an article with no insurmountable problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 16:36, 6 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, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. Pages like this one do treat "operational excellence" as a term of art rather than just a pair of words that frequently appear next to each other. To me the term seems to be synonymous with 'doing something well', but it's there in the literature. groupuscule (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Ducasse[edit]

Pierre Ducasse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NDP also-ran candidate. Run several times but never elected. No notability otherwise. Recommend Redirect, but not sure it this should go to a election candidate page such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election or possibly to the New Democratic Party leadership election, 2003 in which he was also a candidate. Suttungr (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the more recent election (where the prior election can be mentioned). Per nom. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ducasse has received extensive media coverage, particularly when he ran for the federal NDP leadership. CJCurrie (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: a search for "Pierre Ducasse" yields 665 discrete hits on Factiva and 950 on ProQuest. WP:POLITICIAN's third rule reads as follows: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"." I would submit that Ducasse has received such coverage, and I will reiterate that the article should not be deleted. CJCurrie (talk) 21:29, 31 August 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) 14:49, 6 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) 02:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I added another reference. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A French Google news archive search also yields some decent results, include significant coverage in influential Le Devoir, which unfortunately is broken and apparently not viewable as a cached file, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is/was an influential person in the NDP. Not only was he a leadership candidate, but he was the party's Quebec lieutenant for a bit. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Here are a couple of Le Devoir articles. -- Trevj (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nycole Turmel is getting rather old to run in 2015, and since Pierre Ducasse stood aside for her, he has first claim on the nomination. We have not seen the last of him. Wilfred Day (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Brennan (businessman)[edit]

David Brennan (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Businessman and director of charitable organizations whose notability has not been established with reliable sources, per WP:RS. Long term efforts to remove maintenance templates; time for an assessment. JNW (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see an assertion of notability, but as we're having this discussion a formal delete is probably best outcome. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete per WP:GNG. A fair few hits via the GNews link above for the wrong David Brennan(!), some being paywalled and unfortunately my Highbeam account has recently expired. However, there are a few generally available hits, e.g. [49][50] The subject also seems to have had a number of pieces published in the Washington Post.[51] -- Trevj (talk) 11:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional comment: per WP:BITE, this good faith comment should be taken seriously. Were sources sought out? -- Trevj (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are talking about the same person. The David Brennan you are talking about is the CEO of AstraZeneca. He is certainly notable and appears to be from Philadelphia. This David Brennan is Australian. Have you any sources covering him? Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Perhaps I was rather hasty. I'll have a better look. -- Trevj (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good faith comment, it's a lie. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I guess that's exactly the kind of correction which is what AfD is for! If I'd known there were so many Brennans, I'd have taken more care. Anyway, I now agree that this should be deleted... in fact it might as well be closed early as delete, if an admin feels like it! -- Trevj (talk) 00:54, 15 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) 15:05, 6 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) 02:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This David Brennan lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Socks edit warring also suggests a lack of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Cavallari[edit]

Ivan Cavallari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was deprodded by the creator with the comment "If the artistic director of the Wa Ballet is not a notable then nobody is. Certainly the article can be improved by not notable???-who decides these things". Well, WA Ballet doesn't look that notable, either: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Australian Ballet. As for notability, since User:Brother_Gilbert asked: community decides on this by creating and maintaining pages like Wikipedia:Notability in general, and debates on particular cases in place like this very discussion in particular. So, let the discussion start - so far the article looks to me like failing Wikipedia:Notability with no claim of notability and poor sourcing. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No apparent attempt to even look for sources in the nomination statement. Searching for "Ivan Cavallari" in the West Australian newspaper's website produces lots of useful references: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56] - there should also be more available in archives given that News Corp has moved to a paywall model. I imagine that Limelight magazine has also published articles on him. Articles on WA Ballet productions in the Fairfax media also typically note Cavallari's role, which would be useful for fleshing out coverage of his career in WA (as examples, [57], [58], [59]. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 31 August 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) 15:18, 6 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) 02:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Appears to have received some regional coverage for his work. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Nick-D, coverage in multiple independent sources is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Libertarian Party (United States). Redirect after merge to United States Senate election in Indiana, 2006. —Darkwind (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Osborn[edit]

Steve Osborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod. Subject fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Unsuccessful political candidate who has received no discernible coverage outside of local and routine campaign press. Should be deleted or redirected to an appropriate page. Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support this. Osborn was the sole opposition candidate in the United States Senate election in Indiana, 2006, achieving one of the largest portion of votes for the Libertarian Party and a third party in a national Senate election. I don't know what Ddcm means by "no discernible coverage outside of local and routine campaign press" but I figure the subject does not fail WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. RoyalMate1 04:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What I meant by "no discernible coverage" is that I could find virtually no significant coverage outside of the one citation the article presently has, which is from local media and is routine campaign coverage. As for the fact that he achieved "one of the largest portion of votes for the Libertarian Party and a third party in a national Senate election", considering there were only two candidates on the ballot in that race, I'm not not so sure that's remarkable enough to establish stand-alone notability for Osborn. A redirect to United States Senate election in Indiana, 2006 would be more appropriate, given the lack of media coverage on the subject per se, IMO.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: As noted above, he did better than any other Libertarian (YAY LP!!! WOOT!) in a Senate race... I understand why the article is being questioned though. PrairieKid (talk) 05:21, 8 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) 02:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The most votes of any Libertarian candidate that year? I don't think it's enough. Where is the substantial coverage? What has he done for me lately? :) Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested below. Satisfies all concerns and seems a good consensus compromise. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lee (bassist)[edit]

Paul Lee (bassist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musician, article contains no reliable sources, no reliable sources found online. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 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) 02:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He fails WP:MUSICBIO as he has never been a member of notable bands, never had a hit record, never participated in a national tour, nor fulfilled any of the other criteria. He's just a regional semi-pro musician. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cullen sums it up nicely - I can't see any evidence that this guy meets the guidelines for inclusion. — sparklism hey! 07:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arash Azizi[edit]

Arash Azizi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, self-promotional, unreliable sources. VictoriaGould (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 6 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) 02:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roopa Mishra[edit]

Roopa Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NON notable,mid level bureaucrat! information stated is not needed for wikipedia! Uncletomwood (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Article holds importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject Odisha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr RD (talk • contribs) 19:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 06:20, 3 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, —SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 6 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) 01:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no assertion of notability per Wikipedia guidelines let alone any substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article talks up initiaives within organisations while the subject has been in roles there, but, taking the most recent as an example, acting as project sponsor for an office work management implementation is hardly notable. No evidence of individual biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dataphor. —Darkwind (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D4 (programming language)[edit]

D4 (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proprietary programming language (since open-sourced). Single cite is self-published. Not seeing any other reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NSOFT guidelines for software notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 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, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Dataphor per McKay, I don't think this is notable enough for a separate article but it makes sense to discuss it in the context of Dataphor. --Cerebellum (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Dataphor. Dataphor is barely notable, never mind its query language. I looked up a random database system that I know has its own query language, and is relatively popular: Apache Cassandra (first one that came to mind). Its D4 equivalent, CQL, doesn't have its own page. Nevertheless, to a programmer looking to learn about Dataphor, D4 is pretty important. I've looked up more obscure languages many times. However, I didn't go directly to them; I went to a related project's page. —Zenexer [talk] 10:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. —Darkwind (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of mobile phones with WVGA display[edit]

List of mobile phones with WVGA display (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
List of mobile phones with HD display (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List with too broad of an inclusion criteria, and its outdated (still says "Mobile phones with WVGA native display resolution are becoming more common"). Also nominating List of mobile phones with HD display for similar reason ViperSnake151  Talk  05:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not encyclopedic, trivia. No evidence that "mobile phones with WVGA display" is a notable topic with more than passing media interest. (Should we have a list of phones with 1GB RAM? With 4.2" display? With three buttons? With rounded corners? Where does the madness end? What are the criteria to judge such lists worthwhile?) --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. Both lists are certainly WP:DISCRIMINATE lists. Where do we end such lists? That is a good question. We end such lists when they do not provide useful additional information to other articles. If, for some reason, there is a place in an article where it is appropriate to have a list of mobile phones with three buttons and that list grows such that it is too large to reasonably include in an article, then there should be a separate page with a list of such phones. --Makyen (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think a category of "Mobile devices with 720p displays" and "Mobile devices with 1080p displays" would be a bit more manageable than trying to maintain a list. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If having two separate lists pages (instead of two lists on one "HD" page) is something that would be useful to another article that references them, then we could do so. Keep in mind that we would be making new list pages for each new resolution as it comes out just to make the page. This might not be a bad thing. If your goal is to have a discussion on restructuring how these lists are kept, then I feel it would have been better to have had that discussion on the talk pages of the relevant lists, then create the new lists (if that was the consensus), then have the AfD process started.
My impression is that most people group all displays that are 720[ip] and 1080[ip] as "HD". This is due to the way televisions have been marketed over the last several years. While I, personally, don't group them as such, I believe that most people do.--Makyen (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both lists are useful additions to the articles which reference them. They are referenced in articles that discuss mobile phone displays and/or display resolutions. While I do not know the history of List of mobile phones with HD display, the List of mobile phones with WVGA display was created because the primary article that references it, Graphics display resolution, had a list of such phones in its section on WVGA as examples of such displays. That embedded list became long as multiple editors wanted to add their favorite phone to the examples listed. Multiple attempts were made to keep the embedded list to a reasonable size, or eliminate it. Eventually, it was clear that neither method was going to work. As described in WP:SPLITLIST the list was split off into its own set index article.
List of mobile phones with HD display is a high quality list that I find quite useful. I feel that it should be kept even if List of mobile phones with WVGA display is deleted.
Responses to the reasons specified as why these should be deleted:
"too broad of an inclusion criteria"
I honestly don't understand this reason. Both lists included in this AfD have very specific criteria for inclusion in the list. If the inclusion criteria are too broad then we should be able to break those included in the list down into sub-lists (I am not suggesting creating pages for each). WVGA contains multiple actual display resolutions because that is how "WVGA" developed over time for computer displays. I don't see why we would want to break down the WVGA list beyond what has already been done. The list was created for reference in the WVGA section of Graphics display resolution for the reason stated above.
The List of mobile phones with HD display could be broken down into two lists one that is 720p (HD) and one that is 1080[ip] (Full HD). The List of mobile phones with HD display currently contains both lists. It is debatable as to if the list should be broken down further. Most people probably group all displays that are 720x1280, or greater, as HD displays. This is due to how television displays have been marketed over the last several years. In my opinion it should be left as it is, at least for the foreseeable future.
From your comment above you appear to want to break the list into one that is 720p and one that is 1080p. I feel that it would have been much more appropriate to discuss this on the list's talk page, or at least creating the 720p and 1080p lists prior to making a AfD.
outdated (still says "Mobile phones with WVGA native display resolution are becoming more common")
The fact that they both said "are becoming more common" is not a reason to delete them. It is a reason to edit the pages and change the text to something like "have become common". I have made this edit on both pages. Seriously, taking the position that a page should be deleted for lack of editing that would have taken less effort than starting a AfD is not a reasonable position to take. Because this is not a reasonable position to take, I am attempting to come up with other ways to interpret your comment.
Are you taking the position that the lists have become outdated, in that they don't include a significant number of phones that should be in the list? Even if true, this is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason to edit the page to include those that you believe should be added.
Are you taking the position that technology has so far exceeded the WVGA and HD displays on phones such that keeping a list of them around is no longer desirable? If so, this is just not true. Phones with such displays are still being introduced. The List of mobile phones with HD display increased from 57 to 77 in the last 2 months. The List of mobile phones with WVGA display is much slower moving with only 3 additional phones from the beginning of the year.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your arguments. If so, please explain.
Is it that you feel the WVGA list is outdated (but not too broad) and the HD list is too broad (but not outdated)?
The lists serve useful functions in the articles that reference them. I see no valid reason to delete them. I vote keep. --Makyen (talk) 17:31, 10 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) 01:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-- Trevj (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hakel[edit]

Chris Hakel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played in a professional game. News coverage routine. Article was Deprodded asserting that Baltimore Sun was notable but the article I assert was routine. Articles about draft choices are quite common before and during training camp....William 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions....William 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions....William 14:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. I assert that the Baltimore Sun article about Hakel is not routine, which is why I removed the prod. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Baltimore Sun piece is not routine draft coverage, but a feature article about Hakel. AGF for the other offline sources, and you've met the GNG. I agree most people in his situation wouldn't be notable, but it appears this guy is... barely. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:NGRIDIRON. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • GNG trumps all sports-specific guidelines. This nomination boils down to whether he passes GNG (which some of us contest that he does), not whether he passes NGRIDIRON (which he doesn't). Jrcla2 (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. However, this article doesn't do it--it is routine sports coverage (local color). Plus, multiple articles are generally required. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not AGFing the offline sources then. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is nothing in WP:ROUTINE that I can find to discount an article as a reference exclusively because it is "local color" --Paul McDonald (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See WP:NOTROUTINE as a response to the argument that a feature article is "routine coverage" --Paul McDonald (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It is routine. Your so called feature article is 529 words in length. 500-700 word articles, take for instance this one[60], about a NFL team's draft picks are quite routine during the preseason....William 11:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response It is far above routine announcements and scores, as WP:ROUTINE sets the limit.--0Paul McDonald (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Question how many words does an article need to have for you to consider it not "routine" ? WP:BIG discusses this "arbitrary" number theory and its fallacy, and although that is talking about notability quantityd I believe the same argument applies here. What's the cut-off for the number of words in an article to be "not routine" ?? I argue that the article size of the source is no measure of importance of that article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:40, 11 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) 01:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not have significant coverage in multiple independent 3rd-party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment how about these for starters: New York Times "William & Mary used the pinpoint passing of quarterback Chris Hakel and two long touchdown plays to defeat Navy, 26-21, today." (half the story covers him) Times Daily "Hakel Latest Redskin on injured reserve". Free Lance Star "Hakel expected to get his shot" Cavalier Daily "Tribe quarterback Chris Hakel was more than up to the task, completing 29 of 48 passes for 326 yards." Albany Herald "Chris Hakel is still on the Washington Redskins' injured reserve list, the seventh quarterback in the last euight years to be there."
This may seem like a strange question, but he doesn't meet the notability criteria for football players at WP:NGRIDIRON so what is he notable for? 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NGRIDIRON is a specific notability guideline designed to mark a line of "presumed notability" but it is certainly not the only measure that notability can be achieved. WP:ABELINCOLN covers this in some detail, but an individual can achieve notability through the general notability guideline and still not have met the threshhold of WP:NGRIDIRON. Not all college football athletes are notable, but there are college football athletes that are notable who have not played professionally. In this case, I believe the subject passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOLLATH makes it clear how college athletes become notable even if they don't play professionally--and Hakel doesn't meet those criteria. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCOLLATH makes one path clear. There are many paths to notability, and the guideline referenced agrees with that standpoint. I stay with my previous position that the coverage listed including the New York Times article is more than enough to establish notability for his college play and surpasses WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far, among the three people who !voted delete: one of them isn't AGFing the offline sources after the claim that only one source exists; another won't answer the question as to how long he thinks an article's word count should be after he himself gave what he thinks is too minimum a word count; and the third was shown there are multiple, non-routine third party sources. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I think there are serious issues in the delete arguments.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there are obvious disagreements in what constitutes non-routine coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying you disagree is just an argument and not a discussion of the reasons why. Otherwise we end up in WP:WABBITSEASON. It's clear that there are obvious disagreements in what constitutes non-routine coverage. What isn't clear is why selected editors classify the coverage as "routine" -- however, the editors that classify the coverage as not routine and worth of passing WP:GNG have provided details to support that position. One editor posted that it is "routine" because an article source is between 500 and 700 words, but has failed to state why that matters nor what would make an article of 701 words "not routine" but 700 words "routine" -- we're calling for more details, we're not getting any.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it curious how the IP editor can formulate an opinion on whether the offline sources are considered routine or not. You haven't read them, neither have I. That's why it's in good faith. The IP is making a generalization on every single source used in the article that they're not routine when in fact he's only been able to actually read one of them, a piece by the Baltimore Sun specifically on Hakel. Hmm... Jrcla2 (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because the titles make things fairly clear--"Hakel cut","Hakel signs with Chiefs", "Hakel to William & Mary". It's not rocket science to figure out what those articles discuss.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then what do they discuss and why then should they be excluded from the Notability discussion?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to know. Don't worry IP, we can wait :) Jrcla2 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They should be excluded simply because it's routine sports reporting. Hundreds of football players sign with, and are cut by, NFL teams each year--that doesn't make them all notable. The local paper saying a local player is going to W&M isn't significant coverage (see WP:NCOLLATH). Even the Baltimore Sun article is simply reporting on someone signing with the nearest NFL team (at that time Baltimore didn't have an NFL team and the Redskins actually play in Maryland). Every draft pick gets coverage like that, it doesn't make them all notable. Where are the multiple sources showing significant non-routine coverage? I'm not seeing them.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can't agree that the Baltimore Sun article, which focuses entirely on the subject of the article, is "routine". That rule is (IMHO) meant to rule out things like team lists or fixture results, not feature items in a noteworthy newspaper. AGFing on the offline sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ultraman monsters. —Darkwind (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red King (Ultra monster)[edit]

Red King (Ultra monster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike some of the other monsters, it looks like someone might actually search for this character, as the article makes a few unreferenced claims that this is a fan favorite and popular monster. Who is going to search for the term "Red King (Ultra monster)", though? I suggest the disambig page be updated with a link to Ultra Monsters and this page deleted. That way, fans can still find the character. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:28, 6 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, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge Not really appropriate for a separate article but the information should be retained and a redirect made. There's no reason given against merging or redirection. Notability is not required for content, just for a separate article. The form nomination used here does not address these issues, here or in the multiple other occurrences. As usual, I still cannot understand "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary" -- assuming that something sensible is intended, it might mean there is little likelihood for further growth in the article. I don;t see how one can really tell it, but once merged, it can always be re-expanded if the information warrants it. Whether someone will easily find the exact indexing term is irrelevant, it's still the best we could do. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge of sourced content to List of Ultraman monsters, per WP:GNG, WP:BEFORE. -- Trevj (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the end of the day, nobody voted delete. Some keeps are week, but there is consensus that the article can somehow be improved.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bluehorses[edit]

The Bluehorses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable band. Article tagged as unsourced since April 2007. No obvious reliable sources out there, no evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC. Mind you, they were one of the best live bands I saw circa 1998-99 and I've got four of their albums .... but that doesn't mean diddly squat. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You must not be a true fan. They had five albums, dude.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Article needs work certainly, but there are more than enough sources in English newspapers. 35 search results 2001-present in the Worcester News alone (SEE: [61]. Ask User:Madfiddler (Mark Knight)[62] who used to jam with them. You could have spent less time on google finding sources than it took you to put together this ridiculous AFD.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's one source: [63]. --Michig (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Allmusic source is good - we can use that. I'm a little confused that the biography has no name against it. The Worcester News sources are not so good, as there seem to be multiple repetitions of the same story. I don't know why they didn't come up when I did a news search, but there you go. You would expect maybe a couple of paragraphs in The Guardian ([64], or The Telegraph,([65]) wouldn't you? There's this BBC source here, but that looks self published. I dare say there's more stuff offline, but the problem with band articles, particularly those without chart success somewhere in the world (even Half Man Half Biscuit managed a top 75 hit) then getting sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG is a hard sell. And until good sources come to light, we can't in good conscience keep the article while staying within Wikipedia policies. Anyway, as things currently stand I've improved the article a bit and I recommend everyone else does the same. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got a feeling the 'dna' part of the BBC website was a bit of a community-sourcing experiment. That link seems to be to a discussion forum in any case so wouldn't be considered a reliable source. I didn't find much beyond the Allmusic bio. --Michig (talk) 18:33, 6 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) 01:49, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A rewrite would definitely be a good idea, but clearly no consensus for deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical inheritance systems[edit]

Historical inheritance systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLOWITUP comes to mind. Look at the state of this article, and then at what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal; this certainly reads like a humongous paper written for an anthropology journal. Wikipedia is also not a indiscriminate collection of information; I can't find a better way to describe this article. The immense amount of intricate work that has gone into this article, which is, frankly, a work of art, is its downfall. It's entirely impossible to work with. I think this is a perfectly good subject to write an article on, but it needs to be done in an encyclopaedic manner, and I believe that it has to be done from scratch. So, as I say, WP:BLOWITUP seems relevant. Microphonicstalk 23:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wrote this entire article and, frankly, I can't believe that someone proposes its deletion because it is "too well written". You say it should be erased because It contains too much information and seems like an article written for an scientific (anthropological) journal... Well, you are saying that Wikipedia is less reliable and of less value than an scientific journal, and it should remain that way. I think we can make Wikipedia a source as valid as an scientific journal. You say that this article should be written "in an encyclopedic manner", perhaps implying that encyclopedical articles are much shorter, but you forget that encyclopedical articles tend to be much shorter because of lack of space (they are written on paper). Wikipedia is a digital source and, as such, doesn't have these limitations. We should take advantage of this and write articles as "long and detailed" as we could. I considered my article finished and wasn't thinking about writing more on it, but when I visited it today, wanting to get a view of my finished work, alas, here I find someone trying to blow it up because it is "too long". Do you think this is fair and ethical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 5 September 2013

Do you think it is fair and ethical to completely ignore every call to fix the links to disambiguation pages and to ignore the requests to split up the article in more manageable pieces? This article is completely unreadable. It give me the idea that you are writing your thesis here and don't care about readability, download times or even download caps. I have spend a lot of times repairing your links, but I have enough. DELETE The Banner talk 21:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be more friendly: blow up this article in such a way that it shatters in more convenient pieces. Split up the article The Banner talk 19:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - although it could be more convenient to use WP:BLOWITUP, it has admittedly become big beyond repair. Infinitely too many references and is unencyclopedic. The one that forgot (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and synthesis. This monster has over 500 references but the overarching topic itself is not discussed in the references, which instead discuss narrower matters.The article topic is therefore the creation of the author of this non-encyclopedic article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article reminds me of a recent featured article: Social history of viruses which likewise covered a broad topic and had hundreds of references. What's the fundamental difference? Warden (talk) 12:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was split off from the History section of Inheritance in July - presumably because it was becoming quite large. If this page were deleted then the content would just be reverted back in that article which obviously ought to have some coverage of the history and methods of inheritance used throughout human history. This split further demonstrates the notability of the topic. The problem just seems to be scale of the topic. Further splits might help but deletion just seems to be disruption of the natural process of development and expansion. Warden (talk)
  • Keep with a recommendation of a rewrite. I see a few obvious problems that could probably be fixed with a bit of determined editing (or, possibly, a well-written script). The alleged [[WP:OR}] and WP:SYN will be significantly more difficult to detect and replace, but one could always solicit an expert from the most relevant WikiProject. The violations of WP:NOT are more significant, and will require extensive editing; though it is not well-suited to Wikipedia, nominating it for cleanup would probably be a better solution than deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because I did my best to write a good article and don't want it to be blown up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.137.209.91 (talk) 06:57, 10 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, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a recommendation of a rewrite. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate there are altrnatives to deletion. I have removed the copyediting tag. GOCE will await a decision on deletion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no doubt about the notability of the topic. Historical development is a discrete aspect of inheritance and there is value in separating it out from a description of what we have today. The problem is in the form of the article. Ansegam says that he did his best, and it clearly needs a fresh eye and an understanding of how to structure Wikipedia articles, but a lot of the information could be preserved in some form. There are ways of summarising without losing the sense and value of the academic research cited, and in other cases facts can be tabulated. --AJHingston (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a junkyard. GregJackP Boomer! 23:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For what it's worth. "The Flesch reading ease score is 17, this means that 6% of the articles on Wikipedia are harder to read than this one." Readability of Wikipedia for this article Retrieved September 20, 2013. Donner60 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. There is certainly a problem about deletion purely on stylistic grounds; some articles on technical and scientific subjects will be largely impenetrable to those without some grounding in the field. That is not to say that is something to which anyone should aspire and there are most certainly ways in which this article could be made much easier to use without any loss of value. But Wikipedia is not the Discovery Channel, which was alleged to have required that programmes should be comprehensible to a 12 year old child. --AJHingston (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Ansegam. I split up the article into several parts as some of you told me. I hope it is more readable now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam (talk • contribs) 19:44, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, encyclopedic, educational, and great deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've fixed much worse than this one. Bearian (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , as easily rewritable. "Blowitup" applies when something is too confused to have anything worth saving in a rewrite, or, more often, when something is so contaminated by promotionalism or the like that a rewrite would only serve to perpetuate the improper material in the article history. Neither reason applies here. There will be some stylistic problems here, such as handling the list of ethnic groups (I suggest a table).(And the refs need reformatting) But it's not inaccurate, it's a major ethnological topic, and it serves as a good introduction. The individual inheritance systems should of course be individually covered, and the articles on the individual groups should discuss the topic, but this is a suitable brief survey. This is basically written in an encyclopedic manner, and I share the amazement of the original author at the nomination. If we were to all go around deleting articles we each individually found hard to understand, there are major topic areas that would be completely uncovered.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Electronics[edit]

Anaheim Electronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional or not, does not meet stand alone requirements. Problems with inuniverse content would not change the basic requirements for N as a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to it not establishing any notability with proper references. TTN (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to assert any notability outside the fictional work it appears in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All WP:PLOT info, not notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Vigneux Beaudry[edit]

Guy Vigneux Beaudry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. previous AfDs have shown no inherent notability of ambassadors. Beaudry was a Chargé d'Affaires, which is a level lower than Ambassador. I could find no significant coverage of him. LibStar (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He was never a permanent ambassador, and only served as Chargé d'Affaires in one country. I can only find passing references to him, although he does appear to be a published author.[66]. Pburka (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is clearly to delete without a redirect. Incidentally, I fully endorse the way Ravendrop handled the PROD--I do them the same way DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Peachland wildfire[edit]

2012 Peachland wildfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fire of the type that commonly occur in B.C. every year. It was one of 1,644 fires that year and was small at 200 hectares (of 102,000+ hectares). Despite an evacuation order, no lasting coverage or impact. There were some short stories written at the time of the fire, but they are all WP:ROUTINE. PROD removed by creator. Ravendrop 03:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravendrop: since you see fit to mention the fact that I removed the prod-tag, let me explain. WP:Prod says: "Proposed deletion (PROD) is a way to suggest an article for uncontroversial deletion." This article was rated high-importance by several WikiProjects, so obviously the deletion is not uncontroversial. Your PROD cost unnecessary wikipedia resources and should have been avoided. Just my $.02. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ottawahitech: Please note that by mentioning that you removed the PROD in the deletion summary was, and is, in no way an attack on you. It is simply something I do for any article I list at AfD after a PROD has been contested for completeness, to demonstrate that the deletion is, potentially, disputed and, if the user who removes the PROD mentions one, I include their reason for removing the PROD too. As for the project ratings, they have very little bearing on a deletion. These assessments are essentially the opinion of one person and in a narrowly defined topic/notability guidelines as opposed to the general guidelines that all pages must adhere to. Finally, a PROD is a single, templated, edit and is incredibly "cheap". It is far less "expensive" than an AfD or having a page on a non-notable topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced that it even deserves to be mentioned on that page as it is a list of notable wildfires, not all wildfires ever. It appears that inclusion on that page is being notable enough to have its own wikipedia page. I'm also not convinced that it would be worthy of a mention on List of wildfires of British Columbia if it existed, as suggested below. Ravendrop 05:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravendrop's analysis. This is a run of the mill wildfire, not notable in terms of size, resources deployed, or damage done. This would warrant a mention in List of wildfires of British Columbia, if it existed. Hmm... The Interior (Talk) 02:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravendrop's analysis. No significant coverage exists. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caliber Point[edit]

Caliber Point (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article, references are essentially PR and do not prove notability . Rejected from AfC some time ago, but moved into mainspace anyway without addressing the objections DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. If it is kept it should be stubbified as its mostly promotional and unsourced. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yeah, lots of stuff that seems to have been derived from press releases and company announcements, not so much in the way of independent coverage. Stalwart111 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SynamicD[edit]

SynamicD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable online game - see WP:NVG for the relevant ALPHABETSOUP. Ansh666 06:45, 5 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) 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article reads like a gameplay article, and there have been no independent sources that discuss the development of the game, or any critical reviews of it. A google news archive search came up with absolutely nothing, other than the game's official site. 和DITOREtails 18:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Animation Zouk[edit]

Animation Zouk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable sports club, failing WP:ORG and WP:GNG, due to a lack of reliable sources covering it. Of course, there is the possibility of Arabic sources, so if someone finds that there are plenty of those, and that it does satisfy GNG, I will withdraw the AfD; until then, it clearly fails it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a non-notable sports club. I read Arabic, and even in Arabic sources it's not notable. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 13:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. With no support other than the nominator for deleting the content, I think there is a clear consensus here to keep the article. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zan people[edit]

Zan people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find anything about these 'Zan people' anywhere. It seems to be something someone made up by extrapolating the application of Zan languages. — Lfdder (talk) 09:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Caucasus is a very remote region, and a lot of stuff about it hard to look up, especially if you only speak English. Just because you never found it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. --Yalens (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what? This is purported to be a "parent" ethnic group for the very well attested Lazs and Mingrelians. — Lfdder (talk) 07:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: with a possible name change. See here, page 133 and page 135 for various possible collective designations of the Mingrelian and Laz people. "Zan" and "Chan", however, are alternate designations for the Laz people specifically, according to the same source (see pages 124 and 225).
Here also are "Chan" and "Zan" given as alternate names of the Laz people.הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not some made up term, it's a name used by historians and anthropologists to designate the Laz and Mingrelian peoples and their ancient ancestors (i.e. the Colchians). Just because it is hard to find information on a subject, just means it's quite obscure and not many historians write about it (at least in English), but it can still be relevant to Wikipedia. I would certainly like to see the article expanded a bit though. --Hibernian (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hibernian: as you seem to know more about the subject, perhaps you can clarify: is Zan a synonym of Laz or of Megrelo-Laz? Check the sources I linked. (This has no bearing on the notability of the Megrelo-Laz people, whatever be their name, who are the subjects of this article.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piramal Group[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Piramal Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm filing this after a contested G4 request. The rationale of the previous AfD was "This is spam masquerading as an article. The subject may be notable but this text doesn't do it justice at all." The article was replaced soon after deletion (its earlier history has been restored at my request). While there are substantial changes from the original version, [67] there are also substantial similarities. —rybec 17:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I fail to see a reason for deletion in this nomination. Are you saying the article is advertisement spam which if it is can also be rewritten? The group does seem to have many subsidiaries and one common article for them all is not a very bad idea. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. When recreating an article that was deleted after an AfD, the deficiencies that led to the deletion of the earlier version should be remedied (Wikipedia:CSD#G4). —rybec 22:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the article is advertisement to you? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Delivers quality education", "one [of] the first to develop organized work space", and "one of the leading manufacturers" promote the topic subjectively. —rybec 05:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed them. Any more? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Samurai Deeper Kyo characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Eyes Kyo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Demon Eyes Kyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character does not establish notability independent of Samurai Deeper Kyo through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. The sources from the previous AfD were never shown to actually have actual substantial coverage of the character, and nothing of substance has been added. TTN (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nazaaray[edit]

Nazaaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

perhaps a tad too tiny to be a notable corporation? Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A micro boutique winery (i.e. tiny) that apparently makes good wine, but not enough to get enough press notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article reads like an ad for this company, and there is nothing which indicates notability Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BigRock[edit]

BigRock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failing to see anything notable in this organisation. Being the first to advertise something on TV is interesting, but not notable. Seems to be a run of the mill internet service company. Fiddle Faddle 12:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—I was ready for this to be a thing, but then I started checking the sources. Press Release, Press Release, Dead Link, Blog, Press Release, Blog (or something to that effect)... Basically no reliable sources at all. Fails WP:N. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 13:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 21:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ClueNet[edit]

AfDs for this article:
ClueNet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 16:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Keep - Nomination failed to address any of the issues or the consensus reached in prior AfDs. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TempleCon[edit]

TempleCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't site any sources. A google search only reveals non-reliable blog and result lists. No news articles seem to exist, therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT Mdann52 (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I can't find any good lists to which it may be redirected or merged. I'm open to suggestions, though. As far as notability goes, the best I can do is a couple hits to a local newspaper, which is not enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanoid (GaoGaiGar)[edit]

Mechanoid (GaoGaiGar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic does not establish notability independent of The King of Braves GaoGaiGar through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Google returns nothing usable, and there's no assertion of notability. I don't really see how an article on this topic could be sourced unless there are Japanese sources that I'm missing. If so, it can be recreated, but it needs to list some sources to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Mole (MC/producer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Mole (MC/producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This WP:BLP was moved into the incubator after a previous deletion discussion 18 months ago. It last had any substantive edits about one year ago. Those edits added a lot of new material, but not a lot of reliable sources. I moved this back to mainspace as the incubator is not intended for permanent storage of marginal articles, but I do not believe the concerns from the first AFD have been rectified. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Same issues that made me nominate it 18 months ago haven't been resolved at all, still an unsourced bag of WP:OR with little conferring of genuine notability or even the legitimacy of the content. Also remember this article has been around for eight years in roughly this condition, we need to cut it loose. tutterMouse (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources added are mostly not reliable, or are just directory listings of albums he worked on. Most of his projects do not appear to be notable, nor does there seem to be any third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obie One B.A.[edit]

Obie One B.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BAND and the WP:SPA that has maintained it has not provided any good sources. I certainly can't find any. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No good refs... just interviews, PR feed and brief mentions. Bgwhite (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Baltan[edit]

Alien Baltan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ultra Monsters. The article makes some claims to notability, but I can't find a single reliable source. Deletion would also be acceptable, but it seems like fans might search for this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable set of characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.twitter.com/primitiverace
  2. ^ http://www.theswining.com
  3. ^ https://www.facebook.com/graham.crabb.10
  4. ^ https://soundcloud.com/primitiverace/primitive-race-sampler/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_September_13&oldid=1142630362"