Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 April	16 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anniston Eastern Bypass[edit]

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

Expired PROD from 2008 (!) that was de-PRODded and not deleted. Concern then was "Unreferenced, non-notable transportation project" and that is still the case. –Fredddie ™ 23:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this article was undeleted by request at WP:REFUND#Anniston_Eastern_Bypass. Nevertheless, the notability concerns still apply. –Fredddie ™ 00:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This appears to be an important road that is being built by the Alabama Department of Transportation as State Route 192; it is also receiving stimulus funding from the ARRA which shows importance. (see here on page 36). The article does need a lot of improvement though. Dough 48 72 02:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record the road is now known as the Veterans Memorial Parkway (see here). A Google search revealed several newspaper articles about the highway. Dough 48 72 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently only the final stretch of the road is Veterans Memorial Parkway? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Subject is likely notable per WP:NGEOG, but the lack of RS sources means it fails WP:V. Also this article is so dated that as it stands it may no longer be factually accurate. It needs to be updated with reliable sources or it needs to go away. I have added the page to my watch list. If appropriate improvements are made I will be happy to change my vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my !vote to reflect added sources. Article is still in serious need of updating though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a major road project that's had a fair amount of news coverage (e.g. [1]). If in the future it becomes part of US-431 it can be merged to that article. --NE2 10:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—NE2 had this WP:REFUNDed, which is fine. However, when an older article like this is REFUNDed, it should be brought up to date as expeditiously as possible. If it's not going to be updated, the article will still have the same issues regarding lack of sources and borderline notability (as written the article doesn't demonstrate the notability of the roadway, even if it is notable). I'm inclined to keep this, but the article needs to be updated and cleaned up yesterday. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While some updating is still needed, I've fully referenced the article: notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that regardless of the issue of existence of this article, the title appears to be appropriate per Lightbreather's arguments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assault Weapons Ban of 2013[edit]

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

This legislation never had a chance to pass and has no inherent notability beyond being another piece of "band-aid legislation" sponsored by a long-time political hack trying to stay relevant. Hundreds of thousands of bills are introduced in Congress, and not even most of the ones that pass are considered notable. Allowing this article to exist as written creates NPOV and coatrack problems in a controversial and problematic area. I was in favor of a larger piece about "Gun Control in the Wake of Sandy Hook" or something similar with this included, but not as a stand-alone article. The title is misleading as there was no Federal Ban enacted in 2013. This is not newsworthy or notable. I tried to resolve this, along with several others against a very determined editor who means well, but does not see the bigger picture. Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am the editor who created the article. I started it just three days ago. While I was out to lunch today, two editors decided to rename [2] and reorganize [3] it, which may be Wiki "legal," but I hope it's not considered WP:CIVIL. I gave numerous reasons on the talk page about why the topic is worthy of its own article [4] (notably WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV), and I gave suggestions [5] for the two other editors about how and where to appropriately share their Sandy Hook shooting related material. Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect LB created this article. LB ALSO chose the scope of this article, including 23 executive orders by Obama, including alternate proposals by the NRA, including state law changes, including polling about gun control. In her most recent revision after the kerfuffle, she has removed most of that. redirect to Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or Federal_assault_weapons_ban#Efforts_to_renew_the_ban or Reactions_to_the_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting as all of this content is intrinsically linked, and keeping it by itself is an unneeded WP:CFORK, and the extra hangers on (AWB + the bits that LB likes) is WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:OR that fails WP:NPOV. It was a symbolic gesture during the aftermath of the shooting. That is the context it belongs in. Since the resounding vote against it, it has gained nary a peep in the news and fails the WP:10YT except as part of the shooting - As part of the shooting or gun control reactions to the article, it should recieve WP:DUE coverage as one of the significant parts of that event (which it does do, in the Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article, which consists of content almost entirely written by LB just in an order she doesn't like and with a different WP:TITLE (See this revision, prior to ALL of my edits, that contains almost all of the "expanded article" content [6]) . Also, since there was ongoing discussion about this dispute, including collaboration on an RFC which LB requested, forking this article is a failure of WP:GAME and should be speedily deleted under A10 as it is an exact subset of the other article written by LBGaijin42 (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. There is no rational for separate articles that are substantively about the same topic. The broader approach on this topic is the better one. This can all be folded in quite nicely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect As per above, it seems like that this article is not only a duplication of an existing topic but a source a large amount of disagreement and drama. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 22:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am changing this to keep, the article to which I had originally voted to merge to is a collection of sources banded together into an original research article. While this law did fail it at least has significant coverage and references the actual law, not a collection of laws and news articles. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 20:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG SPEEDY Delete Content fork duplicated per WP:GAME Also, the article is terribly named, and has already been redirected/duplicated to the Sandy Hook version anyway. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin already nominated it for a speedy delete.[7] The admin decided not to [8] and said it was "reasonable split of larger article."

If anything rename the article to be in line with other pieces of US law, this is the original title of the law as proposed and tabled to the senate, http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 20:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the name is the biggest problem. It implies that there was some sort of ban when there was not. This is deception at its finest.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Equal Rights Amendment failed to pass, but we didn't title that article "The failed Equal Rights Amendment" or "Equal Rights Amendment (failed)". Prohibition was repealed, but we didn't title that article "The repealed Prohibition Amendment" or "Prohibition (repealed)". WP:UCN says that "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" is the best name for this article - about AWB 2013. Lightbreather (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't put words in my mouth. This topic is nowhere near the scope of the two you mentioned. If you keep repeating a lie, some people will fall for it, but it does not make it any more truthful.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where I put words in your mouth, but I apologize for whatever it was I wrote that seems that way to you. No, AWB 2013 wasn't as big as the ERA or Prohibition, so if they appeared in the same article - say about failed bills and laws - it would receive less weight than those. BUT it was titled and called the Assault Weapons Ban (of 2013) - and more importantly, per it meets the WP:GNG guidelines for a stand-alone article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I !voted above, I think the article should be merged, as 100% of this content already exists in the other article. But if it is kept, this title is appropriate. It is the actual title of the bill. The bill failed, but it was a bill with this title. In this small regard, I actually respect Feinstein, as she did not wrap the title of the bill in euphemism or acronym to hide the purpose of the bill and perhaps attempt to gain votes or support that way. Its a ban. She called it a ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. I am sure you are strictly adhering to the policy and for the record, so is LB. However, my point of contention is the bigger picture. An article's title in this context should reflect the content. Take the 1994 Ban. The actual title of the bill that became law was Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act the actual term in usage at the time was The Crime Bill or Omnibus Crime Bill. Those titles are not truly descriptive of what was more popularly known as The Federal Assault Weapon Ban. In that regard it made sense to use another title. The current title smells of bait and switch or using a cheap hook. This is what journalists do and I have done it on occassion to sell a piece. How many times have you seen a title such as You too can buy surplus jeeps from the government for pennies on the dollar. Hey it sounds good, but what you get is a boring slog of reading through GSA auctions, etc. You feel like you wasted 10 minutes of your time. So is the case here. The reader sees it and says, "Whoah there was an assault weapon ban in 2013?" and after reading they walk away knowing there was no ban, the bill failed and Diane Feinstein didn't go home and slash her wrists or Alec Baldwin didn't leave the country. I guess it depends on whether you want to inform your readers or contribute SEO to the anti-gun camp in google searches or contribute to the overall mentality that wiki is a joke and not to be taken seriously as a source for anything. I'm thinking I'll start a piece on the Guns N' Roses 2015 reunion tour that will never happen.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I did. I said to myself "Whoa! There was an assault weapon ban in 2013? HOW DID I MISS THAT?" Then I felt like I had just given a carnie too many tickets for a ride. Bah. 100% of the info in this article is duplicated anyway. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that everyone who is voting here, in addition to reading the above, is checking in on the progress of the development of these two, separate articles.

Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting has the potential to become a very large article.
Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 is significant in its own right, and is definitely still "peeped" about since it was defeated this time last year. It came up after the Navy Yard shooting, and after the LAX shooting, and after the recent Fort Hood shooting. It will continue to do so after these shootings - just as AWB 1994 continued to come up after it expired, and continues to come up to this day.

--Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The potential of an article to become a very large article means nothing, my thesis is a very large piece of writing, doesn't mean it belongs here. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 20:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I hear you on that. You're talking about the "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article, right? If so, I agree with you on that, but I was willing to work on it with the other editors who wanted it. But I still think AWB 2013 is notable in its own right for a stand-alone article. Yes it was a bill that did not pass, but it got a heckuva lot of press at the time, and continues to pop up after post-Newtown mass shootings. Lightbreather (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "development of these two, seperate, IDENTICAL articles?" --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in its own right--relevant to more than Sandy Hook. Suitable for also as an expansion of the relevant section in the other article, an the articles should be edited to reflect that. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG. My feelings exactly, and exactly why I created it. Shouldn't new material be added to this, main "Assault Weapons Ban of 2013" article before it is added elsewhere?

For instance, there is a Proposed assault weapons ban (AWB 2013) section in the "Gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting" article. And there is also a good-sized paragraph about it in the Efforts to renew the ban section of the federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994) article. And a Failed Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 section in the Assault weapon article. And it's mentioned in the Assault weapons ban section of the Dianne Feinstein article.

My understanding of Wikipedia best-practice (and that of traditional encyclopedias, too) is that these other articles should have similar, brief (who, what, when, where, why) summaries about AWB 2013 and links to the more in-depth article. Am I missing something? Lightbreather (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Poppy Girls[edit]

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

I've been thinking about this for a while, and what clinched it for me is that an IP has recently started adding WP:BLP-violating content to the article. I think that, as we are dealing with minors, we should write an article about the song and include just a summary of the girls there, preferably one that doesn't use the Daily Mail as a source. Laun chba ller 23:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subjects clearly meet WP:MUSBIO. Not sure what their ages or the Daily Mail have to do with anything. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They're likely only to be notable for the one song and album, but they did chart (album and the single) and there is coverage. I'd say that it's better to have an article for the group and expand the article to discuss the song in more depth than it would be to have an article about the specific song. The thing to remember about articles about minors is that we tend to only delete articles or focus on other things when the article itself would be harmful for them. In this particular instance they're known for something fairly good. It'd be different if we were writing about say, a teenager who was known for throwing a particular destructive party or was known for being abused in some way. That's the situation where we'd invoke the "no harm to minors" thing and either delete it outright or make it into a small subsection in an article (and not name names). The point is that the names of these children were deliberately made public for publicity and with the consent of their parents. It's a different situation entirely. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79's rationale. Info on the group's charting single and album can appropriately be contained within the article, which appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow talk 17:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 create redirect to Disney XD#Other services. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WATCH Disney XD[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator. Don't see the claim of notability, and I'm not sure every single thing that Disney does is automatically notable unless there is sufficient coverage by sources. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's covered online in groups of shows and episodes but doesn't have an article to use online as a guide and where people can read up on more on demand episodes. The shows change every day on the app and when they change, I'll edit the article so people have a guide on episode watching on Disney XD on demand and on WATCH Disney XD. The episodes change at the URLs I used for my sources that I used to make the guide so the sources pretty much cover everything there.- Devileyes89 (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, we have a policy that specifically says to NOT do that. WP:Wikipedia is not a directory Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTPROMO. ///EuroCarGT 23:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - Poorly written and Poorly sourced, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, do you mean I need to have snapshots or other media and have like 90 billion sources or something? - Devileyes89 (talk) 23:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't trying to promote Disney or do any self promotion (I'm not affiliated with Disney), I was trying to give a list of episodes that are on demand. - Devileyes89 (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And we do not allow lists of programs that are on demand to be stand alone article. That is what I linked above, the policy that says that. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this debate doesn't work, I will put this article on Wikia, never make you admin on my wiki, and protect the article so you can't request deletion. - Devileyes89 (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me time to remove the On Demand related stuff and try to put the more reliable stuff? - Devileyes89 (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFD runs for 7 days. If you add sources that show notability according to the policy here, I will be happy to change my !vote, even though you won't make me admin on your wikia :) My adding it here isn't personal, it is just me trying to do my job as an editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this doesn't work, I'll still thank you for letting me keep it here for a week. Also, please check my newer versions of the page from time to time - Devileyes89 (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ADVERT, WP:NOTTVGUIDE, we already have the short paragraph the service already has in Disney XD, and this is completely duplicative no matter how many sources are added because it's the online version of a mainstream cable channel; also delete the wrongly-licensed logos in the article as COPYVIOs. I'd argue for a redirect to Disney XD#Other services, but I fear it'll just be recreated straight off unless it's semi-protected. And Devileyes89, 'letting me keep it here for a week' is not the thing to say at all; this is an advertisement for the service that doesn't belong here, and in that case I'd have to argue for speedy deletion if you intend to evade the AfD process. Nate • (chatter) 02:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding images now, Devileyes89. One image is enough, but this is unacceptable in any way. Nate • (chatter) 03:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a big fan of "per" !votes, but in this case Nate really has covered everything that needed to be said. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 12:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the TV providers listed and the requirements and compatibility for the software. It even says Disney XD appears to be written like an advertisement and to what the WATCH Disney XD article says, it appears to be less of an advertisement than how much of an advertisement Disney XD "appears" to have which I can't believe Disney XD is still up on Wikipedia. Also, the WATCH Disney XD article is an extended version of the Other Services section on the Disney XD page. I removed a lot of advertisement from my WATCH Disney XD article. - Devileyes89 (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is though, it doesn't need to be elaborated on in an article. Anyone reading the main Disney XD article and seeing the section about "Watch" knows it features the live feed of the channel and on demand content online. Common outcomes in the past have show that the online and on-demand services of cable channels and broadcast networks don't usually merit articles, but only small mentions in their main article. Nate • (chatter) 16:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devileyes89 - Apologies for removing your post, IMO I thought it was irrelevant but seems it wasn't, Perhaps I was a little harsh removing it. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added more sections to try to make it not seem like it's the same information that Disney XD#Other services covers. The stuff that is not mentioned in Disney XD#Other services is that it's on Apple TV, the providers users can connect to, it requiring a US based connection, it being available in Asia, requiring a 3G/4G connection, the fact that episodes expire, certain episodes being free, certain episodes requiring a TV provider, and it's compatibility on other services with all information having REF tags (sources), and not violating the directory guideline and not violating some other guidelines I know of. - Devileyes89 (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just surprised that information on this subject was not on Wikipedia. That's why I created the article and I edited it to make sure it meets the guidelines. No, it's not a TV guide anymore. It does provide sources to reliable material. Yes, the app is well known and is eligible to appear on Wikipedia. I don't know why everything about apps MUST be about FAMOUS apps. It's just not fair but the app is "well known" just like Wikipedia's policies say. - Devileyes89 (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Kids Rock[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_8. This is an administrative action only; I offer no opinion on a desired outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Article cites no WP:RS sources and is overtly promotional. But a quick Google strongly suggests the subject is in fact notable. This article needs major improvements though. On a side note, why do we have an AfD discussion if the nom is not presenting an argument for deletion? If a previous delete was overturned then it would seem the correct course would be to reopen the old AfD or ask the original nom if he/she wants to renominate the article for deletion. Anywho just my 2 cents. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Well, I am the original nominator, and in the deletion review I said:

"the edit history on the page, which is woefully sparse, consisting essentially of a yearly cycle where a shill for the company inserts a bunch of promotional material and someone else takes it out. In my view, a good hint that an organisation is notable is that uninvolved editors have some interest in editing the page in and of itself. By that metric, LKR is about as notable as my laundry list.

I agree with the suggestion above that it would be better to identify one or two clearly good sources than to stack up this mass of recycled press releases; "independent" is a stretch when plainly something has arrived from the organisation or a celebrity's PR flacks and been used to fill up an awkward gap on page 92. On the other hand, there is an argument that we don't judge that kind of thing; if enough reliable sources reprint that fluff, it counts."

I don't think it would be the end of the world if the article stuck around and was radically pruned back, but it would still be nice to have one or two unequivocally decent sources not this mass of Phil Space. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is fairly obvious, article passes WP:GNG here are some WP:RS, NPR, NY Times, and NYTimes source article (same author). There are more sources such as this BBC. The DRV nominator should add these to the article, this should have never been deleted. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep (copied in part from my DRV comments) There are a fair number of relevant sources including [9], [10], [11], and a fair number more listed at [12]. While most of the coverage is local, we've got coverage in the WSJ, the Boston Globe, and coverage by local sources (many entirely on the subject) in LA, TX, NY, and CA. While someone could argue that the sources aren't enough (the ones that aren't local are "too short" or something) it's plain this meets WP:N by a fair margin and that we have enough in reliable sources to write an article. Hobit (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources about the organization and its efforts meet the notability standard. The article needs work to address tone and better integrate the sources into the article, but that's a reason to edit the article, not to delete it. Alansohn (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayna Oso[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO with merely nominations. An internet search revealed nothing which would indicate she passes WP:GNG Finnegas (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. No claim to passing PORNBIO; no independent, reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 23:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG. Significant reliable source coverage not cited in the article nor found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopedic porn star. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please can you explain what policy you are basing the argument that this is a notable pornstar. Its certainly not PORNBIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Hipocrite (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLPs require substantially better sourcing then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor sourcing, no awards that meet requirements, is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Ramsey, neighbor who discovered and led to rescuing the 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio[edit]

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

Ignoring the obvious need for a title move, subject did a great thing, had his WP:15M but does not meet WP:BIO. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also suggesting name change for redirect, something like Charles Ramsey (rescuer). There is a DA page for Charles Ramsey with an entry for this individual which is a redirect to the rescue section as mentioned below.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Ariel Castro kidnappings#Rescue. WP:BLP1E covers his involvement in the Castro case, and his "internet celebrity" was fleeting at best. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with WikiDan61. Finnegas (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as the nominator is banned and the topic seems quite respectable. Andrew (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Forbes Combe[edit]

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

Non notable board game fetish-cruft. Afterice (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination by banned user, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wiki_brah for details. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:MaxBrowne. Ben Mac Dui 07:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnn Karen[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that WP:BIO is met here, and since the article was created by a paid editor (see here for evidence), I think this needs checking by the community. She has been interviewed on TV and discussed her work in the 'Life & Style section of the Sydney Morning Herald, but other than that I can't find anything, particularly anything which discusses her, rather than fashion psychology. She's not completely un-notable, but I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. SmartSE (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible presence except on social media. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I only see the Herald article as an acceptable source. The other items are web ephemera. As with other paid pages that have arrived here at AfD, WP:NUKEANDPAVE is fitting. Article will be recreated in the conventional way if subject is notable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Even the Herald article is a bit of a content-free puff piece. No evidence of academic notability and too little solid sourcing for WP:GNG. I tried searching highbeam for more but nothing came up. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:BASIC. LordFixit (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports writers[edit]

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

A few issues: first, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, second, this list is wholly inadequate and almost impossible to keep accurate as a) few papers of which I am aware list their sportswriters, making this a massive verifiability issue, as the only way we would be able to tell is when they last published something, and in all honesty, who is going to go through this list on a regular basis to keep it accurate checking to see that every writer is still with the paper. Moreover, there are dead people on this list (at least one listed as a "current sportswriter" that I found), and I am sure there are more. To summarize, this should be deleted due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:V, and frankly even WP:GNG - few on this list are notable, and the ones that are have their own articles. Go Phightins! 18:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE points to specific types of content such lyrics or statistics. It is not to be used in the manner of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are many notable and famous sports writers such as Grantland Rice, Paul Gallico and Neville Cardus. It is therefore sensible that we have some list(s) of these for readers to browse and use for navigation and indexing. Per WP:CLN, lists are suitable for this purpose. Any difficulties should be addressed by ordinary editing per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a category, however this list is almost impossible to manage; there is no "notability threshold" for those listed, it is just a random list of various sportswriters. A category more than suits the need for this. Go Phightins! 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable topic with clear inclusion criteria. The category-only arguement fails WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly most educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in outer space[edit]

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

A previous article on this topic was deleted two months ago as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO sightings in outer space. The new one differs sufficiently in content to disqualify it from CSD G4., but still fails to address many of the concerns raised in that AfD. Additionally the new article is completely unreferenced. W. D. Graham 18:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced and much of the time unintelligible. I can't even understand what some of the entries are supposed to mean ("Silver, egg like body with a green light, followed by a time capsule, and disappeared through"). Followed by a "time capsule"? Disappeared through what? If an article on this topic is to exist, it needs to be clear what it covers and to reference it. Incidentally, it remains unclear what the phrase "flying object" is supposed to mean in this context. Paul B (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inasmuch as it is "different in content" it still qualifies for deletion under the same rationale. jps (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gibberish, no WP:RS. In fact, no sources at all, just a ref to a book written in Serbian. Seduisant (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically unverifiable. A complete lack of reliable sources that could be used to cite the material presented. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What is a "UFO shaped object"? If one can define the shape of a UFO surely it's not unidentified any more and therefore not a UFO. Spinning Spark 23:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the obvious problems with content, we definitely need reliable sources on fringe content like this. I'm quite certain there's a wiki on Wikia.com dedicated to UFO conspiracies, and this belongs there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is, Wikia: UFO-Alien Database, but I'm not going to transwiki it. Last time I moved an AFD to Wikia it got deleted on sight. Spinning Spark 23:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. Unverifiable nonsense, and badly written at that. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This topic has already been deleted once. Lack of notability is this case is also not temporary. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Boots[edit]

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

Not notable; doesn't have any references that indicate notability and thorough searching doesn't reveal any references of note. IagoQnsi (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the JonTron page was redirected after an intense fourth nomination, creating an article for Normal Boots and having material for JonTron and others, including Did You Know Gaming?, which already inherits an stable article on its own, would be a better, and more stable way to contain encyclopedic content on JonTron and related people and shows that would not fall under notability issues. That's IF users on this Wikipedia can contribute instead of lazily choosing not to contribute and deleting pages, hence the Template:Under Construction placed on top of the article. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 19:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true that a Normal Boots article could be a good way to host JonTron information, but the notability of Normal Boots needs to be established first, through verifiable reliable sources indicating notability. Notability is not inherited. -IagoQnsi (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a fan of JonTron et al, but Wikipedia's guidelines for notability are very clear. If someone can bring up some more sources to indicate notability, I'll by happy to retract my vote. Hirohiigo (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2014 (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) 01:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the WP:GNG. No coverage in reliable sources. Quite the opposite, 2 of the sources currently used are from ScrewAttack, which is actively deemed unreliable at WP:VG/RS. Gamingbolt doesn't look promising either. Sergecross73 msg me 16:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's actualky listed as situational but that being said I don't think coverage by ScrewAttack would be enough.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the "situation" is that the random person user blogs aren't useable/reliable. The articles are credited to " Kaibaman41 Blog" and "caboose-1 Blog" - these are precisely the type of content that is not useable here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Sergecross. -- ferret (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable for WP's purposes, despite the "household" name that JonTron's created for himself on the Internet. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)?[reply]

What then are Wikipedia's "purposes"? If JonTron is a household name, that's notability. KonveyorBelt 19:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of terms in " " is often meant to denote sarcasm and it becomes clear when that was the intention with the the household comment when one looks at the recent JonTron AFD where Masem recommended merging the article with Game Grumps stating that without the unreliable sources there was not content to justify an article. This was earlier this month so I highly doubt that Masem changed his mind since then and that I'm sure that he would have made that clear if he has.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you're an experienced user - do you really need help figuring out ways that the GNG=/="household name"? (Answer: Lack of third party coverage deemed reliable by Wikipedia's standards.) Sergecross73 msg me 21:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fits multiple CSD criteria, rationale given on talk page for CSD removal not within policy Tawker (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Choudhary[edit]

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

I just PRODed this article because it barely passes A7. I think the PROD removal might've been an accident, but I'll take this to AFD just to be safe. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 18:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslan Tagizade[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He played few more times actually, stats to be updated. Nicat49 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. @Nicat49:, the number of times he has played is not relevant, as he has not played in a league currently deemed to be a FPL. What is required are sources indicating significant, reliable coverage of the individual. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 East Ukraine crisis[edit]

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

This article is a fork created for no reason whatsoever. We have the long-standing articles 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which already serve to cover this topic. What's more, this title doesn't describe the scope of the events, since it does not include Southern Ukraine (such as the protests in Odessa). There is also an article dealing with Donetsk, Donetsk People's Republic, which has an ongoing discussion about re-purposing that article to deal broadly with the crisis in Donetsk Oblast. Regardless, this article was created prematurely, without discussion, and is just another example of the wild forking that's been going on since the start of the crisis in Ukraine. RGloucester — ☎ 13:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and rename the main article "East Ukraine crisis" instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can't. It includes protests in Odessa, which is not in 'East Ukraine'. I'd also like to mention that the usual form is 'Eastern Ukraine'. RGloucester — ☎ 14:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True and you have a good point there. It's just that i think the name "2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine" is very generic and far from being encyclopedic. However, that's just my opinion and i agree this one should be deleted because it's an obvious fork. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main article can't be renamed to East Ukraine crisis cause it is about all the 2014 pro-Russian protests in Ukraine. —Moscow Connection (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia favours 'generic' names in order to adhere to WP:NPOV. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we should also go by WP:COMMONNAME, which appears to be "separatism" not "unrest". Perhaps 2014 Ukrainian separatist crisis? Anyway, i'd be glad to discuss it in the article's talk page instead, not here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section called 'Title redux' on the talk page, feel free to comment there. RGloucester — ☎ 15:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BBC treats it as a separate event and has a separate live section for this: "As it happened: East Ukraine crisis"
Reuters also: "The uprising in eastern Ukraine began eight days ago but has accelerated sharply in the past 48 hours, with separatists seizing ever more buildings, including arsenals filled with weapons. They have met little opposition". ("Six days ago" is April 6.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 April 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)<!—Cyberbot I relist—>[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. We don't structure our coverage as a news organisation does. This article has no content independent of the content at that article, which covers it better and has existed for much longer. The title is bombastic and generic, as if you are referring to the specific events in Eastern Ukraine at this very moment, the present title '2014 Eastern Ukraine crisis' is much too generic, as there have been similar events going on for at least the past month. Anyway, events in Donetsk Oblast are covered by Donetsk People's Republic, which is being proposed to be renamed 2014 Donetsk crisis to deal with the current situation, which is not happening in Kharkiv or Luhansk. RGloucester — ☎ 14:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. BBC and Reuters treat this as a separate event which started when armed men seized official buildings in Donetsk and Lugansk in April 2014. The events in Donetsk can't be considered separately from the events in Lugansk, so a "2014 Donetsk crisis" doesn't exist. —Moscow Connection (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't base our coverage on the way news reporting structures its coverage, because we are WP:NOTNEWS. Furthermore, there are no events in Luhansk other than protests, and they only appear to be in Luhansk city, not in the rest of the oblast. RGloucester — ☎ 14:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Ukrainian article now. I believe they know what they are doing. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not to mention this name is POV, as there is no such "East Ukraine" entity, only someone's wishful thinking. EastERN Ukraine would be much much better, but regardless, I agree with Rgloucester that it is a duplicate of the other article. Anyways, events occurring in Odessa as stated above are not part of Eastern Ukraine, hence this article is useless. § DDima 21:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name "East Ukraine crisis" is used by BBC: [13]. It doesn't seem to be POV to me. (But if "eastern" is better, then why not rename it?) Also, it's not a fork of any article cause 1. it is about a separate event, just like the 2014 Crimean crisis and 2. Donetsk People's Republic is about the republic. I suspect the proposal to rename the page about the Donetsk People's Republic into "something Donetsk crisis" is simply an attempt to delete the page that people couldn't delete in a straightforward deletion request. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is Wikipedia:Content forking of articles 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine and Timeline of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious content fork Nick-D (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's rationale.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:FORK.--Andrux (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are so many separate articles about the situation in Ukraine developing in just months, that I can't follow them any longer. Deleting a single fork seems sensible but a brand new "Index of Ukrainian crisis-related articles with Chronology" could also help the unsuspecting reader. Poeticbent talk 17:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article already exists documenting the crisis and a timeline article also already exists, this is like a cheap imitation. --Львівське (говорити) 19:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was send to /dev/null. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AM583233[edit]

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

Article based on unreferenced (cite does not mention AM583233) classification of discredited system attempting to break H sapiens into subspecies. TheLongTone (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what TheLongTone says. The article was previously deleted as a hoax, since it consisted solely of text which identified it as a species of python. G S Palmer (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete G12 (non-admin closure) Withdrawn by nominator. Harsh (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nanoinformatics[edit]

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

Delete or Merge to Nanotechnology or Nanomedicine. Deleting seems appropriate because maybe there isn't anything worth keeping. However, if significant content is added then obviously should be saved. A nanotech expert maybe helpful here. Harsh (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it me or is the one paragraph in it a word for word copy from the website? Delete, quite possibly Speedy Delete as G12. MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ^{("My new invention!")} 14:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I apologise for wasting the time. Its a copyvio G12. Harsh (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bob Geldof. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of Man[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This is an article about an idea that Bob Geldof had in 2007, which got a lot of press coverage from 17-19 April 2007, and has had almost nothing written about it since. The project seems to have been abandoned, and has no long-term significance. Moswento ^talky 12:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bob Geldof. Idea with limited media coverage that mainly attracted attention due to Geldof's involvement (as you can see from the headlines of the cited stories). It's only a small part of his career, but merging this small paragraph would not give undue weight to it, and is better than deleting. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Yeah Ditto", Merge it with Bob Geldof seeing as we don't have an article for that director guy mentioned in the article. We have several John Maguire (as you can see here) ^{(Disambiguation Page)} but "These aren't the ^{(John Maguire)} You're looking for." (forgive my quote tendencies). MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ^{("My new invention!")} 14:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Merge. When this came out, I created this page under the assumption that this was a big project that was just getting started, but even a couple years afterward it appeared to die off and now its abandoned and I can't find even one story about it since its initial release in '07-'08. I think it is notable as a minor blurb in Bob Geldof's page, but not beyond that. littlebum2002 15:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino academicians and scientists trained in Germany[edit]

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

Article is a list. There is nothing special about being trained in Germany that would give rise to notability for a list for this topic. Whpq (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We could have thousands of lists like this. How about List of Japanese boxers that have trained in Germany? Trivial. --Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't think of any way to put this other than what's already above. There's nothing about being trained in Germany that should give it predominance over other countries so we either Delete or make a version for every country and I think I know which option is more consensus preferred and the community is going to prefer. (I'll give you a hint, it's not option 2.) MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ^{("My new invention!")} 15:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worst. article. title. ever. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not. even. the. worst. on. this. page. "Charles Ramsey, neighbor who discovered and led to rescuing [sic] the 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of published sources about a special Filipino-German-academic nexus. And wow, Clarityfiend, I thought you were kidding with that title but no. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No logical connection between the conditions for inclusion means this is trivia, not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted by admin User:Anthony Bradbury per A10.(non-admin closure) Harsh (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ali je povezava med dolžino prstov in drugimi deli?[edit]

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

orphan and written in slovenian. No action happened after it created Magioladitis (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being an orphan isn't grounds for deletion of an otherwise qualifying article. Being written in Slovenian is already dealt with via the procedures at WP:Pages needing translation into English: if the article isn't translated, it'll be gone by the 29th anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From what I can see using Google Translate, the article is pretty much just an article about correlations between someone's finger and so-on, but as a way of explaining correlations in general. It's predominantly written in an OR tone and looks to be someone's personal essay. It doesn't really expand anything from Correlation and dependence in the slightest, so I'm awfully tempted to speedy it as a newly created article that doesn't expand on a pre-existing article. If anyone wants to userfy the content I'll transfer it if they want to translate/salvage any of it, but there really isn't much here that isn't OR and expands on the article we already have. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aw, gee, Tokyogirl79! :-) Since it is now no longer entirely in Slovenian, it wouldn't be deleted under WP:PNT, so now I do have to opine here. From the last two sections, it is clear that this is a first-person essay, a synthesis from a few sources, complete with a final section on personally drawn conclusions. I haven't done a thorough cross check but I'm pretty sure that everything here that's factual and notable is covered under other articles like Phrenology and Digit ratio. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury. What kind of close would you call it? MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ^{("My new invention!")} 15:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it as A10, duplication of an existing article.. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 15:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what kind of close on the AFD? Speedy Deleted? Yknow what I've just answered my own question there. *blinkblink* MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ^{("My new invention!")} 15:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Vasquez (fighter)[edit]

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

Non-notable mixed martial artist, Single source (fight record) but no top tier fights. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete MMA fighter with no top tier fights so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. In fact, I can't even find him listed at sherdog.com and the article says his 47-1 record was all compiled in Mexico City--he's never fought outside of the D.F. (which strikes me as a bit suspicious). I also don't find him at http://mmafightdb.com/, which is the article's main reference. Papaursa (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Reads like a possible hoax, but even if it isn't--he's not notable.Mdtemp (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valerio Monti[edit]

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

Non-notable boxing trainer Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see passing mentions of him as Spada's trainer, but no significant independent coverage of him. Papaursa (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Valero[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable boxer who fails to meet WP:NBOX. Having a famous brother does not make him notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). The article also lacks any sources except for a link to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling albums in South Korea[edit]

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

Absolutely no references or even external links. No way at all that people can verify that any part of this list is right, or even if the numbers are correct. Adabow (talk) 09:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did the nominator attempt to find references, per WP:BEFORE? Pburka (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of references is not a valid reason for deletion.TheLongTone (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid article subject, cannot be impossible to find references. --Soman (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being unreferenced is not a valid reason for deletion. And per WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ready Flowers[edit]

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

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

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

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

This company just hasn't received a depth of coverage from what I can see. It looks like there was a brief smattering of news articles in 2012 due to a snafu with customer orders, but other than that I can't find where there's been any other coverage. It certainly doesn't show a depth of coverage. There is a 2013 speech about the company, but the topic of it is the 2012 issues so it's not a depth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other sources on the talk page, but by large they deal with the same customer issues in 2012. The best one I could find was this article, but the website doesn't entirely seem like it'd be a RS. This 2007 one is a bit better, but it's hidden behind a paywall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great deal of history within this article. Please review the "Talk" pages. Readyflowers has developed its own trail which is now documented and covered by several newspapers and by the Senate of Australia. The information is still very relevant and is regularly accessed by the general public. This make the page relevant to the needs of the readers and researchers who use information sites such as Wikipedia for their day to day research needs.

Furthermore - the Readyflowers article has been subject to multiple peer reviews i.e. Wiki Editors that have developed the article to its current format. Please see history and peer review history of the article.

I hope Tokyogirl79 user talk:Tokyogirl79this gives you insight as to how this article has evolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.13.94 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

There was only one peer review, and it was relatively limited, addressing the issue of possible biased editing. I don't think the existence of the peer review really makes much difference in this AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much what C. Fred said. The problem here is that the company seems to only be known for WP:ONEEVENT rather than for a long history of running a company. When it comes to getting coverage for one event, a mass of sources doesn't really mean much unless the event is so monumental that it stands as a hallmark for years to come. In other words, the event has to be big enough that it'd get very wide global recognition and is very, very likely to get commented on in 5+ years. Other than one complaint at the Senate by someone who was personally involved in the events of 2012, Ready Flowers hasn't received this coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a peer review doesn't really guarantee that something passes notability guidelines. It's more just to solve whatever the current issue was at the time, which was biased/paid editing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file for Readyflowers remains open - it is with the Office of Fair Trading. Comments have been raised in the Senate. This is still very much an ongoing case.

Furthermore - I do believe the Tokyogirl is not independent and is acting in the best interests of Readyflowers. The language they are using, attempts to make changes to the page, information they are re-introducing into Readyflowers articles all follow a very similar patter to past attempts by the owner and others associated with the company to manipulate this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.13.94 (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

If it is "an ongoing case", why are there no sources any newer than May 2013?

Also, please remember to assume good faith in fellow editors. I don't see anything in Tokyogirl's behaviour to suggest a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved with Ready Flowers in the slightest and up until I made those first edits, I actually wasn't even truly aware they existed. However what I was concerned with is that there was undue weight put upon the events in 2012. The company's conduct during that time period was exceedingly poor, but they really didn't get that much coverage when you get down to it. Making a huge section labeled "customer reactions" in an article that's really only 2 paragraphs seems a little over the top. It also had some issues with flow, which I corrected. The list of customer complaints is still there, but it just kind of flows a little better. As far as the ongoing case issues go, you'd have to show where the cases are actually getting coverage. Companies have complaints levied against them all the time, so to show that the events in 2012 are still relevant enough today (as far as Wikipedia is concerned) you'd have to show where they're still getting coverage. Otherwise well... it's pretty much just a mediocre company that recived little to no coverage until they screwed up. We're not here to be RipOff Reports for various companies. We have to show where the company passes WP:CORP. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, something to remember is that while we wouldn't allow people to edit the article with the agenda to make it biased towards the company, neither should we edit it to be biased against the company. It should be neutral and there shouldn't be a movement to have it particularly positive or negative. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. There is no way that this company passes the notability guidelines, and no way in hell that Tokyogirl is related to the company. If she is indeed operating on their behalf, I find it hard to believe that it would only surface now, years after she started editing here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Based on the comments above and the talk page discussion, the article begs the question: "Without the 2012 customer complaint issue, would the company still warrant an appearance in Wikipedia?" No, it wouldn't, the article would have been deleted per CSD G-11. Had these complaints not arisen, the article would lose four out of it's five references. The single reference that would remain is also related to customer/industry dissatisfaction with the company. It is also an analysis piece by an online newspaper and therefore WP:NEWSORG applies: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact;" in other words a failure per WP:RS and by extension unable to satisfy WP:CORP. Turning to the "reason" given for the company's notability, i.e. the complaints, WP:ONEEVENT aside, these fail WP:EVENTCRIT, because they do not possess enduring historical significance or have a significant lasting effect. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 07:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Change of vote intention 20th April 2014 (previously had "keep"). Sorry if IP is anon - unable to login with my old user name. Change of vote intention as after thinking about comments raised. This is an online business model with no real notability. If this is record is kept, then it opens the door to thousands of other online companies wanting to use Wikipedia as a business directory. Other than a business listing, that's about where it stops.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.69.38 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the number of articles on this company (with more coming), makes this company notable for being infamous. It also helps illustrate how selling flowers on the internet is evolving and the associated problems. 124.171.209.243 (talk)
Delete- Unable to find any source that would help the subject to reach WP:NCORP standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin- IPs !voting keep here belong to a common autonomous system number (ASN). AS numbers are important because the ASN uniquely identifies each network on the Internet. WP:DUCK case! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by User:Thegarty makes me suspicious that this is the owner of Ready Flowers coming on to vote, as I believe that this account had been confirmed to be Hegarty elsewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the concern in the past over a potential use of sockpuppetry, I'm going to open up an official SPI and find out for certain, to avoid any further potential concerns. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opened here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Speedy keep per nom. — trlkly 08:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 BYU–Hawaii Seasiders men's basketball team[edit]

– (View AfD

· Stats)

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

I do not see how each year's team is separately notable. It they seem like a way to advertize a game schedule, rather than actual articles. — trlkly 07:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. It seems that the Basketball project does this sort of thing. I should have checked the project before nominating. — trlkly 08:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Heung Lau[edit]

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

Article featuring a non-notable company or organisation that is predominantly self publicity. References provided are "advertorial" and inherently unreliable. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to vote Delete when it got to the point of giving specific directions on getting there! MM ("Well? What have you got to report?") ^{("My new invention!")} 15:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above points. Harsh (talk) 15:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's quite an article. What does it mean where it says the restaurant "attracts spongers to dine there"? I have never had fried tofu and pigeon for a midnight snack. As far notability, I agree with the comments above. In addition to promotional issues, the sourcing does not appear to be there for this article and there isn't much of an assertion of historical or culinary significance that I can find. I'd like to try it though. Just not sure on the pigeon. Why aren't those served in NYC? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rolv Hauge[edit]

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

Don't believe he is notable, fails WP:SOLDIER IMO Gbawden (talk) 07:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I tend to agree, it seems he served as a captain in World War II so didn't command a large body of men or perform a major role. His medal was received much later for non-combat duties. Though he's of enough interest to an edition of Hvem er Hvem?, I don't think that means he meets WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. 'Weak' delete because Rolv Hauge is not an uncommon name, so someone with a better understanding of the Norwegian language may be able to turn up other information to prove me wrong. Sionk (talk) 10:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have ended his career as a colonel, so too low-ranking for inherent notability per WP:SOLDIER. Nothing else to particularly distinguish him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. His name is actually Rolf Hauge. He died in 1989, and I can confirm he ended his career as a colonel. He was however more decorated than the article tells. Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hauge is notable. He was instrumental in building No. 5 Norwegian Troop, being responsible for personally hand-picking the soldiers of that elite unit. Also, he has an entry in a paper encyclopaedia (Gyldendals store konversasjonsleksikon). Plus, he commanded a company of infantry during the 1940 Norwegian Campaign. I'll expand the article soon. Manxruler (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Among the book coverages, in particular the book Klar til storm by Arnfinn Haga from 1984, which treats the Norwegian commandos during World War II. In this book, Hauge is the most central person (and his name is mentioned on more than forty different pages). Oceanh (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with improvements and move to Rolf Hauge (officer). Geschichte (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with a move to Rolf Hauge (officer), as Rolf seems to be the most often used spelling of his first name, and there are more people with articles named Rolf Hauge. Manxruler (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that I've just found a bunch of mentions of Hauge in the Osprey Publishing book No. 10 (Inter-Allied) Commando 1942-45: Britain's Secret Commando. Will add info from that book later today. Manxruler (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anna Frodesiak as unambiguous copyright infringement (G12). Non-admin closure. Stalwart111 12:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to conserve water[edit]

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

Unsourced, probably original research. Also an unsalvageable violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. BethNaught (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced original research, and I agree with the nominator that Wikipedia is not a 'how to' guide. It's worth noting that the topic is already covered at Water conservation, though it looks like it needs some expansion. — sparklism ^hey! 07:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) As an unreferenced personal essay, We already have Water conservation, which actually has references, although it could use some work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an article which duplicates an existing article, water conservation. Also WP:NOTHOWTO.TheLongTone (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I just deleted it as a copyvio from source http://kitchenbathroomfixtures.com/author/admin/page/188 Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cawy Bottling Company. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quinabeer[edit]

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

One trivial ref and one blog. I can't find anything else via Google. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails General notability. Mr. Guye (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not independently notable the appropriate action would be to merge it into the parent article Cawy Bottling Company. Deletion wouldn't be constructive of helpful. I think it's fine as an independent article about two niche Champagne sodas popular in the Cuban-American community. Not hugely notable, but of interest to aficianados and foodies. Lots of these subjects at List of soft drinks by country. Whether we cover them in parent article or independently, it's best that we include them. We are a pageless encyclopedia and there is some coverage of niche sodas including this one. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is certainly worth a redirect. I added one (sliver of a) reference; it's likely that there are more which Google Books can't give us, since they're old and Spanish, but I can't really vote "keep" on the basis of that hunch. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cawy Bottling Company. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cawy. Couldn't find more than passing mentions in a search engine test (no sigcov). Would be smartest to merge for now and later expand out summary style if necessary. czar ♔ 16:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cawy Bottling Company[edit]

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

De-PRODed, but does not meet notability criteria. ~~WP:SPA account that~~ The editor or this article has removed tags on the article for notability is not helping either. Two refs don't meet requirements for in-depth coverage and I can't find anything using Google. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a Spanish language source. Our article Materva about the company's best known product, has 17 references, several of which also discuss the company. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a lot of interesting links via scholar and books, regarding lawsuits and the like, plus the pre-history in Cuba isn't easy to dig up but exists (obviously). WP:V doesn't force a time table, and WP:GNG appears to exist by the sheer volume of mentions that have yet to be sifted through. Difficulty isn't a good determiner of whether or not an article should be kept. I would also note that the nominator is wrong to call the article's creator an WP:SPA. Making the claim smacks of bad faith and poisoning the well. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spanish language article is about Vincent Cossío not the company, but it does mention the company. It only makes brief mention of the subject. Dennis Brown has not provided these supposed sources to meet V, which isn't the threshold of inclusion. I was simply pointing out that the editor has an inordinate interest in things about this subject, and has not followed Wikipedia guidelines for removal of maintenance templates, but I will retract the SPA statement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. And there's nothing "inordinate" about such an interest; the creator clearly has lots of interests. I just wrote Stephen Glosecki, and you might as well say that I have an "inordinate interest" in things related to Alabama, or Old English, or death--and I'd ask you what you meant with "inordinate". Drmies (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Squeaks by, as far as I'm concerned (and thank you Cullen). Drmies (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hits in Google News and nothing really in Books, though there was some court case. I only found local news from a cursory search engine test. The few mentions in El Nuevo Herald are either passing or, in the linked article above, about the founder and not the company itself. I would like to see the sources that make it notable (regardless of whether they're added to the article). That one Miami Herald mention is a footnote in the linked Epic Journey book (a passing mention). SPIN is also a passing mention. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 17:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough there to be notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Shield characters[edit]

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

The article as a whole is cruft; it's an indiscriminate collection of information whose sole purpose is to detail fictional characters in the context of their universe. While this sort of context is great on a Wikia site, it's got absolutely no relevance to the real world.

The one arguably notable character (Vic Mackey) has his own article which can be shaped up accordingly. The rest of the article's content cannot, in my opinion, be used in a way that satisfies the GNG.

As a reminder, please remember that just because other lists like this exist does not impact this one. m.o.p 04:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Currently there is a RFC at Talk:The Shield#Consensus on this page's related articles where the consensus is strongly favouring the merge of all the other characters (apart from Mackey) into this article. AIRcorn (talk) 05:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Keep I see these types of articles as similar to the ... in popular fiction and international reactions to ...articles. There are probably more like this but these are the two types that spring immediately to mind. On the whole they are generally not encyclopaedic (some obvious exceptions exist), but are a compromise between having this information presented in the article and deleting it entirely. My personal preference would be to not have this information included, especially the international reaction forks, but the general consensus at various merge, deletion and other discussions that I have come across has been the compromise outlined above. If a meta discussion on these articles is started I would !vote for delete, but until such a time I think the de-facto consensus should be respected. That is not to say that the article could not do with some serious trimming. The list of supporting characters and below should be reduced to at most a single sentence description, with the likely merge of the main characters making up most of the text. AIRcorn (talk) 06:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I can see exactly what the nominator is trying to do and I don't disagree with the premise at all. This list could stand to be greatly reduced to enable the "main" characters to be included in summary form. At present some very minor characters have long in-universe summaries when a few lines would absolutely suffice. I said, in this discussion that I thought the character Vic Mackey was probably the only character that deserved a standalone article and I stand by that. Can I suggest we see how that RFC goes and then revisit this down the track? It's probably going to be a matter of what the list looks like later rather than what it is now, if that makes sense. Stalwart111 07:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the content could be reduced, it is reasonable to keep this as a spin-out, along with the separate episode list. Most characters with independent articles could be merged here, but that can't happen if this is deleted. Many articles on lists of characters have survived AfD in the past, showing there's a consensus for them. The Shield may not have got the in-depth book-length coverage of a show like The Wire or The Sopranos but it still has a large amount of media coverage in newspapers and websites, so much of this information could be sourced (and the rest deleted). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note This isn't a matter of whether or not the content can be verified. Even if it's 100% true to the show and sourced to third parties, there's still absolutely no sign of real-world notability. I'm not concerned with whether or not the information is accurate, but whether or not it has any bearing to the real world. Also, The Shield's popularity does not mean we require an article that details each character that appeared in the show when only one of them has more than a passing mention in terms of notability. m.o.p 00:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A character list - trimmed to avoid cruft w/in the lines of WP:NOT#PLOT - for a long-running, notable TV series is reasonable to keep even if there's no immediate secondary sources for the list, assuming that SIZE issues prevent such a list from being part of the main show's article. There's definite clean up issues here, but that's not a reason to delete. --MASEM (t) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: I don't mean to sound argumentative, I'm just genuinely curious because nobody's really answered my question - how is this article in any way encyclopedic? I keep hearing things like "it looks nice" or "they haven't been deleted before, so let's not delete them now". Even a trimmed-down version of the article is still, without sourcing, just a collection of in-universe information. Notability is not inherited, so why should we have a list of characters when none of them are relevant outside of their fictional universe? Again, if I come off as argumentative, it is not my intention. I'm just looking for insight on how this article isn't going directly against our criteria for inclusion. m.o.p 01:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the encyclopedic coverage for a work of fiction is a summary of the major/recurring characters that appear. For a single work or short-lived show, this will likely be self-contained within the article about the work. But for long running series, where there is a lot of details about the show already, this list if included in the main article would make the main article too large per SIZE. As such, a list of characters is an acceptable split of material from the show even if the split is not fully notable (mind you, attempts should be made to source and show notability or third-party/secondary source whereever possible). All other aspects about writing about fiction (WP:WAF) should be followed still, and such a page is not a place to dump highly detailed plot elements. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy link for the recurring character bit?

As for your latter point - if all we include is the character's name and actor (which is really all you can add without delving into plot details), we're essentially mirroring IMDB. This seems pointless to me. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't believe we need that level of coverage for fictional material, and that, if it goes against criteria for inclusion, it should be removed. m.o.p 03:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Whakatane. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whakatane Seventh-day Adventist School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school (years 1-8). We don't generally have articles for such schools, unless they are especially notable. Epeefleche (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 17:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the town or school district, per longstanding consensus for all but the most extraordinary elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tawker (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Ford (soccer)[edit]

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

Re-creation of page that was deleted a couple years ago. Contested G4. Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. As far as I'm concerned, G4 still applies with this page which means it should be deleted immediately. The reason I nominated this one was because I had no idea whether or not I could re-add a speedy deletion template. – Michael (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I'd also advise we SALT. Giant Snowman 11:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it was deleted in 2012 and so there might be a reasonable claim that things have changed since then with regard to playing history. Good idea to bring it here. That said, GiantSnowman and Fenix down are both spot-on and this should be deleted again. Salting also seems like a good idea under the circumstances. Stalwart111 12:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bindu A. Bambah[edit]

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

It is hard to point out a single important contribution of the subject to theoretical physics. Every person in academia over a course of time, gets a few awards and a few invited talks. These don't necessarily imply that they deserve a wikipedia page. I recommend the creator of this page to ask the following important questions: 1. What are the single most important contribution of the person to the research field? and explain why it is important (For example, some might be publications in reputed journals such as Nature, Science etc. or some might have a lot of citations (>1000). The topic of the article has neither attached with his/her name. 2. What has he/she contributed to the development of science in their country? (Example: Create a new research institute). 3. What do other experts think about their research works? (Example: Comments made by Nobel laureates etc). . Since it is hard to answer these questions, I request the deletion of this page. If required, I would recommend an expert to review the necessity of this wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianphysicist (talk • contribs) 03:01, 15 April 2014‎

Note: I tweaked this to show up with the proper AfD template. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with GS h-index of 7 WP:Prof#C1 is not passed and there is little else. The nominator does not have to ask his questions. All he has to do is point to the WP:Prof guidelines. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as failing WP:Prof. -- 101.117.110.80 (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. If there is notability here, it seems unlikely to be for research accomplishments. And the article provides nothing else to use instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Fazeel[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, tagged for nearly two years, fails WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Harsh (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable student who has dabble in business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kayslee[edit]

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

Non-notable actress/musician, fails WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has 4 credits to her name, 2 of which she was an extra as "Girl #2". Only WP:RS I could find was a mention in Esquire about her Instagram. She does have a verified Twitter but nothing that makes her notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and Lady Lotus. Perhaps she will make it big enough to meet GNG, but she has not done so yet. EricSerge (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Harsh (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete - I actually wanted it to be Kept & Improved but as above there's hardly any sources and she doesn't seem all that notable....So delete. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as Withdrawn by nominator Rincewind42 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scanner Access Now Easy[edit]

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

The article (about a kind of software/API product) does give any indication of notability. The references are primary references or self-published blogs. The article lacks non-trivial reliable secondary sources to establish notability as per WP:N. A Google search for additional sources came up blank. The subject of the article may be related to other notable products but notability is no inherited and this product has not generated its own coverage by secondary sources. The article should be deleted on notability grounds. Rincewind42 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Rincewind42 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Based on the new sources provided by czarkoff notability has been established. I believe that these are sufficient works on which the Wikipedia article could be based. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 03:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are similar articles on TWAIN, Windows Image Acquisition and Image and Scanner Interface Specification, comparable APIs for other platforms. Several of the references are to project pages for software that implements SANE, which seem like secondary sources to me. A quick check on google turned up a set of slides by Petter Reinholdtsen - perhaps not the be-all-and-end-all of WP:RS but I think, taken with the rest, enough to establish notability. GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the style of subject that is in question but the notability of the subject. Other scanner API may be notable, some may not. Your comment is like saying that all basketball players are notable because Michael Jordon has an article. Just because one example of a kind has an article doesn't mean that all of that kind should have an article. Secondly, can you link to those slides so we can all see. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two weeks late for this kind of nominations. Quick glance at "books" and "scholar" search reveals quite a lot of sources. (And in this particular case I feel myself excused from WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, as sources are really numerous, subject is obviously notable and I have no interest in writing this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, a search found only trivial mentions of SANE. Not sufficient to form the basis or an ecyclopedic article. I don't see why your comment should be exempt form WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. In fact I think that policy is describing your comment exactly. Nobody is asking you to write the article but if you have a source, add that link to the references section at lease or link it in the talk here. Rincewind42 (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

eg Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, Scanner Access Now Easy, or Christopher Negus' Linux Bible 2010 Edition (relevant portion available on Google Books), or Lecarme & Delware's The Book of GIMP. GoldenRing (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen all those titles before making the Afd. Surhone, Tennoe & Henssonow, Scanner Access Now Easy is a self published book made through Book on Demand. The cover has a big sticker saying "High Quallity content by WIKIPEDIA articles" (their emphasis). It is not a reliable source by any metric. Lecarme & Delware's The Book of GIMP contains only a passing reference that if you use Linux the recommend SANE, but the book does not describe SANE in any way. Most of what Lecarme & Delware write is about XSane and GMIP. Note that XSane is a GUI that uses SANE but that XSane is not SANE. SANE is the backend only. Christopher Negus' Linux Bible 2010 Edition and several other books by the same author (containing the same republished text) give a few sentences but are insufficient in and of themselves to establish notability. Note the requirement in WP:N for multiple non-trivial secondary works on the subject. If you keep going through google books you will find the other books merely list SANE as something that exists with no description form which a verifiable Wikipedia article can be based. Rincewind42 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spent several minutes searching for sources. Apparently this book shows that SANE is required topic for certification (which seems to qualify for WP:NSOFT#2). OK, NSOFT is essay, and we fall back to WP:GNG: Linux Magazine, Linux Journal, Linux.com The Linux Documentation Project, LowEndMac, O'Reilly LinuxDevCenter, PenguinBreeder, and several books discuss it (3 pages in "Linux in a nutshell", 2 pages in "OpenSolaris Bible", more similar on first page of search; I didn't try second page). Scholar search appears to have interesting results (eg. this paper appears to discuss their use of SANE for accessibility), but without text it is difficult to say. P.S.: the article is not abour sane-backends, but about SANE in its entity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you czarkoff for these new sources. They are sufficent. Since there are no other objectors, I am going to close this Afd as "withdrawn by nominator". I hope you can add these sources to the current article in place of the poor quality sources that are there just now. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Linux Magazine and Linux Journal articles pointed out by Dmitrij are independent and in depth; the Linux Bible source has about a page on SANE and contributes. These are enough for a marginal notability per WP:GNG. The article itself could use more secondary sources, but this is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. A marginally notable topic and and an article with no insurmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 fail to see evidence that playing in the NSW Super League confers notability on a club. Otherwise, fails WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dulwich Hill FC[edit]

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

fails WP:NTEST and WP:GNG. an amateur club that plays in 4th tier Australian league. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable team, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 12:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Club played in the NSW Super League (second-highest state level) and most clubs there have articles. Also, 72 mentions on Ozfootball. The club is at least of historic interest. Arguably, the wording of the article needs some improvement. OAlexander (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oz football is not an independent source. Club lacks third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ozfootball not an independent source? Interesting statement. Similar to a statement on your user page referring to Sydney Morning Herald since 1919 facsimiles being available on Google; this is correct, but the Google newspaper archive is practically not searchable, either due to poor OCR, or shoddy transformation of OCR results into a database.

Back to the point: why note somebody make it short and swift and propose deletion of the article NSW Super League as a not relevant league. Once this is successful, all clubs that did not make it beyond it should be quasi automatically irrelevant for WP purposes. This spares us bumming around if in one or the other case "notoriety" is sufficiently documented or not. This will turn into a quality control issues if NSW Super League survives. OAlexander (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ozfootball would not be regarded as a third party source under WP:RS, the site even states it is made by soccer fans. has the dulwich hill club been reported significantly in mainstream press? LibStar (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um...wait, what? "made by soccer fans" does not mean that a source is "not a third party source"; that statement is utterly nonsensical. It may not be a reliable source but it is not a primary source. (The seemingly increasing misunderstandings of what Wikipedia means by "primary source" and "secondary/third-party source", among long-term editors no less, are starting to become concerning.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant not an independent source. A site made by soccer fans would of course include coverge of soccer clubs. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::Sports publications tend to be made by people that are interested in sports, as political publications are made by people with a cursory interest there. Ozfootball is the standard of historical record that is available for Australian association football. If the league is relevant, so should be its members. The scope of my co-operation here is so, that I also contribute to Australian football - notably not to A-League relate topics - as I get to it. It is not so, that I am now going to trawl around to find finer points in support for this article, just because some are going wild about it. I have got something like wider interests and a life. I deem the topic relevant and sufficiently of historic interest, also in more general terms such as in immigration and related contexts. In spirit I am an exclusionist, but the problem is at the control of new entries: I hate nigh meaningless articles coming in as stubs - thereof are enough around - and omitting important information on the topic. And most of these will remain stubs, as there is not enough manpower. The article here could be better, but for the purpose of it provides sufficient information. I would be glad, if I could now go on about more productive issues, rather than playing savious r here for the sake of it. Australian soccer has the problem that even on top level it is - I speak outside of WP - poorly documented and often very difficult to research. Characters of the "Simpsons" of-course have no such problems. I remain of the opinion, that Australian third division team is relevant in an encyclopaedia of the scope of WP, notwithstanding how thoroughly it is researched in this point and time. Again, my suggestion to propose the deletion of the Super League article: if the members are not relevant it can be doffed with a short paragraph in an overview article. OAlexander (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - former membership in a league like NSW Super League seems a reasonable enough given the lack of national level cup competitions in a nation with the geographic spread of Australia. Nfitz (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wish to annotate, that the NSW Football association considers the Super League as historic extension of the first division, which before the introduction of the National Soccer League was a top tier in Australian football (http://www2.soccernsw.com/index.php?id=77). OAlexander (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - clubs competing below the second level in Australia will struggle to get any meaningful coverage in reliable sources. Judging by the news coverage I can find, the club seems to get more coverage for the state of its pitch than anything else. Hack (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NOTTEMP. Club previously played in the NSW Super League which it seems is enough for a club to be considered notable. Had they not and were they being judged instead on their current standings then I don't think that would be sufficient. But at several points in their 46-year history (including last year) the club has competed at a fairly high level where almost every club is blue-linked. Plug "Super League" and "Dulwich Hill" into Google and you get plenty of state and national media coverage about the club, various players and matches against other clubs. Lots of passing references there but it's enough for me. Stalwart111 07:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Gets a few hits on Google from sources close to the subject such as the state football federation and on Fox Sports Pulse, a stats site used by Football NSW. Searching Fairfax News Store, Factiva and Ebsco's Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, the only serious coverage in state or national media is passing references to former players and a controversy over their home ground which doesn't deal with the club in any serious detail. Hack (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - relevant as member of NSW Super League, which by Football NSW is carried as extension of former NSW Division 1, formerly a top tier in Australian football until. Currently third tier, which however should be relevant in a country with size and footballing standing of Australia. If NSW Super League membership does not infer relevance, all article of clubs that did not make it beyond it should be deleted by definition, and article NSW Super League ought to be deleted too (equitability). 72 times mentioned on Ozfootball Net, the leading reference of Australian football history. To boot, relevant for Southern European migration, here from Madeira, to Australia. More than ten links from articles within WP. OAlexander (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. 72 mentions in ozfootball does not establish notability. Needs coverage in sources independent of football. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is so much that sources need to be provided that are removed from football, merely that they must be significant and reliable, wherever they are. The results that OzFootball seem to pull back seem to me to be nothing more than stats, and do nothing to confirm GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also number of pages linking to this article is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It plays a role. I have read that. I am not that well with the abbreviations. OAlexander (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Ozfootball is only atats is concerned, a great deal of articles here are practically only stats. Many people are to busy with filling out infoboxes and pasting flagicons for more. OAlexander (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Hack, no indication that the club has played in a national competition, so fails WP:FOOTYN. Keep arguments here, particularly from @OAlexander: semm very much along the line of WP:INTERESTING / WP:ILIKEIT / WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. @Stalwart111: notes that there are plenty of google results, but to me. most of these appear to be WP:ROUTINE mantch reports and WP:PRIMARY articles. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - as I said, "lots of passing references". I think the claim to notability here is that the club competed in the NSW Super League. Were they competing in that league now I don't think we would be having this conversation. Playing in that league almost guarantees significant coverage in reliable sources, even if it can't be found online. During regular seasons they appear on the backs of myriad regional papers covering this game and that. It's unrealistic to expect that other clubs playing at that level would have received such coverage but this one didn't. I also think it's a bit silly that this would become one of the only clubs to have played at that level to be red-linked. Stalwart111 00:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AUD, "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Hack (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and if we were talking about coverage in local community newsletters I would agree with you. We're talking about regional papers and some major metropolitan papers. Papers like the Sun Herald and Sunday Telegraph, for example, regularly cover secondary leagues (soccer and rugby league). But the coverage wasn't actually my point. I believe the club is notable for having played at that level, as most of the others seem to be for having played at that level. Stalwart111 02:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what level they play, if they haven't been the subject of significant coverage, they shouldn't have an article. Where is the proof that the club is notable? Hack (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same premise as WP:NFOOTY - a player need not have been the subject significant coverage because there is a general acceptance that at that level, the competition you play in and the team you play for will have received sufficient coverage so that individual player articles are justified, even if the directly-relevant coverage is only an occasional passing mention in coverage of the league or the team. The same could undoubtedly be said for almost every other club in this league. Stalwart111 03:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Players meeting WP:NFOOTY are generally presumed to meet WP:GNG although there are precedents for players having articles deleted because there is no proof of meeting WP:GNG. There is no equivalent guideline or policy for clubs - they must meet WP:ORG/WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's partially covered at WP:FOOTYN but I suppose my suggestion is that we apply WP:COMMONSENSE more than anything else. By deleting the article the club would become one of only a couple of clubs to have played in the NSW Super League without an article here. The rest seemingly have articles because of a presumption of notability not dissimilar to the one I outlined above. I strongly doubt many of the clubs at the same level would have any more coverage than this one (having created Northern Tigers FC myself as part of a red link reduction effort I can guarantee a similar situation there). If the prevailing view is that such clubs aren't presumed to be notable, I can live with that. But it seems disingenuous to delete one on that basis, creating a gap for readers, while the others (including the one I started) remain. For the record, if that is the consensus then I'd be happy for that one to be deleted also. Few, if any, of those clubs likely meet the criteria at WP:FOOTYN. My aim here is consistency of application rather than some new consensus. Stalwart111 04:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get too carried away with FOOTYN, it's generally agreed not to be in the best shape for notability discussions, and in this instnace, no club in this league could meeti t as it is not a national league. I would concentrate on the main issue here which is that there is a lack of significant reliable coverage outside of routine match reporting and local newspapers. Fenix down (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When English fourth tier players with six matches there, such as Callum O'Dowda and Craig Lynch, are considered relevant for the inclusion here, without having accrued any additional notoriety but merely by inference of playing for the club, then I am more than sure that Oz third division clubs are relevant without specific individual notoriety, but for their membership in the third tier.

This aside, the hole argument here seems to me another expression of the talibanisation of WP where little acknowledgement is received for writing decent articles. Then the discussions about application of rules in whichever way become the only way of interacting with fellow editors. A bit like meetings in dysfunctional office environments. Some may even think, harsh application is way up on some perceived career ladder. It is an outcome of the structure.

I find the whole discussion here fairly absurd. I found my excursion into reading Australia third tier articles informative, use educational if you want. It gave me a bit of an idea of what Australian soccer is about when we are not talking the clubs about we know everything anyway, because they are so notorious in the press. I wish the "community", whoever that is, lots of pleasure weeding out the rest of the third tier clubs if they want to do that - none of the have much "notoriety" beyond local rags. In their entirety they were very informative about the state of the world's #1 sport in Australia. I plead to retain them It would be also quite unfair to do so otherwise towards the people who saw other third division articles and felt encouraged to contribute. But humanity can be expected of only a few here. Not part of the industry. Process here remains dismal. Which is sad. Cheers, OAlexander (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For all of those words, there is still no proof of notability. Hack (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I find the whole discussion here fairly absurd" Wikipedia is not a collection of articles because WP:ILIKEIT. Your claims for notability have been clearly refuted. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be reasonable to rule, that Oz third division clubs are notable by definition. I and other opponents of the proposition hold this for right and reasonable. It is about the conclusive presentation of a a topic, here football in Australia which should be in the foreground in alignment with the general educational purpose underlying the WP project. @LibStar: I don't see myself refuted. Without overarching concepts of notability, like being part of a notable group, we may well end up in a myriad essentially not very helpful deletion propositions. I am not unreasonable here.OAlexander (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be reasonable to do so? Current consensus per WP:FOOTYN is that clubs are only inherently considered notable if they have taken part in a national league or cup competition, this club has not, so fails that consensus. Additionally, no sources have been provided beyond stat archives to show any significant level of coverage. Fenix down (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" that Oz third division clubs are notable by definition" you are inventing notability criterion to suit your preference. No notability definition under WP:N says that. Time to WP:LETGO LibStar (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to focus my attention on all kinds of discussions, but rather constructive content for users. I understand, that arguments for keep here are probably the weaker ones. On the other side I, and a couple of colleagues believe the article should be retained. I, eg., found this discussion by reading the article out of interest. It provided a service to me for which I am grateful. WP rules allow for flexibility and I suggest, positive consideration will be given here. The seemingly endless discussion here about notably destruction and not creation is unbecoming, notwithstanding who is right or wrong - and only suitable for fulltime WPedians. I do not wish to fail to add, that I have hitherto substantially contributed across several language editions and Commons. Thank you very much for the attention. OAlexander (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Makowski[edit]

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

MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA and is unlikely to since he hasn't had a fight since 2010. In addition, he fails to meet WP:GNG since the article's only source is a link to his fight record at sherdog. Papaursa (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Svetoslav Zahariev[edit]

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

Article about an MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights and last fought in 2012. The article has no sources except for a link to his fight record at sherdog, so he also fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ra.One. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of Ra.One[edit]

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

There is no reason why a film needs a separate article for details on its budget and box office performance Areaseven (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 00:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ra.One, it seems well sourced minus a Daily Mail ref. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ra.One per Lady Lotus. —Vensatry _(Ping) 14:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge I have to say I am flabbergasted by the sheer content and depth of the article. I don't think a full merger with Ra.One is possible. Maybe a selective merger (that would require huge effort). Article has reliable refs. It talks so much about the controversies surrounding prior to and after its releases and touches on many fringe topics. Notability becomes an issue therefore. I am unsure between merge and keep. However, deleting it should not be an option. Harsh (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selective content and delete the rest which is WP:UNDUE.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ra.One. This is a case where you have lot of sources, but the subject has very little encyclopedic value. Salih (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we go by the merge logic, then should articles Reception of Ra.One, Marketing of Ra.One, Post-production of Ra.One, Cast of Ra.One and Principal photography of Ra.One be also merged? Harsh (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why we are so much obsessed with economics. Don't you think the "Box Office" and "Commercial analysis" sections which are discussed in this article actually belong to two of the five sub pages that are listed above? —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why does one movie need to have separate articles for production, marketing, reception, and box-office when bigger and better films such as The Avengers has all of that in one page? - Areaseven (talk) 05:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger and better has nothing to do with article numbers. Its the content size that matters. Btw, Ra.One is 156 mins and Avengers is 142 mins. But as i said, thats irrelevant. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Ra.One article is that it simply has too much information. Having all these separate articles on its production, reception, etc. makes readers think Wikipedia is advertising the film. The best possible solution is to trim everything down and keep it to one page like every other film article. Also, your rationale of the film being 156 minutes long is irrelevant, as running time has nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed. - Areaseven (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True! Having this many sub-pages is nothing but a case of WP:CFORK. Probably separate mergers need to be carried out for other sub-pages too. —Vensatry _(Ping) 10:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Note that Ra.One is already a good article. Selective merging i.e, trimming every sub-page, is a huge task because what's to be merged to main article and what's to be ignored requires consensus. Even if a selective merger is undertaken, the main article will become even more longer, because so many sub-pages are to be merged. ~~I recommend a keep for every article - Reception of Ra.One, Marketing of Ra.One, Post-production of Ra.One, Cast of Ra.One and Principal photography of Ra.One. Harsh (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Just like we have two articles for Yosemite National Park#History and History of the Yosemite area. Harsh (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you devote some time reading the policy it will be quite clear that some of the articles clearly violate WP:CFORK. There is absolutely no need to go for a separate article for casting as it has got nothing more to explain than what has been already explained in the parent article. The Principal photography of Ra.One clearly doesn't belong here as it reads pretty much like an advert. Further, "Cinematography" and "Action" have got no relevance with principal photography. The Marketing and Reception articles contain a lot of unwanted and unrelated stuff which again doesn't make way for warranting a stand-alone article. Also, is it a requirement for GAs to have multiple sub-pages treating the same subject? The parent article's size is just 34.5 k chars. We have many FAs/GAs which are 2-3 times bigger than this. So merging is not an issue. —Vensatry _(Ping) 07:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consensus apparently is for a selective merger of what's salvageable in Economics of Ra.One and a deletion of Cast of Ra.One, Principal photography of Ra.One, Reception of Ra.One, Marketing of Ra.One, and Post-production of Ra.One. The other articles can be bundled and nominated after this discussion is closed. Harsh (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Too big to merge in the already lengthy article. Nominator's rationale "there is no reason" is vague and they finding it so is just another case of WP:IDL. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Jones (baseball)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems like a perpetual minor league player (ten years without a major league appearance), and does not pass any of the relevant notability guidelines for athletes or baseball players. kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Has some sources but some are routine and only one seems to talk about him extensively, so in my opinion he doesn't pass WP:GNG. --Yankees10 21:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not gonna vote on this one. I don't think he passes GNG (I do believe he is very close), but the fact that he was a good prospect and was a AS Futures game selection and Cardinals MPOY, makes me not mind if the article is kept.--Yankees10 17:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Several sources were identified in the initial AfD nomination, and notability is not temporary. Moreover, here are some others: Cardinals Minor League Player of the Year Feature article in yourhoustonnews.com Trivial mention in AP article Feature article in The Commercial Appeal To me, these sources (especially the second and fourth), in tandem with those previously identified, confer notability per WP:GNG. Go Phightins! 22:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of that seems routine to me as coverage that hundreds of other minor leaguers get.--Yankees10 22:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... hundreds of minor leaguers earn organizational minor league players of the year awards? Over the course of a decade, I suppose ... but hundreds of other minor league players are also notable, as there are hundreds of thousands who have played in the minor leagues over the years. Go Phightins! 22:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering winning the minor league player of the award for an organization is not a highlight that warrants automatic notability, using an article announcing the winner is routine coverage to me and shouldn't be used to pass GNG. Especially when its a press release from the teams official web site.--Yankees10 23:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG needs Wikipedia:Independent sources, so a team press release wouldn't qualify. Game summaries are usually consider WP:ROUTINE, but that one from Commercial Appeal talks about him more than game summary usually talks about the player of the game.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should have clarified; I included the Cardinals press release more as a note of an accomplishment (not necessarily one that confers automatic notability, but one that shows he's not the average minor league player) than a suggestion of a source to confer GNG. My mistake for not clarifying. The Commercial Appeal and the Yourhoustonnews.com, as I said, are the two that push it over the line ... admittedly barely. Go Phightins! 10:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. Seems to have enough sourcing to pass... plus his selection to the All-Star Futures Game and the Cardinals minor league player of the year makes him more than a run-of-the-mill minor leaguer. Spanneraol (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If making the Futures Game or being named an organizational player of the year were inherently notable, they should be listed in the guidelines. They're not. Aside from those two things, which hardly generated significant coverage, the coverage of this subject was the routine coverage that just about any minor league player receives. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find me a specific player with this sort of coverage who is not notable? Go Phightins! 20:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how constructive using WP:OTHERSTUFF is going to be to either keep or delete.—Bagumba (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering several editors now have asserted that there are hundreds of other minor-leaguers who are not notable, and that "just about any other minor league player receives" the coverage Daryl Jones received (which I am not sure is true), I was wondering if there were minor league players whom people would deem non-notable that have received the same amount of coverage as Jones. Moreover, WP:OTHERSTUFF stipulates that one should not make an argument "solely because other articles do, or do not, exist". My question is whether Bbny-wiki-editor is asserting that this coverage is not sufficient because it does not meet WP:GNG, or because he finds it WP:ROUTINE. If the latter, than I would like to see other non-notable players with the same sort of ROUTINE coverage that he finds non-notable. In my opinion, the coverage Jones has received far exceeds that of most other minor league players, and thus surpasses WP:ROUTINE's stipulations. So pivoting away from my minor rambling here and to your point, Bagumba, I am not asking from a WP:OTHERSTUFF perspective, rather from a WP:ROUTINE perspective - if this coverage is truly routine, there should be a pile of other players who have won minor league player of the year awards and who have feature stories solely on them. Go Phightins! 01:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"My question is whether Bbny-wiki-editor is asserting that this coverage is not sufficient because it does not meet WP:GNG, or because he finds it WP:ROUTINE." Answer? Both. I don't believe a couple feature articles constitutes "significant coverage," unless maybe they're in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm basically in agreement with Bbny-wiki-editor. Northern Antarctica ₵ 19:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On sources and routine coverage:
- Scout.com a sports site reporting on sports, routine.
- Is a bullet point
- Springfield News-Leader is the local paper where he played minor league baseball, this is routine in my opinion.
- Springfield News-Leader again, sports blog reporting on local sports.
- An article about the Cardinals minor league player of the year. This is, in my mind, the only thing that equates to significant coverage. An article that states that he is the best of the players in their Cardinals system that was not good enough to actually play for the Cardinals.

In my opinion, the first four sources (in this list) are routine (sports covering sports, local papers covering local sports). The one source that looks promising is not significant enough on its own (or with routine coverage) to pass the GNG.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about that last source you mention in tandem with the piece from The Commercial Appeal, another feature article? Go Phightins! 02:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly missed that one...going to look. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think local sources should be called routine. Instead, the reason we require multiple sources is to show that there is more than just local interest; or in the case of major markets like LA or New York, it's multiple sources that consider something important.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean this than (apart from I don't have highbeam and can't see the whole article) That is a Memphis newspaper reporting on a Memphas Redbirds game. Yes he is covered in the article but that is routine, the newspaper is reporting that he had a few good games in a row. What is yourhoustonnews.com? It doesn't look like a newspaper (i.e. reliable source). Regardless it is a "local boy does good" story (note the way it starts with "Spring High alumni Daryl Jones").--kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As near as I can tell, yourhoustonnews.com is a conglomeration of coverage on a bunch of communities near, in, and around Houston. Go Phightins! 02:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions "Spring", apparently in reference to Spring, Texas, and it also has "The Observer" on top; note the bottom of http://www.yourhoustonnews.com has a link to "Spring Observer", while the top says "Houston Community Newspapers." So its presumably a local newspaper for Spring. Typically, I assume any decent athlete will have at least two significant sources: one from their hometown, another for their minor league or college town. It's usually why I usually interpret "multiple sources" as three or more.—Bagumba (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yourhoustonnews.com is a website that links together several community newspapers from areas around Houston. The Observer is the Spring paper but the website has several other papers from different communities. Spanneraol (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it is a local boy does good story from a local newspaper, in my mind, still routine. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few more sources that I added, including ones from mlb.com and rotowire that discuss him in more detail.. seems like more sources are out there since I found these fairly quickly but I dont have time to dig them up right now.Spanneraol (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A scouting report on Rotowire probably shouldn't count towards passing GNG.--Yankees10 03:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, MLB.com doesn't seem to be the most independent of sources for establishing notability.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; largely, MLB.com operates independently of its clubs (except for press releases, about which we are not talking - Spanneraol added a feature article), so when its editorial base authorizes a feature on a minor league player, it is not just your run of the mill guy with no chance of making the major leagues. Go Phightins! 10:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yankees10, when in doubt don't delete, AfD is not a surgical instrument.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for further discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 13:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of military dictatorships[edit]

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

Similar article to List of dictatorships and List of modern dictators in Latin America, and violates WP:OR and WP:POV. These articles are all created by User:Hanteng, using similar references and graphs. This seems like spamming. Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:
1. The list contains complete time-series data of the DD index for military dictatorship, completely different for the aforementioned articles or lists.
2. The list contains much more reliable, consistent and comprehensive information then the one currently listed in the main entry article Military dictatorship (see the sections of Current cases and Past cases. Note that the original sections contain information that very likely violates WP:OR and WP:POV.
3. In contrast, based on the DD index (thus definitely NOT original research made by Wikipedians), the information now listed here in List of military dictatorships satisifies WP:SUBSTANTIATE and has much lower risks of WP:NPOV as it is attributed to a source and a group of researchers whose DD index work is peer-reviewed.
4. (I hope to demonstrate how such country-based (and thus country-coded) data can be best curated in Wikimedia projects, possibly including Wikidata in the future, more see one of my Wikimania 2014 submissions here: A data curation hub for students, journalists and writers: Country data reuse and coordination, which is currently under review. ) --_{(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng)} 07:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR and WP:POV. Wikipedia should not be used to give highlight to the results of one or several scholars, especially when it comes to political problems that involve actual ideological controversies. There is no clear and universal criterion of dictatorship. Thus Wikipedia should not accept one as orthodox and make a list from it. --Snorri (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough well sourced to meet WP:V and WP:NOR. List of dictators is really a list censored by Wikipedia: Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, ... our great encyclopedia fails here for no reason! jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so as Js.Apollo Augustus Koo (talk) 11:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (content deleted) so I strongly support him. Wikipedia should not be used to give highlight to the results of one or several scholars, no matter how many times the source has been cited or how popular it is. Wikipedia also should not be used to give a list in grey area, although I can't see anyone mentioned any citation that mostly contradicts to those listed in the article. And if there is, this article still should be deleted rather than list various opinions. I consider an article's neutrality according to handsome Wikipedia editors like (content deleted) rather than reliable sources, so it's a very tendentious article. --The Master (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Fixed template fail; actual relist was: Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV list. What's a dictatorship? What's a military dictatorship? Is every political system dominated by the military a dictatorship? In reality there is interplay in every political system between multiple actors, even when there seems to be only one. There is interplay between civilian and military authority, even when it may appear the later is in exclusive control. Every country is different, every situation is different — things evolve over time. This list pretends that there is such a thing as immutable and unchanging "military dictatorships." Carrite (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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