Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 August	18 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 15:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reka yoga (astrology)[edit]

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

Borderline nonsensical article which purports to explain in terms of Hindu astrology why Albert Einstein "performed poorly" during his studies. The bulk of the article consists of a bulleted summary of one astrologer's opinion of this condition without any clear indication of why the reader should care. The sources on this seem to be entirely esoteric or occult texts - nothing that would approach the normal Wikipedia standards of reliability or verifiability. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure unsourced and unsourceable OR blither. None of the sources come remotely close to fulfilling our reliability guidelines. Flush and forget. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Indefensible nonsense. --Seduisant (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete:. This is not a nonsensical article and it is also not poorly sourced. It relies on the ancient texts (available online) written by Varahamihira and Vaidyanatha Dikshita. Wiki did not have much information about Hindu astrology therefore I have posted articles dealing with Hindu astrology which can be more appreciated perhaps only by those who are in know of astrology.Aditya soni (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question, Aditya soni, could you kindly point out which ancient text is the source for the comment about Albert Einstein at the beginning of the article? --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response Dear Salim Saheb, by habit I do not indulge in discussions; I am not the least worried about the ultimate fate of the 160 odd articles created on various aspects of Indian philosophy and Hindu astrology. These articles are no longer mine, and I cannot explain everything to everyone. But all the same Reka yoga is a bad planetary combination; it has a restraining and at times destructive effect. I did not write this article to explain the presence of Reka yoga pointed out on page 233 by Ernest Wilhelm in his book Core Yogas, to have occured in the horoscope of Einstein. I never said that this horoscope finds place in some ancient text. Please check up at Ref. No. 1. at the bottom of the page.Aditya soni (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" by habit I do not indulge in discussions" Wow. You seem to have a perennial issue with fringe nonsense so I will be clear (I tried to be polite last year, but you didn't even respond to me). "But all the same Reka yoga is a bad planetary combination" No, it's not a bad combination, it's some nonsense you believe to be true. Do not write nonsense you believe to be true as fact in wikipedia articles. A major problem with your editing style is that you can't separate the nonsense you believe from a neutral reporting of those beliefs, Second Quantization (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFRINGE. No independent sourcing. Delete this rubbish and I suggest someone delete most of the rest of this authors creations. I mean seriously the guy wrote: "Generally, a person born with Reka yoga has neither knowledge nor wealth, is penurious" and "Even Albert Einstein was born with a Rekā yoga which made him perform poorly in his studies " into this article. Second Quantization (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFRINGE - this appears to be largely poorly sourced pseudophilosophy. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incomprehensible, and as per other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense Bhny (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. CutestPenguin • Talk 15:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seriously? This is just promoting astrolology as fact (although as others note, it's also not exactly easy to read. OR, in-universe, etc. Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not pass sweeping remarks. I am not promoting astrology. Long before my entry there were already numerous pages covering Western and Hindu astrology. It is after reading them that I started creating pages on topics that were not in Wikipedia. Please do not be biased.Aditya soni (talk) 10:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I always knew that the deletions plaguing astrology articles were based on unreasoning fear of "false" information, and now this nomination is proof. The article, quite rightly, does not for one minute make the claims of astrologers. It notes what those claims are. Editors who cannot tell the difference fail WP:COMPETENCE. Anarchangel (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The initial version of the article at deletion said: "Albert Einstein was born with a Rekā yoga which made him perform poorly in his studies during the course of the dashas (planetary periods) the planets giving rise to the said yoga.". "Generally, a person born with Reka yoga has neither knowledge nor wealth, is penurious." [1] The article as it reads now notes the claims after edits [2], but the version initially didn't. One would think that's a distinction worth making by one who talks of competence (or did you deliberately make that mistake?). Anyway, you make no argument for keep, since you advance no argument for notability. Saying that it's neutrally written isn't a claim for notability. Second Quantization (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yoga (Hindu astrology) Yoga is an important concept in Hindu astrology, but does Reka yoga deserve an article on its own, IMO no due to little "significant coverage". A list of Yogas will be a good idea. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Anarchangel's cogent comment. I really have to wonder if many of these "delete" voters took anything more than a cursory glance at this article. If only we could "flush and forget" obstructionist editors. Joefromrandb (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm delete The above keeps have offered no reason to keep the article. As already mentioned it fails WP:NFRINGE, Second Quantization (talk) 14:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Impossible to sort out in-universe fringe promotion from a reliably sourced notable movement. Johnuniq (talk) 23:33, 24 August 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. Tone 11:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gökdeniz Özcetin[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Essentially an unsourced WP:BLP (save for some primary and non-WP:RS sources), and I am unable to find evidence that WP:GNG is met. Kinu ^t/_c 23:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. This article should be deleted and then recreated if this subject meets our notability standards. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 02:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Voiceacting does not confer the same notability as a real billing. No independent sources to be found. Agathoclea (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 16:50, 21 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Running with Scissors (poetry anthology)[edit]

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

Minor publication that came out in 2001. I could not find evidence for its notability after searching online. Gccwang (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A book whose only reference is its promotional profile on the website of its own publisher is not properly sourced. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Failed to find any independent reviews. Appears to fail WP:GNG, though it sounds like an interesting read. Altamel (talk) 02:21, 20 August 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. Tone 11:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ropen[edit]

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

Fringe and psuedoscientific rubbish backed by fringe and psuedoscientific sources. Article fails GNG, V and common bloody sense. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it; all sources are seemingly from the personal websites of the author of the vanity press Searching for Ropens and Finding God book. There are many different domains, but the sites within are all the same. There are few to no additional sources to establish notability / non-rubbishness. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's the personal theory of one guy with a bunch of sock puppets, and nothing else that can be cited as ‘evidence’. --Qef (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure rubbish. Get rid of it please. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Calling this rubbish is an insult to rubbish. Flush twice and close the lid so it can never crawl out again. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found in non-fringe sources, not even mention of it as a legend. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The idea of the Ropen is a famous Young Earth Creationist meme. Hell, there was even an episode of Destination Truth where they went hunting for it. Abyssal (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage from reliable sources? -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is any to be honest. Histories of creationism (I've heard of a book called "The Creationists" that might mention it) or histories of the interaction between paleontology and popular culture might be useful sources, but I don't have access to any. Maybe some news venues published puff pieces when the ropen-hunting expeditions happened? It would be a shame for such a famous cryptid to not have an article here just because PZ Myers complained about it on his blog the other day (yeah, I read Pharyngula too, occasionally). Abyssal (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we apply the WP:FRIND razor to the article, are the contents of the Destination Truth episode all that's left? I think List of Destination Truth episodes is sufficient to contain that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Nor IMHO is Destination Truth which is pretty fringe. And our standard is in depth coverage from multiple reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For failing WP:N. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pure self-promotion and OR, backed up by sockpuppetry. 79.68.70.197 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This theory dreams of achieving the stratospheric heights of plausibility (and, more importantly, mountains of supporting evidence) enjoyed by Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and Elvis still being alive, and/or Elvis having been the real guy who shot JFK. Groyolo (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I laughed, but the quality of the theory has no bearing on whether or not it warrants an article. Abyssal (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in reliable sources. Something portrayed on a single episode of a TV show? Some very non RS nonsense, no meat for an article here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of sig coverage in RS. Fails WP:NFRINGE. I've heard my fair share of the claims of creationists, but I've never heard about this, Second Quantization (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as too fringey to have been commented on by reliable sources. Unless, of course, we accept www.laattorneyvideo.com, which does come with a kind of endorsement: "This site is supported by the Whitcomb Family Daycare: Quality childcare in Long Beach, California". Drmies (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment below: I'm on the fence and encourage other editors to judge the TIME and Smithsonian articles. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe nonsense, with no coverage in reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Starting to look like an edit war. The topic is important enough to cover on smithsonian http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dont-get-strung-along-by-the-ropen-myth-78644354/?no-ist and and Time magazine http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1916160_1916151_1916146,00.html. I think it just needs some edits without the edit war to be viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thyrymn (talk • contribs) 23:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm--not bad. Not bad at all. The TIME article isn't much of an article, though, but it does suggest that there may be more good material to be found--in fact, I'll adjust my comment and will go sit on the fence for now. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - See, I told you guys there'd be a few sources like this. :P Abyssal (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - having read the sources provided above. My issue with the Smithsonian source is that it basically dismisses any related story as a hoax and refutes a couple of specific claims. The TIME source hedges its bets and notes that some have claimed they exist. I'm not sure those two articles are enough to substantiate notability, though. The TIME source isn't particularly substantive and the substantive part of the Smithsonian sources is, "this doesn't exist". Non-existent things can be notable and hoaxes can be notable too, but I don't think there's enough there yet. Happy to consider anything else. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia covers lots of fictional, mythical, and folkloric subjects. What does whether or not it exists have to do with whether or not we should have an article about it? Abyssal (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't very long but I think you missed the bit at the end - "Non-existent things can be notable and hoaxes can be notable too". Of course they can and I've written about quite a few of those mythological things. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Smithsonian article doesn't really tell us anything about the Ropen myth - it basically just states that the supposed Video is a frigate bird, not a pterosaur, and that if there were surviving pterosaurs, we don't know what they would look like. Time tells us even less. I'm less than convinced that if we were to remove the obviously unreliable sources from the existing article (e.g. laattorneyvideo.com, objectiveness.com, livepterosaur.com, cryptozoology.com) there would be enough material to support an article. Part of the problem is that there seems to be not one myth, but two - the lumenous flying creature of Papua New Guinea, and the 'pterosaur'. Any proper discussion of the topic would need to distinguish between the two, rather than simply taking the word of the cryptozoologists that they are one and the same. Malevolent nocturnal flying creatures are a common theme in mythology, and the Ropen of Papua New Guinean discourse needs to be discussed in that context, rather than appropriated by Western pseudoscience for its own purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I was looking at this list and think the remainder also need similar treatment. Before PZ does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cryptids (It feels like this article was singled out due to PZ making a stink about it). I think the original author has given up trying to make the article here work. Thyrymn (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to make it even as a noteworthy bit of crankery - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make it like the article on Black Shuck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardhb (talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the article were about the crank view (as a crank) and its believers, then I'd vote to keep, but its present form is an article with no credible sources purporting to treat the crank view as credible. — Safety Cap (talk) 18:48, 21 August 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. SpinningSpark 15:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trikasthanas (astrology)[edit]

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

This essay seems to be composed of equal parts Original Research and high fantasy. None of the sources seem to back up any of the claims made in the article and the subject does not seem to have been relevant to any serious scholarship that I can find. Furthermore it is written in such dense and incomprehensible prose that at first I thought the entire thing was a hoax. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete:. Encyclopedia is a reference work containing a comprehensive summary of information either from all branches of knowledge or from a particular branch of knowledge. The information can appear to be too technical for most not aware of the particular branch of knowledge this article deals with. This article deals with a particular aspect of Hindu astrology and does not describe a work or element of fiction. Agreed that this article does contain intricate detail but that detail is meant for those who have a specific interest in Hindu astrology, it is not meant for those who are not acquainted with Hindu astrology. Encyclopedia is certainly not a compendium of short-stories, and it does not teach. The listed sources are all reliable and the relied upon texts are available online, in the market and libraries. This article in any case does not present fringe theories and is based on reliable sources and is not a hoax, and is not an original research.Aditya soni (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Astrology isn't a branch of knowledge since it is nonsense. We cover it only in wikipedia so as to summarise the important elements of pseudoscientific beliefs people have. Only those aspects with coverage outside the astrology sources are those that are notable (see WP:NFRINGE), Second Quantization (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love how you insult other people's beliefs, assert your belief they should be deleted, and then make the best argument for keeping them. Yes, we document pseudoscience, and that is what the article does. Keep Anarchangel (talk) 03:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying astrology is nonsense is now an unpardonable offence because some people believe in it? I fail to see how that's my problem. Calling something pseudoscience is also normative, but you happily say it too. As I've already outlined, in-depth reliable sources, independent of the promulgators, is what is required, Second Quantization (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question AFD discussions are about notability - which of the sources you provided goes to the heart of this subject's notability? Can you provide any texts that we can verify? --Salimfadhley (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFRINGE. Also, makes numerous WP:MEDRS claims that certain planetary combinations mean certain people " will find difficulties in earning a living and may even resort to begging, develop suicidal tendencies, remain discontented, conspire to kill or destroy others, steal others’ wealth and resigns himself to fate". This guy is so far in his/her own bubble of nonsense that they even refuse to debate it ("by habit I do not indulge in discussions"). Even if it was notable, it would need to be completely rewritten since it's written like crap, Second Quantization (talk) 12:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreadable Bhny (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This stuff MAY be good information but the way it's written is unacceptable. It seems to portray astrology as objective fact. While there are some topics in astrology that are noteworthy but esoteric (see work done on malefic planets, it must be done in an encyclopedic style. It is clear that the article creator knows about a lot about this topic but they have to do a better job of conveying their knowledge in an encyclopedic and comprehensible manner. Alicb (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alicb's comments above, spot on analysis. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in-universe texts from inside astrology, which is not a branch of knowledge, are not acceptable as encyclopedia articles. And yes, it's also unfortunately unreadable. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete As I've said elsewhere, presenting this as factual is simply not acceptable. And as Bishonen says, it's unreadable. Delete as hopeless. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Friends. You may be or may not be aware of astrology taught and followed in the West but you seem to be unfamiliar with Hindu astrology as well which branch of knowledge is legally acknowledged as a science (and therefore, no fringe theories are involved, and it is not non-sense or hoax) in India. Hindu astrology, which is nakhshatra-based, works on three basic assumptions – 1) the Sign-wise Equal house division of the fixed Zodiac or Rasi-chakra and 2) planetary combinations called Yogas which can be good or bad in results and given proper names, and 3) the planetary periods called Dashas. The ancient Hindu Sanskrit texts while economizing on words merely describe the many astrological principles as also the numerous planetary combinations and their results; they do not offer any explanation whether brief or detailed. The many later translators – cum – commentators did not attempt to provide the missing explanations, retained the original descriptions etc., illustrating them with birth-charts of persons of their own times. It is from these reliable texts that I have drawn needful information. Slightly cleaning up this page I have tried to make it readable but proper understanding of this topic is possible only if one knows this subject. Keeping in view the particular terminology and expression used by the relied upon authors I cannot further simplify this draft. You must co-relate this topic with other wiki- linked topics for better grasp of the intricacy so noticed. I have not presented this topic as factual. If I have erred do edit the unacceptable points. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bhāva These are NOT fringe theories or hoaxes. These are real concepts in Hindu astrology. However, they do not notable enough to be standalone articles. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts within hindu astrology are fringe in the same way that creationism is fringe. They may have many adherents in the public sphere, but within science they are rejected. Second Quantization (talk) 15:49, 24 August 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. Tone 11:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shambat (khan)[edit]

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

No references since creation, tagged dubious (with talk page comment that this is probably a hoax). – S. Rich (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time we removed articles without any citations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created in 2005, but still only one sentence (that doesn't really say anything) and no references. Parabolooidal (talk) 00:46, 19 August 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.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bristow's Inn[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable per WP:GNG. It sites ten sources, but all of them go to the same place. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Heritage Listed building up for AfD? Even the link the nom is referring to, the government's report [3], demonstrates passing WP:GNG. The newspaper The Observer also has in-depth coverage. [4]--Oakshade (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the ten refs are to three different sources, not "the same place" as the nominator states (I was trying to combine the refs just now but lost my work because of an edit conflict), and include listing on "Canada's Historic Places". Clearly notable. PamD 23:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as per above. I was pretty sure that the links all pointed to the same place. Not sure what happend. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 21:22, 18 August 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) Good afternoon (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matchworld Cup[edit]

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

I am listing this for deletion after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup was closed as:

No consensus. Opinions are divided between allowing recreation and endorsing the deletion. It's not clear to me whether these are incompatible views. In my view, if somebody recreates the article now, it is likely to be speedily deleted unless it uses sources that were not discussed in previous discussions, in which case it may be made subject to a new deletion discussion. Sandstein 10:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added sources to and expanded the article so that {{db-repost}} no longer applies. Cunard (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. As Nickst (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup:
Also I must say, we can easy find much more sources about Match World Cup in English-language (and local-language, of course) media around the world: The National, Business Emirates (UAE paper magazine), PanArmenian.net (Armenia was not represented by any teams), Khaleej Times, Sport360.com, GulfNews, Time Out Abu Dhabi (with detail description of participants), Cicero & Bernay (Dubai), Payvand News (Iran), UzReport (Uzbekistan), FilGoal (Egypt), UkrInform (Ukraine). Also Russian sports top-media had special tags for this tournament (Sovsport.ru) or detail live-translations (Sport-Express) Not every single winter tournament had such media coverage. NickSt (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Matchworld Cup passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes GNG. Wide press coverage, see my post above. Thanks to Cunard for good work. NickSt (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this still does not pass GNG, there is no "significant coverage" regarding the actual tournament itself. Giant Snowman 17:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ousman, Allaam (2011-01-17). "Dubai to stage inaugural Matchworld Cup". Emirates 24/7. Archived from the original on 2014-08-19. Retrieved 2014-08-19.
This article provides substantial coverage about Matchworld Cup. Cunard (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Cunard has noted a large number of sources above. Many of them are merely WP:ROUTINE match reporting which consensus indicates does not establish GNG as almost all leagues are covered in this way by some form f media outlet at some level. However, three of the first four (excluding the Armenian link) are substantial articles about the tournament and team preparation for it. The additional link provided just above also provides reasonably detailed coverage that goes beyond simple match reporting. As they come from different countries as well I am satisfied there is a degree of coverage beyond the routine of this tournament. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG after good work by Cunard.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:02, 20 August 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:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Star Leasing Services LLC[edit]

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

I created this article back in April of 2008 thinking that it would be notable enough for Wikipedia. Indeed it has stood the test of time for six years, but in my search for more sources to satisfy WP:GNG, I was not able to come up with any, despite the fact that they partnered with Swift Transportation last year. So I am placing this article up for deletion on the fact that is fails WP:GNG (and has been tagged as such since 2008). ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 11 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:06, 17 August 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:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle studios[edit]

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

Can't find any coverage or reliable sources about this company. As such seems to fail WP:ORG. Makes claims of significance (so likely not CSD-A7 worthy). Stickee (talk) 11:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 12 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:56, 17 August 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Burns Institute[edit]

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

Dispute over whether this organization meets general notability requirements. Schematica (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- I don't see that this article has been previously prodded, and therefore suggest an admin speedily close this AfD. Furthermore , the nominator and article creator are one in the same which is odd. --Wlmg (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see there were recent questions at Talk:Lucy Burns Institute#Notability and then the article creator tried a RFC at Talk:Lucy Burns Institute#Request for comments, then was instructed to open an AFD instead. Let's just establish, here, that the organization seems notable. IMHO, it seems notable. --do ncr am 05:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

doncram, what's the basis for your conclusion? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As WP:ORG indicates, sources should cover the subject more than incidentally. None of the cited sources refer to the subject more than in passing, and I couldn't find any significant coverage elsewhere. A number of the cited sources don't mention LBI at all. Given that a large number of incidental references were added only after the notability tag was added I suspect there's some bombardment going on. In any case, without significant coverage it appears that deletion is appropriate. There may be a few tidbits that could be merged into Ballotpedia and/or Judgepedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is sufficient reliable secondary coverage to establish notability. A number of the sources cited in the article cover the subject in more than an incidental or trivial way. For example, there's a whole article in Governing about a study issued by the LBI [5]. I'm not sure how one could argue that an entire article devoted to discussing an organization's work is a trivial or incidental mention. There's also an entire article in Politico which discusses a publication of the LBI [6]. The whole focus of the article is about the LBI's publication, so it's clearly not a trivial or incidental mention. There's also a Metropolitan News-Enterprise article which is exclusively devoted to discussing the LBI and one of its websites [7]. These three references alone are enough to establish notability. Schematica (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Governing: The source only mentions LBI once. The source focuses on a study by LBI, not LBI itself. This might or might not be considered significant cover of LBI itself, not sure. I defer to more experienced AFDers on this.
Politico: This source is similar to Governing in that it's about an LBI publication, not about LBI itself. I'm also not clear on whether it's reliable. It's a blog, unclear if it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG, and it doesn't really read like a news article. Certainly the author is an experienced journalist. (He now works at NPR.)
MetNews: Two issues here. First, the article is about Judgepedia, which already has its own article. Second, MetNews is a tiny news outlet with an extremely limited local circulation (actually called "tiny" by the LA Times here, here). Even if this is considered significant coverage of LBI as opposed to Judgepedia (I think not) there's the question of whether coverage by such a small outlet contributes toward notability requirements.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Politico is RS. This article at Politico is RS news article. This is a well respected, professionally staffed, and professionally edited news organization. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It meets the general notability requirements. I especially note that the entire Governing article revolves around LBI's study, clearly notable. When the subjects are non-profits the RS stories are almost always about its activities/research as opposed to articles focused on the institution itself. (e.g. Brookings) Capitalismojo (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in major newspapers etc. Meets notability guidelines thus no reason for deletion. Collect (talk) 22:30, 24 August 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faby[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Has no French language article. Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 12 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet any Wikipedia inclusion criteria either in the content asserted or the sources provided. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. CesareAngelotti (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed that the article fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. At least for the moment. AAA3AAA (talk) 08:30, 22 August 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. Tone 11:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus national cricket team[edit]

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

There are several non-member nations of the International Cricket Council who we have articles for, but it seems in some cases a national team has never existed, or has once existed in some form but no longer does exist. Either way, there is little in the way of coverage of these teams in multiple reliable sources. These teams fail WP:CRIN, WP:CLUB and more importantly WP:GNG. In the case of Belarus, Kiribati, Ecudaor and Tuvalu (Tuvalu isn't recorded since 1979), it seems national teams existed once in some limited capacity, though for Belarus and Kiribati there doesn't seem to be any coverage, no matter how trivial. Ethiopia has never had a national cricket team. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages (mentioned above):

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:56, 11 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all none of these teams have been recognised by the International Cricket Councilso any games they do actually play would have no official status. LibStar (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all it would seem these all fail both WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. Unless someone can point to another criteria they meet somewhere, I can't see how any of these would be considered notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails both WP:CRIN and WP:GNG .Cricket is not a global sport like Football and teams are not notable.182.65.155.245 (talk) 01:16, 24 August 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 procedural keep. This deletion discussion is closed as procedural keep because previous deletion discussion was less than 15 days ago, and to save the community time. I'm not sure what really a deletion rationale here is, No longer notable? Notability is not temporary. In case, nominator doubts whether the subject merits a Wikipedia article or not, he/she is advised to renominate the article for deletion after a reasonable time. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 01:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unidan[edit]

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

No longer notable - shadowbanned from reddit and largely inactive. Notability questionable to begin with, only claim to fame being status as a poweruser on reddit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contrada10 (talk • contribs) — Contrada10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep His banning was widely reported by several media outlets. 82.181.62.99 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please can I quickly point out that just because reddit.com/u/unidan we shouldn't necessarily remove the page. u/violentacrez also does not exist, yet this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Brutsch does. His banning was covered by news outlets and became a popular subject across social media and not just Reddit. In addition to this, a lot of people actually come to this page after hearing about Unidan and not knowing who he is. I have a feeling that perhaps some of the people who want this page removed are actually motivated by personal dislike of Unidan following an "Anti-Unidan" "circlejerk" on Reddit. It is not in the interests of Wikipedia to remove the article. O99o99 (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep We don't need to have an afd just a week after the 2nd one concluded. There is a time and place for the community to assess whether an article is notable. We already did that one week ago. Maybe in a month or two the time will be right again, but not so close to the last afd close. Tutelary (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing's changed since the last AfD a week or so ago, or the one a couple of months before that, and notability is well covered by multiple reliable sources. The nom's argument is flawed to begin with (notability is not temporary). AfD is not a process where we continuously nominate disliked articles until they are removed, especially when the nom gives no new argument for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Notability established by quite a bit of coverage from independent secondary sources, which also covered his ban. The last AfD ended as No Consensus barely a week ago, and I don't think anything has changed since then. Breadblade (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the merits, there's probably a slightly stronger case for deletion than for keeping. Notability due to the banning strikes me as notability for a single thing, or as news-type coverage. However, since there was a nomination earlier his month that did not reach a consensus to delete, I don't think a new nomination this soon really fits within the spirit of Wikipedia. Croctotheface (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E would only apply if his ban were the only thing he received coverage for. The above editors are most likely arguing that his widely reported ban has increased his notability rather than reducing it. I don't think anyone is saying that his ban is the only thing he is notable for. Breadblade (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article already existed] and there was already an AfD before the ban's news coverage, and the article already had news coverage. The ban just added more coverage to it, so I don't think anyone can seriously argue that the case for notability is solely around the ban's coverage, as that's not the case. Reliable sources existed long before this ban coverage,[8][9][10] so it's not "notability due to the banning", that coverage only adds to the notability that was already there. - Aoidh (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 19 August 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. Tone 11:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Math Teams in Lexington Public Schools (Massachusetts)[edit]

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

This is an article about an extracurricular activity in a public school. It's mostly just a listing of the math competitions they competed in (and it's out of date). It doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV because although the sources provided are (generally) reliable (although there are many dead links), they do not cover the math team in any detail, providing only lists of scoring competitors. Fails WP:SYNTHESIS because the sources don't cover the team the way the article does. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 19:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 12 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Overly promotional article. We rarely create articles on specific teams in high schools.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not received significant coverage in secondary sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:08, 19 August 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:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipatory computing[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 12 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:23, 17 August 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David nicol-sey[edit]

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

A music video director. No reliable, independent references in the article or to be found. References in the article are music videos, one interview and an article written by Nicol-Sey. Article written by multiple SPAs. Prod was removed because subject is legitimate and has directed videos. Bgwhite (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the interview reference was written by a PR consultant (@TheGHMediaGuru) so it may or may not be independent of the subject. Helpsome (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I moved it to David Nicol-Sey. Indeed I was trying to understand if it was the recreation of a deleted page but I guess in moves you cannot see that. Sorry if this causes any extra work, For me, delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)--Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:DIRECTOR. Lacks depth of coverage. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I cut back on the reference stuffing done by the SPAs on the article. It doesn't make the article any better and my opinion still stands. The multiple SPAs and reference stuffing has the feel of a PR job. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 18 August 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:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skitzo[edit]

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

Can't find sources showning notability - and almost all of the links in the article don't work (I have removed one to a YouTube video that is no longer available and deleted the text sourced to it - people might want to see the old text). Note the link to the word Diplomats isn't to a band. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think whoever put that in meant to link to The Diplomats. I haven't looked at this to assess notability but I'll fix the link in the article. Location (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:20, 17 August 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:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FM8[edit]

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

I couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 12 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:18, 17 August 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Achille Salata[edit]

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

Okay, withdrawing nomination, more than enough sources have been added. I could not find those before. Staglit (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails notability guidline, and the whole article is plagarized from here (http://www.cyclopaedia.info/wiki/Achille-Salata) anyway. Staglit (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks the former editor has suffered loss of conscious effort, most likely due to cognitive lassitude. It is an entirely repairable disorder, merely requiring adding joules to noggin. Either that, or he lies. Cyclopaedia openly attributes their article to plagiarism of my entry which initially was derived from Angelo De Gubernatis encyclopedia. Look it up. I have added further substantiation to why I think Achille Salata should be maintained, but we could easily just wait 120 years, and see whether his name endures in museums or books, versus mine own or that of the author above. Sorry for the sarcasm, but again, my concern is that I should have to do this at all. That I should have to work more than editors have to when they just wish to delete. A more apt appraisal of the entity would have said perhaps more references were needed, etc. It has become a structural problem of Wikipedia. It is time to make deletion a more difficult thing to do, than substantiation of an entry regarding a biographical figure from over 100 years ago, who is cited in a catalogue of artists from that century.Rococo1700 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Stars (2013 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no sources and little content. Tinton5 (talk) 15:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took some work to find sources due to film's name, but I managed to find its listing on Rotten Tomatoes and see that it got quite a few reviews. It's enough to keep it, in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw this, per above reasoning. Thank you. Tinton5 (talk) 20:47, 17 August 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Figueira[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) 15:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Then let's delete it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Played no games that satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. WWGB (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No senior appearances yet therefore he isn't notable per WP:NFOOTY. He may well get senior appearances in the future but we can recreate the article then and not before per WP:CRYSTALL as it isn't a certainty that he'll make any senior appearances. The article lacks references too. IJA (talk) 07:14, 19 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Nimori[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY not established, despite being tagged for notability for over six years. No Japanese-language article. Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for article to be maintained at even a basic level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable yet. AAA3AAA (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything on Google to indicate notability. WP:GOOGLEHITS is very low indicating low interest. I did a HighBeam search, which returned nothing. I am One of Many (talk) 20:02, 23 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhupguri subdivision[edit]

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

It is a hoax.There is no such administrative unit. Shyamsunder (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Strong support. No such subdivision exists. - Chandan Guha (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article states it's a proposed subdivision, but that's hardly enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 18 August 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 procedural close. Wrong venue; please use WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 23:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:FrankWilliams/Savage 100BA[edit]

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

The last edit by Frank is with minor changes the same as the first edit on Savage 110BA. Further more I don't rememberer that there exits a Savage 100BA. Sanandros (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close Afd is for the deletion of articles, not user space pages. Re-nominate this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:22, 17 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 15:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel Puig Carreón[edit]

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

MMA fighter that fails WP:NMMA because he's had only 1 top tier fight (a first round KO loss). Jakejr (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Would not be against new subjects having only one of the three top tier fights required for WP:MMANOT but it would have to be recently active and a win. This single fight was a loss.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even so, the fighter is notable in the US (ie California), and Mexico City. Probably of interest to Hispanic readers. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strawberrie Fields was created on 8 August 2014.Forbidden User (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NMMA and coverage is routine sports reporting. I don't see any WP policy supported reasons to keep this article, but I have no objection to its recreation after he has 3 top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 20:33, 16 August 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, Sandstein 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably of interest to Hispanic readers" is not a valid reason to keep an article. Papaursa (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete only one top tier fight does not meet the notability standard. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 14:22, 19 August 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey All Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

Non notable wrestling promotion. It lacks the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG and there's no indication of notability. Even if the promotion had some notable wrestlers, the organization's notability is not inherited from the wrestlers. Jakejr (talk) 03:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not supported by references.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I agree with the nominator. The article lacks significant independent sources to show the promotion is notable and the organization's notability can not be inherited just because wrestlers who later became notable once competed there. Papaursa (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The additional sources found by Nikki311 refer to a New Jersey legislative issue about extreme wrestling. The topic could be considered WP:NOTNEWS and, either way, it appears you could argue that this organization is mentioned more in passing. However, there's enough to make me think about things so I've changed my vote. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant independent coverage on Nightline, in The New York Times and in The Wall Street Journal. Nikki♥311 02:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given Nikki's findings, I believe it meets minimum GNG requirements.LM2000 (talk) 09:19, 17 August 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, Sandstein 09:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most important independent promotions in the United States, and the host of New Japan Pro Wrestling's first American tour. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establist notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:47, 17 August 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. Mkdw ^talk 15:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Lähdemäki[edit]

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

Non notable MMA fighter since she fails to meet WP:NMMA. She has only 1 top tier fight and that was a loss. Jakejr (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Would not be against new subjects having only one of the three top tier fights required for WP:MMANOT but it would have to be recently active and a win since there is a good chance of them making the requirement in the relatively near future. However in this case the single fight was a loss meaning the chance of meeting WP:MMANOT in future is significantly lower.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in Finland and the US with sources. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a brand new editor you might want to get to know basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:GNG, WP:N, and WP:RS. For example, routine coverage such as results, announcements, and press releases don't count as significant coverage. Jakejr (talk) 01:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. It's possible she may get her top 3 fights, but right now she only has 1. I have no objection to someone recreating the article if and when she meets WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:18, 16 August 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, Sandstein 09:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet either WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Neither of the keep votes shows she meets any notability standards and the burden of proof is on them.Mdtemp (talk) 14:09, 19 August 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rosie Burgess[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Little claim of meeting any of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. Very little coverage found - these were the best I could come up with: [11], [12], the second containing no independent coverage at all. Michig (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn - see below, but as other editors are in favour of deletion it will to run its course. --Michig (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it then. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-running Aussie indie musician, nominator didn't look very hard. Material that easily meets WP:RS on multiple continents was not hard to find if one did even a cursory Google. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27], as well as umpteen biographies from festivals she's played all over the world. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did look quite hard and discounted many of those as non-reliable sources or containing insufficient coverage to establish notability. There's a couple of articles in local newspapers in that list, a very short SMH review, a student newspaper article (generally not accepted as reliable sources), an article from a free paper from a community publishing company, a brief live review from 'The Music', which may or may not be a reliable source, and several others that are either clearly not independently written, are dubious in terms of being reliable sources, or don't provide much in the way of coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a radio interview with Australia's national broadcaster. There's an interview in from the daily newspaper in one of the largest regional cities in the country. There's a review from the country's most respected broadsheet. There's interviews with notable websites on other continents. Another link is one of the most major radio stations in the country highlighting her album as the "Catch of the Day". There's a couple of good interviews in smaller regional newspapers that are still indisputably WP:RSs. There's another radio interview on a notable station, a couple of reviews from notable music and lesbian websites, and more. Either you're really playing fast and loose with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources or you haven't read the thing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't helpful to throw around insults. When I came across the article it contained no sources and no indication that the subject met any criterion of WP:NMUSIC (and still doesn't). I searched and didn't find enough to establish notability so brought it here. If you found more than I did then great, but some of the links you listed contain little or no coverage of the subject, and some would not be considered reliable sources. The others make this borderline in terms of notability. If consensus here is that this should be kept I'm fine with that, but I don't see it as a clear cut case from these sources. --Michig (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above clearly amounts to detailed coverage in reliable sources; major newspapers, recorded interviews on major radio stations, and an abundance of more minor but still notable coverage. Your claim that this is "borderline" is face-saving because you didn't do your homework and this should be withdrawn. Hell, if you actually believed in this wild interpretation of WP:RS you'd be nominating a good number of your own articles for deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply saying 'Keep as above' in more than 20 AfDs in a 27-minute period suggests you are not looking very closely at these articles. Unless you can expand on why you think these article should be kept your !vote is unlikely to be given much weight. --Michig (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Michig and highlighted this on many other AfDs , it is bordering on disruptive. LibStar (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks a sufficient amount of in-depth coverage from reliable sources. AlanS (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis? I cited seventeen decent sources, which included at least five reasonably detailed interviews from unquestionably reliable sources. Since when do we argue with substantive coverage in major daily newspapers on AfD? The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that I had a look at the sources you provided and a number of them are not reliable sources. A number are not so much about "Rosie Burgess" as they are about "The Rosie Burgess Trio". Then there was one that didn't even appear to be about the subject at all (different Rosie Burgess it looks like) and that was one of the few reliable sources [28] . I agree with Michig's nomination. AlanS (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Rosie Burgess Trio" is Rosie Burgess' band. I don't particularly care which title you put the article at because they're completely indistinguishable. The source you dispute is the same Rosie Burgess (Panika being her side-project when she's not with her band, which again is easily confirmed by Google). You are literally arguing with good coverage in the ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald, Triple J, and the Newcastle Herald before you getting into anything remotely arguable; and I can easily find at least ten articles in the nominator's own article creations sourced to worse-quality sources than the less significant ones that he is claiming to have an issue with here (and that's excluding the indisputable ones that he's trying to ignore altogether). The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that coverage of the band is as valid as coverage directly of Burgess. You mention 'good coverage in the ABC and Sydney Morning Herald' - what I see is an interview from 774 ABC Melbourne, a local radio station in the band's home town rather than national radio coverage, and a review in SMH which is 2 or 3 lines - that couldn't really be called significant coverage but I accept that getting reviewed at all in the SMH helps. If I'm missing something here please let me know, as I would be happy to keep if the coverage is out there, but you seriously need to cut the attitude. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

774 ABC Melbourne is the Victorian state affiliate of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. It is the most (or close to the most) popular radio station in a city of over four million people. Calling it "a local radio station in the band's home town" (which is actually on the other side of the continent) is misleading as hell. I've provided seventeen sources, the vast majority of which are better quality than those you've relied on for a significant chunk of your own new articles. This includes continual attempts at downplaying reliable sources - the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's main station in the second most populous state in the country becomes "local radio", and a major city's daily newspaper becomes a "local weekly", and you've written a bunch of articles relying on much less than any of this - and you wonder why I start to get irritated. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constantly mentioning articles that I have written is not the least bit helpful. We are here to discuss this article only. The article states that the Rosie Burgess Trio is a Melbourne band, as does the brief blurb on the ABC page - surely that makes them local to Melbourne? You claimed this was "a radio interview with Australia's national broadcaster", and it seems that this is not national radio, but effectively state-level radio - is that right? Our article on 777 ABC Melbourne describes it as and "ABC Local Radio station", so why make such an issue of me calling it a local radio station? If it has a wide a reach as you suggest then that it gives that one more weight. The Newcastle Herald is a local newspaper (I didn't call it a local weekly. In fact I didn't call anything a 'local weekly' here) according to our article on it, and the Noosa News is a very local newspaper serving a population of around 50,000. The problem I have with some of the other sources is that they either don't appear to satisfy WP:RS (e.g, CherryGrrl, SantaCruz.com, The Daily Iowan - student newspapers are often not considered suitable), don't contain significant coverage (SMH, "Catch of the day", The Age), or are doubtful whether they contain independent coverage (the Triple J unearthed bio, St Kilda Festival bio). Having dug deeper on some of the others it seems that The Music would probably pass WP:RS as would GNN (although that one contains little independent coverage), so with the Herald one and the fact that the SMH took notice of the band at all I'm going to say that this has just enough to be kept, so am withdrawing my nomination and going with a weak keep. It's now down to whether other editors agree. --Michig (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient albums released, international tours, media and other RS on artist to demonstrate notability at wp:musbio.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 03:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Below is a selection of the coverage I found. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cd reviews

Hardy, Karen (21 October 2010), "Signing the Rosie Burgess Band", Canberra Times

Jungle Jim (9 October 2008), "ARTIST: Rosie Burgess", Byron Shire News

Battersby, Shandelle (26 October 2008), "CD REVIEWS", Sunday Telegraph

article with coverage

McCumstie, Alicia (28 October 2009), "ROSIE BURGESS TRIO", Central Coast Express

Muir, Kristy (28 September 2010), "The little things that make life just Rosie", Noosa News

"Folk-roots leap for urban gypsies", Hobart Mercury, 14 April 2011

"The new kid on block", Mandurah Coastal Times, 5 March 2008

Boon, Cameron (10 December 2010), "Rosie can't wait to see rainy Alice", Centralian Advocate

Fair, Alex (11 April 2012), "A natural feeling sail", The Examiner Newspaper

"EVERYTHING"S COMING UP ROSIE", Hobart Mercury, 10 December 2010

Edwards, Caine (10 December 2010), "Rosie opens up for third album", Northern Territory News/Sunday Territorian

Comment. Thanks for finding these. Are any of these available online? I'm going to try to improve the article if kept, and the more sources the better. --Michig (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources found by User:The Drover's Wife are not all suitable, but the stuff that appears in legitimate newspapers plus the coverage on Triple J (a national radio network) push her past the GNG quite handily. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:40, 21 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gad Naschitz[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP (other than from Naschitz's own firm website). No indication of WP:GNG. Article mentions FICAC World, but their website does not mention him. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it then. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 17 August 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmate Transport[edit]

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

small non notable bus company with no evidence of any notability, Found nothing beyond Driver jobs & adverts, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 12:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The cited sources are a "routine listing" in the official government companies register, and routine "service announcement" coverage in a minor local news website which describes itself as "hyperlocal" on it's About page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Small local transport company with four busses in its line. Incidental local coverage only, fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 25 August 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)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

advertising The Banner talk 05:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inherently bias as I'm the person who wrote the article. I have no conflict of interest with this restaurant, aside from eating there previously. As with all the restaurant articles I write, this is following guidelines developed through Wikiproject food and drink and finds inspiration in other articles about restaurants including Ben's Chili Bowl and The Fat Duck which are both GA's in our project. Anyway, if you're concerned about the reception section feel free to c/e. It's based on citations and I tried to cover all sides of the story. I'm totally comfortable with that section being gutted. I don't think this merits this nomination though. The restaurant passes WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What I see is a long list of positive reviews and no indication of rewards (like Michelin stars or others). The Banner talk 10:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Banner! They don't have a Michelin star of any kind. I was unable to figure out how to do the awards stuff in that regard, I'm unsure on what other awards they have that would fit into things. If you actually read the review section you'll see the Foder's score. You will also see discusses about minor glitches in the service, disappointing dishes, poor frying of fritto misto, and the review from The Press Democrat called it "pocked with hits and misses," so perhaps if you actually read it, this isn't all smelling like roses :) They also have an overpriced wine list - which is totally true. I actually had a beer there recently and even commented to the bartender how I was "shocked" at how expensive the beer I ordered was. But, I'm not writing reviews for major newspapers :) I welcome improvements to the article of course! One thing I have learned - it's fully cited and the content that is in that section discusses what is in the reviews. I can spend time to find more reviews, but I got really burnt out on writing the article. Missvain (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listed by Michelin's, Zagat, and Frommer's; several significant reviews from Independent Reliable Sources of regional impact. This meets my understanding of WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just being listed means nothing towards notability. The Banner talk 22:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has prose, and it has references that correctly cite the prose. The article may be promotional, but as this policy says, Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD. My meaning is that the article could be cleaned up or expanded, instead of having to be deleted. Brandon (MrWooHoo) • Talk to Brandon! 02:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I just consider it advertising and want to get rid of it. I am not interested in undermining the Wikipedia-stance that Wikipedia is not for advertising. The Banner talk 09:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yeah, the article is kind of adverty but the restaurant is notable. I'm not meaning to pick on MissVain here, but she has a style of writing about restaurants that comes across as promotion. I don't think that's her intention. I had a similar reaction to that of The Banner with a similar article she created a few weeks ago. This article should evolve and stay.

To that end, I've moved what I believe is the contentious bit to the talk page for discussion and if appropriate, restoration in part or totality. The Dissident Aggressor 16:51, 20 August 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).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable. According to WP:NBOOK, the book must win the award, as opposed to being a finalist 1292simon (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm more than a little concerned that the article is completely unsourced but has so much content that looks like it essentially boils down to WP:OR. If the article is kept, we'll probably have to gut it in order to remove all of the unsourced content. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The original format of the article was awful, at least from a Wikipedia standpoint, as almost the entire article was written as original research and was completely unsourced. If it was a fan website or fan wiki, it'd be great but not so much for a Wikipedia article where we have to have every theory, opinion, and interpretation backed up with some sort of coverage in reliable sources. (IE, a fan interpretation is just that- a fan's intepretation. If it was say, something pulled from a scholarly article, then we could potentially use that.) That said, the article still gained quite a bit of coverage in reliable sources by way of reviews and whatnot, so it passes notability guidelines on that front. On a side note, it's interesting to see how extremely divided the reviews are as this really is the "you'll like it or not" type of read. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admin - if this AfD should be closed due to the improvements made to the article (thanks Tokyogirl179!), that's fine by me. 1292simon (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 17 August 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 User:Shirt58 per CSD G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transtales Entertainment". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transtales Entertainment[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The references given are either dependent of the subject or not focused on the subject. I used Google search to no avail; I could only find primary sources and blogspot websites. Jamie Tubers (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a repost. I thought I recognized this company. I'd nominated it for AfD back in January. None of the issues brought up with the last AfD have been dealt with at all. I recommend salting this and TransTales Entertainment, as odds are high that they'll just try to re-create this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They also recreated The Secret Princess, which was also deleted via AfD. I don't think that this is necessarily the same editor that was creating the initial articles (although I do think that it's likely that it's someone from the same company), but again- I'd heavily recommend salting this after it's deleted. I'll salt the other article that's already deleted, but I'd recommend salting these as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it's the same editor, but under a different account. The day before this was created, User:DrexMafia created this page on Wikimedia Commons, probably in an attempt to have a copy of the article to pull from if/when this gets deleted and to try to circumvent policy. I think I may open up an SPI for this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opened one here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:38, 22 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pupilas Dilatadas[edit]

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

Article has no reliable sources to indicate notability. I looked up the band and its home city together and can't find any. TheGGoose (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 03:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find much more than mere mentions. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 04:46, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -There is no secondary sourcing that shows notability which fails WP:GNG and furthermore I believe this article fails the WP:BAND guidelines. I see no need to keep this article.--Canyouhearmenow 11:36, 17 August 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. Michig (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Savo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not notable. Best known for Coalition Fight Music, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coalition Fight Music (2nd nomination). Sourced by a bunch of PR pieces. Note that The Hype Magazine is not independent, it's part of a PR effort. "The Hype Magazine has officially partnered with Coalition Fight Music", "Hype Magazine Executive Editor Jerry Doby was quoted as saying “The Hype Magazine is proud to be a media sponsor for Ben Craggy and CFM."" [29]. Tony Savo and Coalition Fight Music was being promoted by jdobypr [30] [31]. Jerry Doby of jdobypr is editor-in-chief of The Hype Magazine [32]. For more on PR from jdobypr see User talk:Jdobypr, User talk:Theurbanlink, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edubb, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 56#Edubb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanco Caine, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 63#Blanco Caine. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 1 August 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources are given. Fails to show notability per WP:ENT or WP:MUSICBIO.--Rpclod (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Coalition Fight Music. Coverage in magazine, made cover. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - When someone's article begins with many professions in the intro, generally the person is not outstanding in any of them; of course exceptions exist and are respected. I guess not this case. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:52, 9 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not only non notable, but seems as somewhat of an advertisement. Jab843 (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -No reliable sources other than small mentions and this article has had every opportunity to be brought up to standard. It fails WP:GNG as well as it clearly falls into WP:Advertisement. Delete away! --Canyouhearmenow 11:41, 17 August 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Street Capital[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. scope_creep talk (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a major international company and therefore notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradhall71 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- These high frequency traders on stock exchanges are a menace to cream off profits that might be made by long term investors. However with a turnover of $8bn per day, it is impossible to argue that this is NN, even if its three main rivals as yet have no articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 5 August 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, NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - None of the unbiased references talk directly about the subject. One discusses the subject taking a lease, but the focus on the leasing market. Another article includes the subject among companies with difficult interviews and explains briefly why the interviews are difficult. The last just lists the subject among a group of high-speed traders. None of this shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear claim to notability, but lack of in depth coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:ORG. Doesn't the Financial Times and WSJ write in depth about these guys? --Bejnar (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They are covered in depth, so the article should be kept. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 01:49, 17 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Look at the coverage they have from wsj, ft, bloomberg.com, and BusinessInsider. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 01:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Keep -There are plenty of references to this subject and it is clearly notable. this article satisfies WP:GNG and I believe it also satisfies WP:Corp. I am not sure how this subject made its way to the AfD floor? --Canyouhearmenow 11:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable per WP:GNG, due to size and coverage in media. Sufficiently sourced. -- Taketa (talk) 18:24, 17 August 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. Michig (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abjar Tower[edit]

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

Cancelled project that never received sufficient media coverage to be notable. ELEKHH^T 04:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 05:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 05:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another cancelled real estate development. Deleting this article helps clean up the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 9 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find only routine announcements relating to the planning of this project in 2007-9. No evidence that it ever attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete -Upon a search of subject one can only find scant references at best and even those are somewhat advertisement. This seems to be a moot point since the project is now defunct. I have no problems seeing this one go quickly.Canyouhearmenow 11:49, 17 August 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme localization[edit]

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

This does not expand greatly on the discussion of enzymes in its own article. As such, localization is not a sufficient standalone topic Ciao Mane (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the two techniques listed in the article may not be exhaustive of the topic, the topic as currently presented does not add to the Wikipedia, and localization is better mentioned in the Enzyme article. It may be the case, or may not, that the sole purpose of creating this article was as a showcase for the creating editor's scientific paper. The result is an unnecessary article. Wikipedia is not a manual. --Bejnar (talk) 18:24, 11 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 17 August 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. Michig (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Jones and the Temple of Eros[edit]

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

Unremarkable film, as per WP:NFILM Ciao Mane (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has Oklahoma Gazette, Blogcritics, and DVD Verdict reviews. Admittedly no Citizen Kane but the sources push it over the edge for me. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reviews are not persuasive sources for retention. It's a cheap direct-to-cable porn movie of no notability and an article of no substance. Utterly unnecessary! --Drmargi (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is cheesy film with some very bad acting and really bad dialog, but for films... good ones or stinkers... reviews ARE the expected "persuasive sources for retention" to meet WP:NF. Even with this bit of dreck having coverage in lots of unreliable sources, it does have enough coverage in actually reliable sources to meet notability criteria. And THAT is what is required. So pardon me Drmargi, but even with it being a poor film with little substance, films being reviewed in reliable sources are exactly what allows a keep per WP:NF. When considering policy and guidelines, simply feeling it "utterly unnecessary" does not apply, and neither does WP:DONTLIKEIT and WP:USELESS. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With due respect to Drmargi's argument, reviews of a film in reliable sources mean that it passes WP:GNG, which is all that is required. Whether or not it also passes WP:NFILM is irrelevant, as WP:GNG applies to all kinds of content. JulesH (talk) 21:21, 10 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few citations. Believe me, I'm no fan of Fred Olen Ray, but this film received a fair bit of coverage for bottom of the barrel softcore Cinemax erotica. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:57, 22 August 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 Erland Øye. SpinningSpark 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legao[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about an unreleased musical recording fails WP:NALBUM. - Mr X 12:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 12:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreleased album, no significant coverage, at best WP:TOOSOON. --Bejnar (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Erland Øye. There are sufficient sources available here but perhaps not enough content for a standalone article (but there very likely will be in a couple of months). Coverage includes: [33], [34] (confirms release date and tracklisting), [35], [36]. --Michig (talk) 12:14, 16 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I would be okay with a merge to Erland Øye, but I would not find allowing the subject at hand to remain as its own stand alone article to be feasible. I agree with Bejnar that this falls into WP:TOOSOON.Canyouhearmenow 20:02, 27 August 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 List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. SpinningSpark 15:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tai O Road[edit]

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

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS. Note that existence does not prove notability. The road needs to be the a subject covered by the source not simply a location mentioned while discussing some ancillary topic. Article was previously PROD which was removed without any reason give for removal.Rincewind42 (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Rincewind42 (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of roads and streets in Hong Kong as a non-notable thoroughfare per WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:42, 5 August 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a road that has no notability claim, and lacks significant coverage, fails WP:GNG. Any redirect should be to List of roads and streets in Hong Kong#Lantau as it is on Lantau Island. --Bejnar (talk) 14:50, 11 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - regular main road. The article does state any reasons why this road is notable. -- Taketa (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing from delete to redirect. I have read the comments below, thought the road does not require its own article, at the same time I can understand why it might be better to leave a redirect. -- Taketa (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete. We have a very strong presumption against deleting plausible redirects. This could go to the list or to the article on the Island. It is worth mentioning that it is the sole access road to the south-west part of the Island. James500 (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's already in the list of List of roads and streets in Hong Kong. I'm going to start a discussion at Wikiproject Hong Kong about proposed improvements to that article, which would accommodate your concern over the road's importance. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The discussion is here. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of streets and roads in Hong Kong. I have created a table there, with an entry for Tai O Road. Do not delete, as the article's history would be lost for non admins. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 04:50, 21 August 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) 09:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seán Lane[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:Notability (people). Has been tagged for notability for over six years, and it still has not been established. Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Managing a youth team in any sport doesn't show notability. He's not even mentioned in the article's only source. Jakejr (talk) 03:54, 14 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regional manager who made the national finals in a non-senior league. Does not meet WP:NSPORTS and WP:NGAELIC. Subject has not managed any senior international match or a fully professional league. -- Taketa (talk) 06:43, 17 August 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).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:Notability (people). This article has been tagged for notability for over six years and no one has established it. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject could possibly hope to meet WP:COMPOSER some day, but not currently and does not meet WP:GNG: I could find no sources to support this at any rate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 10 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while agreeing that the previous version of the article was substandard, and the article highly deserved to be AfD-ed. That she is American but living in the Netherlands means much of the review material is in Dutch, somewhat hard for English-users in America such as myself to access, although new translation tools make it easier to find sources (I had to dig into 25+ SERP pages plus did much cross-checking) to try to improve the article as per WP:HEYMANN. My take: serious composer, dedicated, much work, although she has not hit popular fame as such, although her work is performed regularly in festivals and can be heard on eight CDs; so I did not find the kind of in-depth articles Wikipedia likes for notability although they may still be out there (in Dutch?). However, there are enough sources out there to show a serious composer, and the WP:BASIC rule says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability -- so if we combine the nontrivial sources, a picture emerges of a solid composer/artist who is notable. It is enhanced by the numerous awards listed in the infobox. Further, her music is getting critical attention in the New York Times, Classics Today, and this newspaper called volkskrant which (to me) sounds like a trimmed down Volkswagen. So, all things considered, I think she's a keeper.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Tomwsulcer's admirable work. (BTW, de Volkskrant is a highly reputable Dutch newspaper.) -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michael Bednarek, helpful to know about de Volksfrant, since it enabled me to find more music reviews from that newspaper to add, which I think further demonstrates notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I always felt that she was at least borderline notable, but I struggled to find sources to verify this. Tomwsulcer has now found sources – well done Tom! --Deskford (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deskford!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:45, 18 August 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition Fight Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not notable. Sourced by a bunch of PR pieces. Note that The Hype Magazine is not independent, it's part of a PR effort. "The Hype Magazine has officially partnered with Coalition Fight Music", "Hype Magazine Executive Editor Jerry Doby was quoted as saying “The Hype Magazine is proud to be a media sponsor for Ben Craggy and CFM."" [37]. Coalition Fight Music was being promoted by jdobypr [38]. Jerry Doby of jdobypr is editor-in-chief of The Hype Magazine [39]. For more on PR from jdobypr see User talk:Jdobypr, User talk:Theurbanlink, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edubb, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 56#Edubb, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blanco Caine, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 63#Blanco Caine. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 1 August 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I could not find any coverage in a search, and as nominator notes the supplied references are mostly press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last time I looked into this article and the related Tony Savo article what struck me was how much of the MMA genre isn't covered by what is generally regarded as mainstream or reliable sources, the sport seems to still have much of the outlaw air about it. Do the New York Times/The London Times/Paris Match etc. cover MMA stories in-depth? So far as I know, not at all - much of the coverage is from blogs or MMA websites. (Generally do sports sources like Sports Illustrated even cover it that much?) I think before deleting this and the associated Savo article that instead consideration be given that the two articles' content be merged (in whole or in part) into one of the Category:Mixed martial arts articles.. Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 11 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 17 August 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Le Bas[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A Google Books search is showing several items, unfortunately all as snippet views. AllyD (talk) 20:11, 4 August 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability .#–Davey2010 • (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of evidence of notability, has been interviewed by newspapers, a quick Google search finds quite a few references. XeroxKleenex (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the subject's son is the writer of the same name. It is he who is quoted in the Globe & Mail reference that you added, not the artist father. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could be redirected or merged with Outsider art if the references are really talking about him. Sources are from UK and US. Clarification should be made about if he is the writer or artist. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 15:05, 10 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 18 August 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 Women artists. SpinningSpark 01:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction of women artists in art history[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Though this has previously been kept at AfD, there seems to have been no subsequent improvement or development, so the "potential" has not been realised (or realisable). The subject area is essentially identical to the Women artists article, therefore no need for a split. The Wikipedia article here reads like a piece of original thought, laying out a preamble about the lack of depiction of women artists in general (how do you write an article based on what hasn't been written?). The reading list gives an extensive bibliography about women artists in general. Of the four images in the article, two are self-portraits (self depiction?) and one is a painting of a female novelist (not an artist). Charitably this should be redirected to Women artists. There is nothing sourced, or anything that doesn't read like an original essay, therefore nothing to merge. If there is a separate subject worthy of a split, it is not adequately defined or specifically evidenced. Sionk (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A merge with Women Artists makes sense. The potential exists for an in depth article...Modernist (talk) 15:16, 4 August 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep What a waste of time for WP editors to have to respond over and over to these spurious AfDs whose nominators have not the vaguest notion of the BEFORE procedure. Although two of the Keep voters in the previous AfD discussed the article's "potential", the AfD was closed Keep with no conditions or even comment on the state of the article by the closer. Thus, the nominator's first argument is unsound because there was no onus on anyone to improve the article. But it WAS improved. ~~Exactly FORTY references were added to the Further reading section. This of course also renders laughable the nominator's assertion that the article is unsourced, annd~~ the rest of the arguments by the nominator conform more closely to IDONTLIKEIT than they do to policy. Anarchangel (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that is a complete load of personalised rubbish. I'm a member of WikiProject Visual Arts and WikiProject Women Artists, so why would I not try to like it, or look for sources? "Women artists in art history" is essentially the same subject as "Women artists". The reading list is an identical copypaste of the one on the Women artists article. I can't see a justification for a split. Sionk (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I used the descriptor "nominator" as in, "nominator's assertion" rather than the more neutral, "nomination's assertion". However, since my focus was, as always, on the arguments rather than the person, I deny that these are ad hominem arguments or PA. I have retracted my statement about the Further Reading, and have added sources to address that concern. Anarchangel (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I think this article is worthwhile; I prefer keep after thinking about it...Modernist (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to expand? Sionk (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above and previous remarks...Modernist (talk) 15:39, 15 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It reads like a rambling, unfocused opinion-piece. Based on its current content, the article seems to be about any number of things, and all of them seem very OR. Is it about The depiction of women in art, or The space and importance assigned to women artists by Art History, or The study of how those in the dicipline of art history have defined and characterised women artists through time, or The identification of works of art produced by women artists or The depiction of women artists in art, or Self portraits by women artists or even something else entirely? As Sionk said, the title "Women artists in art history" is essentially the same as "Women artists". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article is full of POV and OR. LibStar (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think the article should be merged with "women artists." For one thing, the article is not really about depictions of women artists in art history. There is certainly important information about works that have been erroneously attributed to male artists, as well as some good reasons why it is difficult to do research on historical women artists, but it really isn't about depictions of the artists. I would expect an article entitled "Depiction of women artists in art history" to be primarily about how women artists have been characterized in artwork (like Johan Zoffany's painting of the British Royal Academy in which the only two women who were members at the time were not shown present at the gathering, but rendered as portraits hanging on the wall in the background), in art historical scholarship (consistent references to women artists by their first names, while this is not generally the convention for their male counterparts), or in popular culture (Marcia Gay Harden as Lee Krasner in the Pollock biopic). Finally, the "women artists" article is basically a very long overview of women artists throughout history and in different parts of the world. It's got a lot of breadth but no depth. The article nominated here for deletion actually would add something to the "Women Artists" article because it more generally addresses how and why women artists have been marginalized or excluded from the art historical narrative. Arthistorygrrl (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Problem is the title of the wikiarticle is so specific, such that if I try to insert it into a browser bar, the first thing that comes up is the Wikipedia article, plus numerous clones of it. Still, the title is somewhat unclear -- are we talking about how women artists were depicted in art, that is, paintings of women painters? Or does "depict" mean how women artists were described (using words) throughout history? Or is this a more general take on the depiction of women in art, throughout history? This was not clear to me after reading the first paragraph, although the second one suggests that we're talking about women artists here, in paintings (I think). The continued lack of reliable references is problematic, but with so much unreferenced content, strikes me that this is an WP:ESSAY with a point of view, namely that women artists have not been depicted properly throughout history (which is bad worthy of being fixed). Perhaps this article is even a subtle advertisement for a book by pretty much the same name here. The numerous other read-alsos, the lack of references, the fact that the article has not improved much since the AfD discussion two years ago -- for these reasons, I lean to deletion. I'm thinking the merge ideas won't work since there are already other articles which cover this subject, perhaps better, hopefully.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with women artists. I don't see sufficient difference between the topics to justify two distinct articles; the further reading sections of both these articles are identical, for example. The merge needs to be done carefully. Much of the material in this article is written in a tone which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, so just cutting and pasting the text into the other article would yield a poor result. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (women in art) - I agree with Arthistorygrrl. Neutrality^talk 00:31, 28 August 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. but there is a strong consensus that the article needs some serious work, or even restructured altogether. SpinningSpark 08:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public plans for energy efficient refurbishment[edit]

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

Article is not notable as its an arbitrary list of government plans and policies. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, product announcements, case studies and detailing various red tape procedures. It doesn't document a culturally significant phenomenon and doesn't have a sufficiently wide interest to merit its own article. We have no other "Public plans for ..." articles. Much of the content can go out of date when governments change their policy or themselves change. Shiftchange (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, on the basis that most public government schemes to incentivise or support green building refurbishment are likely to attract significant press coverage (or authoritative study). However, as the nominator says, the current article is riddled with problems, including excessive (unjustified?) detail about schemes and excessive repeats of existing articles (e.g. The Green Deal). The article may serve as a useful overview of the situation in different countries and probably justify split-off articles being created about the major schemes (some Western European countries are way ahead with these schemes, though are less likely to be detailed on the English Wikipedia). The current article title is problematic. I think the word "plans" in the article title is misleading, it suggests future plans, rather than existing (or previously existing) schemes. All of these issues can be resolved on the article's talk page, rather than at AfD. Overall the article needs massive clean up and re-thought rather than deletion. Sionk (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Weak keep", because I could understand why others would prefer to WP:BLOWITUP or return it to a draft state to userify it. The problems are major. Sionk (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. I don't think that any valid rationale for deletion has been advanced. James500 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is author created, not sourced; by which I mean the author has taken a distinction that is not observed in his sources and attempted to create a classification that is not separately recognized by the articles cited about the topic. The articles are all details about energy efficiency in a variety of contexts. The author has tried to stuff in way too much in order to create a broad topic. The piecemeal presentation is a result of the lack of sources dealing with the overall topic. --Bejnar (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline or policy are you invoking? Mere juxtaposition is not an original synthesis. Do the items not satisfy the criteria? Are any of them not government schemes that do in fact incentivise energy efficient building refurbishment (whether or not they incentivise anything else)? It isn't possible to determine whether a list satisfies LISTN just by looking at the sources cited in the list. You are supposed to use a search engine to look for sources. James500 (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is synthesis, taking a bunch of quasi-related material and trying to construct a topic. I looked for sources dealing with the overall topic and only found piecemeal, such as government reports out of Dublin, or green NGOs' mission statements. There may be academics who have tackled this as a topic, but I didn't find any. Have you? --Bejnar (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original synthesis does not consist of the construction of a topic. Original synthesis requires some kind of factual assertion that is not supported by evidence. What would that assertion be? James500 (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are asserting it is a coherent topic where the global overview has been widely studied. In reality it would be better served by an extended list article which could navigate between separate articles on each notable scheme (hence my 'weak' keep recommendation). Sionk (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is point of an article which lists cherry-picked government policy on schemes which can be scrapped by the next government? In 10 years time, 75% of the article will be out of date. All the details covered have no long-term significance. We aren't here to document what is covered by the article. At best some of the material could be trimmed down and then merged into the "Energy policy in ..." articles. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is beginning to sound like an IDONTLIKEIT argument. Subjects don't need to be permanent or up-to-date to be notable enough for a Wikpedia entry. Sionk (talk) 11:11, 10 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topic is notable. Organization of coverage may need to be improved but that can be worked out on the article's talk page not here. ~KvnG 03:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assert the topic is notable? - Shiftchange (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it looks to me like this article is acting as a WP:SUMMARY for the overall concept of government efficiency programs. These programs, take independently, are clearly notable. A summary of a bunch of closely-related notable programs is notable and is useful to readers. ~KvnG 17:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are they closely related? Other than dealing with energy efficiency, all of these government agencies are entirely 'unrelated'. Neutrality^talk 00:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from namespace and userfy. The topic probably deserves its own article (notwithstanding its exact title) but in its current shape has major problems. In general I agree with User:Shiftchange, but also with User:Sionk. However, I think that in this case the clean up and re-thought should be done at the userfied namespace and not at the main namespace. Beagel (talk) 14:46, 16 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people can read quickly and some topics are obviously notable. James500 (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that is a very poor explanation for user j 1982's voting behavior which several other editors have warned him about. "Some topics are obviously notable" is an very weak reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously notable" is often a very strong argument for keeping because Google has difficulty sorting results in order of relevance. Buckets are obviously notable, but there is no indication of that in this first page of results. James500 (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:J 1982 did not say "obviously notable". We're not voting, we're trying to form a consensus. A good-faith "as above" contribution is not particularly productive. ~KvnG 01:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an explanation as to why the article should be kept? If you read WP:NOTCASE, specifically point 9 in the Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal section it excludes articles like this one. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeop, but remove most of the detailed contents to separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be left? The article is simply a cherry-picked list of recent government policies and case studies in high detail. That doesn't belong here. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SUMMARY would be left. ~KvnG 17:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains too much discussion of aims, predicted savings and future goals, which are all speculative. A majority of the article just repeats procedures from primary sources. There is limited criticism or review of the programs or policies and very little context. Because of these reasons, it in now way provides a summary. If a program or policy is notable it deserves it owns page such as The Green Deal or PACE financing. The ideal spot for a summary of this subject matter is on the various "Energy policy of" articles like the Energy efficiency section at Energy policy of the United States#Energy efficiency. If we are to have a list of government energy efficient refurbishment plans then lets create a simple list with a table which provides a true summary and a clear way to compare them. - Shiftchange (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you have some constructive ideas for improving organization of this topic area. You're right that the material can be summarized in "Energy policy of" articles but it is also useful to give an international summary of efficiency policy. The article is not a disaster. We can delete the poorly sourced and speculative bits. Why do you think it necessary to delete this entire article to improve organization? ~KvnG 00:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems like a WP:SYNTHESIS, almost an WP:ESSAY, an awkward umbrella term for an energy-conservation POV, with a prime problem being that when searching for the ungainly article title, Public plans for energy efficient refurbishment, in a browser bar, it is hard to find with that exact sequence of words in any reliable sources. So, the article creator has grabbed disparate information, and the original research is that all of these different activities, in different countries, all belong under the same umbrella under this "refurbishment" idea. Looking over the article, my eyes blur; what is it about? It seems to delve into detailed aspects of the subject (as if the reader already agreed with the writer that energy conservation measures by agencies was a good thing, a given), like the reader has stumbled into a government-sponsored energy funding meeting, and has no clue what is going on. The article needs context, distance, a neutral perspective to approach the subject objectively. If the article can be trimmed down, refocused possibly, it might be worthwhile but at this point it seems easier to delete it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly in the nature of an essay, rather than a topic. It basically groups together entirely unrelated initiatives from around the world. Any actual link between these programs can be explored through categories or through other pages (e.g., Weatherization, Energy conservation, green building. Neutrality^talk 00:28, 28 August 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. There's only one argument for keeping here and even that one accepts that the article should not be kept in its current form. Michig (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia designer[edit]

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

Belongs on Wiktionary more than on Wikipedia. Uncited article also. smileguy91^talk 00:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Multimedia artist —teb728 t c 02:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD § A3. Do not redirect to multimedia artist without a source that confirms both are the same thing. Fleet Command (talk) 08:00, 7 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep This article should probably be here, but it needs to actually be written, it's worthless in its current form. It's not the same thing as multimedia artist, and should not redirect there. XeroxKleenex (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with graphic designer First regarding the suggestion to merge with mutimedia artist, they aren't the same thing. A multimedia designer is someone who is very concerned with implementation details such as how big is the file, what platforms will it run on, how does it integrate with the rest of the system. A multimedia artist works more at the conceptual level, drawing pictures, logos, etc. and then hands it off to a designer. Since many sites don't bother with creating sophisticated original art work most web implementation projects that I've been associated with didn't have an artist on the team. IMO this is really the same as a graphic designer. Graphic designers these days are expected to be able to do multimedia, whether you call them a graphic designer or multimedia designer just depends on what type of project it is. If it's a web project with video associated you probably call them a graphic designer if it's a video game you call them multimedia designer but I think the two are essentially the same and if the article is kept it should be merged with graphic designer. But the current article is really just a one sentence definition anyway so I would recommend deletion. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:56, 13 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical "keep as above" !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG no sources provided. LibStar (talk) 14:33, 22 August 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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Kaplan[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}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced article about non-notable minor academic who has himself written about how to commit PR in Wikipedia, with a suspicious history of editing by SPAs and IP addresses. Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are but three independent references; his academic institution is not independent. One ref is the weak Who's Who; one is a three-sentence synopsis of an institutional press release (see article talk page). The multiple cites to Science Direct merely demonstrate that one paper was downloaded repeatably, which is a primary source reporting on its own website activity. This in no way satisfies WP:PROF. — Brianhe (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Reversed my earlier !vote based on evidence of academic and book citations uncovered during AfD debate. Still with concerns about article as now written and sourced. — Brianhe (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 6 papers with more than 100 citations on Google Scholar, 1 over 500, 1 over 3000. Most cited paper in social media domain. Known in the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.221.210 (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. But he is a marketing man, so he's good at self-promotion. Maproom (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly known academic in the field. Benjaminvermersch (talk) 11:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)— Benjaminvermersch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment Without any sources to back up your claim, this !vote will likely be ignored. --Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with one very highly cited piece on social media, the record is unremarkable per WP:Prof, and the individual does not have WP:GNG worthy coverage.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the citation data is objective, and sufficient to show notability. Multiple papers with over 100 citations is notability in any field whatsoever, and the only exceptions to that in afd decisions here is when we have some degree of dislike for the field or the individual. Such bases of judging notability represent institutionalized prejudice.

And contrary to what is said above, it is not true that the number reported by GoogleScholar of "multiple cites to Science Direct merely demonstrate that one paper was downloaded repeatably,". Rather, as the article of Google Scholar will explain, it is a count of the number of different published works that the article in Science Direct was cited in.--you can see them all listed by clicking on the words "cited by 3267" at the top of the Google Scholar result. . (the number of times it was downloaded is usually estimated as somewhere about 100 times that for papers of a purely academic interest, much higher for those with a popular interest. It's like the difference between the number of times a WP page was edited, and the times it was read. And contrary to what was said, such a citation record is indeed "remarkable per WP:Prof", and therefore proof that the person is an authority in his field, DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were based on the Science Direct citations in the article like this one, not Google scholar. The S.D. page states that its counts are are "according to Scopus" data. Which may be similar, I'm not sure now what it's telling us. If Google Scholar is the basis for notability, then perhaps the S.D. cites are not well chosen? [edited to add] Also the article points out that one paper was "downloaded more often than any other of the approximately 12.5 million papers in the [Science Direct] collection" which sounds really PRIMARYSOURCES|primary source-ish to me, if ithis download count from the site does not help establish notability then perhaps it should be removed. -- Brianhe (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is not very good (using Marquis' Who's Who as a reference...) but that is not a reason to delete. Usually, I don't give much about article download statistics, but in this case they're a/ absolutely stellar and b/ impeccably sourced. On top of that the huge number of citations to his articles. One article cited over 3000 times on GS and over 900 times on Scopus, if all he had ever published that one article, that would be enough to establish notability according to WP:PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable professor at good b-school. MathisKrog (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC) — MathisKrog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Your !vote is not policy-based and will therefore likely be ignored. WHether or not the subject is at a good or bad school is irrelevant. Whether or not he is notable is what we are to decide here and just claiming he is, is not very convincing. --Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clearly the only rationale for keeping this article would be that the subject qualifies per the special criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Looking at those (nine) criteria, the only one that seems possibly relevant is #1 - "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." So I strongly recommend that "Keep" and "Delete" arguments be based solely on whether criteria #1 has been satisfied. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:41, 10 August 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I guess that there is not much to add to the discussion at this point. I second DGG’s view that several papers with more than 100 citations on Google Scholar demonstrate that this person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline as stipulated in #1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and that this should be the criterion to be looked at as commented by John Broughton. What better prove of making an impact is there if hundreds of other researchers quote an author’s work. This also corresponds to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)’s specific criteria notes 1: “The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work.” One of these articles even has been quoted by over 3300 other publications according to Google Scholar and by more than 900 other sources within the Scopus database – which seems to be extremely rare in the field. As stated by Randykitty, “if all he had ever published that one article, that would be enough to establish notability according to WP:PROF” and thus shows the notability of this professor (as stated by MathisKrog). The only thing which might be added and to be considered is that this paper was published in 2010 and thus is only four years old with approximately 1000 new citations per year as can be seen here. This also seems to be outstanding and a further demonstration of significant impact within the discipline. Maybe the article could be adapted to show this already in its introduction? Benjaminvermersch (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just note that WP:PROF is very specific that meeting any one criterion is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 16 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics). AAA3AAA (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added one article from The Nation via HighBeam that discusses his work and I agree with Randykitty's analysis above. I am One of Many (talk) 20:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Subject has an h-index of 16 by my count, which is low for a full professor (rule of thumb is 20). The two high-citation papers make up for this, so while it's a marginal case, let's keep it. And file a few WP:SPIs. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:24, 24 August 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tsing Yi Heung Sze Wui Road[edit]

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

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS. Note that existence does not prove notability. Previously was a PROD which was removed because it "seems impt from the photo" which isn't a valid reason to keep. Rincewind42 (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of roads and streets in Hong Kong as a non-notable thoroughfare per WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 1 August 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:18, 9 August 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, czar ♔ 01:04, 17 August 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ma On Shan Road[edit]

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

Non-notable street in Hong Kong. The article fails to provide sufficient sources or even details in the text, to support its notability. Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability and WP:RS. Note that existence does not prove notability. The article was previously PROD but the tag removed without any reason given. Rincewind42 (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of roads and streets in Hong Kong as a non-notable thoroughfare per WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 1 August 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:17, 9 August 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, czar ♔ 01:04, 17 August 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City of homes[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable musical group. The only sources I could find were trivial mentions and self-published sources. Fails WP:BAND. - Mr X 02:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 04:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Springfield, Massachusetts. While I completely agree with the nom that the subject is a non-notable local garage band, "City of Homes" is a well-known nickname for Springfield, and I daresay the inspiration for the band name. Ravenswing 13:36, 1 August 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:13, 9 August 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, czar ♔ 01:03, 17 August 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) Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 22:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Double Seventh Festival (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I have build Double Seventh Festival to replace this page, for better wikidata links 燃玉 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Oppose~~. There's no reason to coalesce three already-extant and separate articles of different festivals (from Chinese, Korean, Japanese cultures) into one article, and certainly not to appease wikidata (since other language wikipedia didn't clean up their articles and just heap it together). Also, it is clear that "Double Seventh Festival" refers primary to the Chinese variant [40] from the Googlebooks results, so a hatnote and dab page is suited. --Cold Season (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is not a valid deletion opinion. See WP:AfD. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some set and static "multiple choice criteria" that I have to meet? No. And it's a good thing that I didn't strictly vote with no comment. I think you have enough common sense to grasp what's meant, but I will change it to appease you. --Cold Season (talk) 14:33, 9 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:53, 10 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I prefer the original state with the disambiguation page (the page requested to be deleted here) instead of the new overlaying article. The relation between the articles is clarified in the articles themselves. The overlaying article did not add any information. I see no reason why we need this seperate article. Wikidata links are not a good enough reason on its own to change content. -- Taketa (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made a spree of 23 identical keep as above !votes in 29 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 18 August 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SaMMsCRIthi[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete, with the defence quoted here below. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because this is the second largest such event (a gathering of medical schools) in the state of Karnataka, India. An event that is similar to this would be Spandan (JIPMER). This event brings together students of medical schools from all over the state at one place. Also, it is marked by the attendance of a large number of audience along with the Mysore Dasara. All the major regional newspapers, and national newspapers with regional editions cover this event throughout the days of its activity. I don't see how this does not fit under the notability guidelines. --asdofindia (talk) 17:35, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The find sources links above will not bring up any news link because this year's event is a month from now. But news mentioning last year's event can be seen in this google query. Even though I created this article, I am not entirely sure it belongs to wikipedia. But I believe that a permanent recurring event hosted by a reputed medical school can be significant.-asdofindia (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 4 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 10 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to Mysore Medical College & Research Institute. CutestPenguin (Talk) 15:28, 23 August 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. There is no consensus to remove this information. Several suggestions were made for merging but there was no consensus for the target of such a merge. Discussion on merging can continue at the article as part of the normal editing process. Unsourced material can be challenged by requesting sources, and ultimately removed if none are provided, as part of the normal editing process., SpinningSpark 18:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of HSDPA networks[edit]

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

This list is incomplete, there are A LOT OF missing sources and we will never be able to cover all networks worldwide (if only because of missing sources!). HSDPA has de-facto become a standard technology in deployed UMTS networks, which already have a seperate list. For this reason: Why should we maintain multiple lists for every "add-on-technology" to a common and widely adopted mobile standard?!? Instead we should focus on a few milestones (e.g. first launches, special networks and operators that were the first to launch new technologies. This should happen in the main article HSDPA. Lists only make sense if there is the possibility to have a complete coverage and people that are interested and able to maintain them an a regular basis. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Deletion: I think the deletion is too early especially for developing countries, where information about weather a network is using GSM/UMTS/HSDPA is difficult or almost impossible find out until one actually goes to the country, and tests it out. Syanaee (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Testing things out and adding them to a list" is not an appropiate way to build and extend such a list. The only thing that qualifies added information is direct citation of accessible sources. If there are no sources for deployments, there is no possibilty to verify the content. This is in conflict with common wikipedia rules and guidelines. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, I feel there needs to be a more broader discussion on this before the deletion, this is not the only article you've listed for deletion, and I feel both are beneficial to an encyclopedia entry. Syanaee (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up the discussion for each of the articles, by proposing deletion according to the wiki guidelines. There is a discussion page for every one of the requested articles on the wiki "deletion page". I'm not preventing anybody from having a say. By the way: It's not me who decides the upcoming procedure(s) concerning these articles, but at the end it's finally the decision of the administrators. That's how things work here. I've explained my point of view and intention. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge after adding sources: Incompleteness is okay, per WP:NOTDIR. (We can only keep items that have Wikipedia article, should we choose to do so.) Lack of source is not okay. Content without source may be challenged or deleted. Even if it had sources, lists like List of HSDPA networks and List of HSUPA networks and such lists should be merged. Fleet Command (talk) 07:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be even easier to merge both lists you mentioned above into List of UMTS networks by adding two seperate columns. This means two articles less without loss of information. All content without a source should be deleted after a set timeframe to give main editors the chance to improve the extended list and add sources. I suggest the timeframe to avoid keeping uncited content longterm. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:06, 7 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid reason for deletion. If this list duplicates information in another list article, merge or propose a merge. ~KvnG 03:27, 15 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - Agree with KvnG's suggestion. Syanaee (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article gives useful information. International sourcing included. Just keep adding more RS. I don't see what the big deal is. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of HSUPA networks to new List of HSPA networks (compare: List of HSPA+ networks) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:22, 17 August 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. SpinningSpark 18:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of EDGE networks[edit]

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

This list is incomplete, there are A LOT OF missing sources and we will never be able to cover all networks worldwide (if only because of missing sources!). EDGE has de-facto become a standard technology in deployed GSM networks. For this reason: Why should we maintain multiple lists for every "add-on-technology" to a common and widely adopted mobile standard?!? Instead we should focus on a few milestones (e.g. first launches, special networks and operators that were the first to launch new technologies. This should happen in the main article EDGE. Lists only make sense if there is the possibility to have a complete coverage and people that are interested and able to maintain them at a regular basis. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge after adding sources: Incompleteness is okay, per WP:NOTDIR. (We can only keep items that have Wikipedia article, should we choose to do so.) Lack of source is not okay. Content without source may be challenged or deleted. Even if it had sources, it should have been merged into a bigger list encompassing List of HSDPA networks and List of HSUPA networks and such lists should be merged. Fleet Command (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list should definitely be deleted. There is no "List of GSM networks" on wikipedia (for a good reason) to merge the content to. Further it doesn't make ANY sense to start listing up EDGE deployments. Nowadays GSM is defacto available in every country (at least one network) apart from Japan and South Korea. There simply is no need to maintain a list. Most of these networks have EDGE deployed. Nobody wants to collect this database nor read it (look at the pageviews!)! Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:17, 7 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No valid reason for deletion. If this list duplicates information in another list article, merge or propose a merge. ~KvnG 03:27, 15 August 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree, keep. Article gives useful information. International sourcing included. What's the big deal? Strawberrie Fields (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sense to keep this list. We don't have a list of GSM networks so why shall we have it for EDGE. With UMTS and LTE it's different: Here there are also plenty of sources on the web (in contrast to EDGE) to cite the deployments and launch dates what is absolutely essential for such a list. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 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. Michig (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jijiga Zone[edit]

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

Article of disputed fact. No reliable sources validate the existence of the zone. No correlations between the references supplied and the article title. Strong doubt of the existence of Jijiga zone as a place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicology (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Wikicology (talk) 00:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicology, what is your rationale for deletion of this article? --Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a real place in a real country, where almost one million people live & covering hundreds of square miles. AFAIK it meets notability by every relevant standard. The nominator has failed to provide any reason for its deletion, & unless one is forthcoming this should be speedily closed as a Keep. -- llywrch (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Oakshade: the network of my location is bad. Am sorry for the delay. And as per the article above, the creator claimed in the article talk page that Jijiga was renamed by the somalia Goverment to Jijiga Zone. And no reliable sources comfirm such development by the somalia goverment. Hence it is disputable as Goverment of Somalia can not make such step without more than enough reliable publish source. Mis- information have serious implications on the reliability and integrity of the project (Wikipedia) Wikicology (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google search brought up many reliable sources discussing the Jijiga Zone and many administrative maps of Ethiopia include the Jijiga zone. Its existence is not in dispute. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can sense that you are getting it wrong here. What is the significant diference between Jijiga and Jijiga Zone?.

@Spirit of Eagle:, in your google search, why not cite the reliable sources in the article for everybody to see. The one you saw is definately for Jijiga and not for Jijiga Zone. If the sources exist as you have claimed the creator would have supply more than enough here. And Jijiga already exist here as an article. Wikicology (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jijiga is both a city and a zone in Ethiopia. Deleting the article on the zone because there is already an article on the city would make as much since as deleting the article on the state of New York because Wikipedia already has an article on the city of New York. Just to prove that a zone exists, I've linked to a website owned by the Ethiopian government [41]. The government website contains a map which shows both the city of Jijiga and the zone of Jijiga. In addition, I've provided links to two books referring specifically to the Jijiga Zone [42] [43] Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the government of Ethiopia has been publishing data -- census returns, news reports, etc. -- about the Jijiga Zone for years. If I neglected to include information such as its creation, it was only because Wikipedia needs so much written about Ethiopia -- & other African countries -- & I got burned out before I could find & add that information to the article. -- llywrch (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like an obvious keep based on reliable sources. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user Wikicology if you dont even know the difference between Somaliaand Somali Region of ethiopia you should not be involved about this page. jigjiga Zone is in ethiopia. the somali regional parliament renamed the zone to faafan in early december 2012, the law was implemented in the early 2013. i am from that region, jigjiga zone is the most populated zone in our somali region of ethiopia (the second largest ethiopian federal state)

in our region most official documents are Somali or Amharic. i linked 2 references 1 somali and 1 from ReliefWeb but user Middayexpress rejected my references although the english one clearly shows faafan on the map. please check my last revision. luckly i found an other document which says " in Sitti (formerly Shinile) and Fafan (formerly Jijiga) Zones in northern Somali Region. The current rain has not yet fully replenished vegetation, so in many areas there are still shortages of forage"

see the somali region section

[http://www.fews.net/fr/east-africa/etiopía/food-security-outlook/wed-2014-04-30-tue-2014-09-30 "Areas of Concern Northern pastoral and agropastoral areas in Afar and northern Somali Region CURRENT SITUATION]

its very disapointing when some users abuse wekipedia rules, to use against something they dont like or dont know about. Jikaar (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is one of the official zones of Ethiopia. The issue is not whether the zone exists; it does. It's why the Jikaar single purpose account a) keeps trying to change its official name "Jijiga" to its informal alternate "Fafan", b) in the process attempting to substitute Ethiopian government links with non-governmental ones [44], c) attempting to change the zone's official border with Somalia to Somalia's constitutent Somaliland region, and d) all while rather absurdly claiming to be an Ethiopian government representative ("dude we are the government" [45]). Middayexpress (talk) 14:54, 19 August 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. Philg88 ^♦talk 21:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Horerczy[edit]

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

Highly implausible stub on an alleged "demonic creature from German folklore", implausible because the name is quite obviously not German (if anything it might be Polish). Only source is a self-published "Encyclopedia of Vampires [etc.]" by a author, Rosemary E. Guiley, who describes herself as a "leading expert on the paranormal" [46] (the "encyclopedia" is published by her own "visionary living" brand that is also her website). Clearly not a WP:RS. No other trace of this creature on Google books that isn't either a Wikipedia mirror or by Guiley. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it looks dodgy. Note that a version of this also appears to have been created on the Spanish Wikipedia in the last month if so (it's over a year old on en.wp). -- Arwel Parry (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination misrepresents the sources. This is published by Infobase Publishing as it this and are not self-published. Infobase is widely used as a reliable publishing sources on Wikipedia. All it needs is expansion with further research. 197.237.27.42 (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One author of generic textbooks is not enough. When collating large amounts of information it is easy to get things wrong. When looking for other sources to confirm or disprove the existence of the "Horerczy", I happened upon the Routledge Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Devils and Demons. No mention of it, but there was this hilarious entry: "Hubal: Pre-Islamic god venerated in central Arabia. His anthropomorphic image in red carnelian still stands in the Ka'aba in Mecca.". Routledge is a reliable publisher, but try adding that "fact" to the Hubal or Kaaba articles! We need at least one other source for this. If no-one else mentions it, that's evidence that it doesn't exist in folklore. Of course, it's possible that it's an unusual spelling, or alternate name for an authentic mythic creature, but I can't find anything to suggest that so far. Paul B (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Vampires article. Minimal notability has been met. Can be expanded with more reliable sources added. Also, it is a Polish word, not German. It may have "originated" in German folklore, but it is a Polish word. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alp (folklore) or delete. This is just a stub anyway. I've made an effort to find a reference to a creature (under any name) that breathes forth Alp-butterflies, but can't find any indication of any such creature in any source other than Guiley. No other book that I have found discusses it in connection with Alps. Of course folklore is famously variable and mutable, so it may well be that somewhere sometime there was a belief in a creature that breathed out Alps, but we have only one writer saying so - so far. In any case it is far better in the substantial Alp (folklore) article, attributed to Guiley as the sole source. Obviously if other independent sources are located, it could be kept. Paul B (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reliable source? I quote from Ms Guiley's account of her most recent important discoveries: "My research on the Djinn has uncovered their presence in every paranormal experience and all phenomena, from hauntings to attachments to alien abductions. The Djinn are superior shape-shifters and can easily masquerade as entities for which we have given other names." Fortunately she's protected from them because "I have a strong connection to the angelic realm that I have energized through meditation and prayer for years." Paul B (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources. Seems like a fictional entity. Rmhermen 18:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cited sources appear unreliable and the article fails WP:V. Additionally I have doubts that this article passes WP:STUB as there seems very limited prospects for expansion into a stand alone encyclopedic article. Am open to reconsideration if sufficient RS sources are found. Absent at least some kind of RS sourcing there is nothing to merge. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteInfobase, Facts on File, etc are as reliable as their authors. Rosemary Ellen Guiley is definitely not a reliable source. Nothing on Google.de either that helps. Don't merge as there is no reliable source showing this is part of German Folklore. Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I searched Google, HighBeam, JSTOR, NewsBank, Newspapers.com, and Questia, leading me to conclude that there are insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG.- Mr X 19:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source Bhny (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that this is actual German mythology. Apart from a few self-published sources there are no mentions of this mythological creature. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ZERO mention in reliable independent secondary sources. Sources used are self-published blither. Very unlikely that reliable sources will ever be found, as it reeks of amateur fabrication. My own searches, in English, German and Polish turned up nothing but junk. Can be deleted in its entirety. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been searching for possible sources on JSTOR, Google Books and Google. The only sources I have been able to find are Guiley's books, fan sites and wikis. There are no manuscripts, prints, pictures, ect. from the time period indicating that the Horerczy was part of German (or any culture’s) folklore. Likewise, I have been unable to find any scholarly studies on the entity from a reputable historian, cultural anthropologist, ect. The only sources I was able to find were wikis, fan sites and Guiley’s books. Wikis and fan sites are not reputable sources. As for Guiley, I would encourage everyone to read through her website [47]. Due to serious concerns regarding the reliability of Guiley and the lack of any other reliable sources, my final vote is to delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A subject is notable if it received significant coverage in reliable sources, per WP:N. In this case, we do have coverage in some sources, the question is whether these are reliable. Given that (i) the author is not a renowned expert in the field; (ii) there are renownerd experts in the field, and there are reliable sources published by them, but as per discussion none was found which mentions the subject, I am inclined to conclude that the sources in the article are not reliable and thus the subject fails WP:N.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:06, 24 August 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.