Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 November	2 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar Institute[edit]

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

Unsourced and tagged for non-notability. Can't find reliable sources to establish notability under either name mentioned in the article. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 00:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a tiny parochial school or Sunday school. This name's similarity to the potentiality notable Pilar Institute could create confusion on Google. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - this is certainly a terrible article, there are no references, the "official website" listed is the official website for a different (but possibly related) organization. It's probable this school exists, but it is certainly not notable. Jacona (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to establish notability when I tagged this in September. ~KvnG 16:35, 5 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Garrison[edit]

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

Unsourced article that appears to be a promotional author page. All the external links are broken, and I can't find any reliable sources for this author or his work. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 23:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NAUTHOR, as all of his books have been self-published. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -This is nothing more than promotions. I have done a search and can find no notable sources for this author or his body of work that would meet the WP:NAUTHOR guidelines.--Canyouhearmenow 13:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was unable to find any sources for WP:SIGCOV — kikichugirl ^inquire 22:36, 8 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waconia marching band[edit]

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

Not sure why this marching band is notable. I did a quick Google search and I was not able to find any reliable sources about the band. Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 25 November 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 ⨹ 23:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This could be a fairly easy "keep" if there were references to back up the 225 awards the band has won. Anyone? LaMona (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -After doing a search I can find a few scant references but nothing that meets the WP:GNG guidelines. Maybe this band could be merged into and article about the school but I don't feel it merits an article on its own feet.Canyouhearmenow 13:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karizma (musician)[edit]

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

Delete when searching I'm not seeing an indication that this individual meets the criteria for GNG for musicians [[1]] these are the results i"m getting. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 November 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 23:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am by no means up on this, but he seems to be notable enough in his part of the music world. I added a cite to the article, a UK magazine that called him "one of the world’s premiere house producers for well over a decade now". You'll get more hits if you Google "Karizma house". – Margin1522 (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:BASIC. Coverage here in Mixmag and in Fact (UK magazine) ([2], [3], [4], [5]) suggest to me he is a noteworthy person on the house scene. BethNaught (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hell in a Bucket, any thoughts on these new sources? czar ⨹ 01:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirect to The Story of Civilization#XI._The_Age_of_Napoleon_.281975.29. Consensus that the Herold book is non-notable, but the title is a worthwhile redirect for the unrelated Durant book. czar ⨹ 01:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Age of Napoleon[edit]

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

I'm unsure if this work passes the notability guidelines for books. Internet searches suggest this is not the most notable book by this title - perhaps a redirect to The Story of Civilization would be more prudent? The title seems more notable as a piece of the Durant work than this book by Herold. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm honestly unsure of what to think of this book. I can't find any reviews or in-depth coverage of the book but I do see where the work is or at least has been fairly regularly used in college coursework. ([6], [7]) and has been used as a source in other books with some regularity ([8], [9]). It's a little frustrating to say the least. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tokyogirl79. If the book has been taught at a university or is regularly cited it satisfies WP:TBK. As a plausible redirect to The Story of Civilization, the page isn't eligible for deletion on grounds of notability anyway (WP:R). James500 (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tokyogirl79 - Were you looking at course syllabi in terms of satisfying WP:NBOOK point #4 "The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools,[5] colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[6]"? If so, I read that as meaning that the book itself was studied, not that it was used in studies of its topic. Does that make sense? I don't find it cited often (G Scholar, 69 times), although it seems to be fairly commonly held in academic libraries. I don't think that makes the book itself notable, however. LaMona (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TBK has "taught" or "required reading". To adopt your terminology, I read that as meaning that the book was used in studies of its topic (because the lecturer directed its use). James500 (talk) 10:10, 28 November 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 23:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Even if it were required reading on some undergraduate courses (or once was), I do not think it would merit an article: we cannot have an article on every book. A history undergaduate would be expected to read (or at least sample) dozens of books. I would expect a 1964 book on as general a subject as this to have been replacved by more recent works long ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Defence Forum[edit]

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

Relisting. Again, a non-notable forum. Excluding the primary links to the website, the only links are to various books that refer to the bits of the website itself but no secondary sources discussing the website as a whole. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no secondary sources that gave the subject any in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 25 November 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 23:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The independent coverage is insufficient for notability criteria. Vrac (talk) 21:35, 7 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five risks[edit]

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

Notability, the term five risks is used only in one article and is not generally notable in its own right, it does have a single good reference but that all. The topics covered are all already individual articles in Wikipedia and so this article is just promoting a single academic article and repeating content that is already covered separately in other Wikipedia articles. Sargdub (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this term is not notable and thus the article should seriously be considered for deletion. I just did a quick search to see if there are other sources that could be added, but none were apparent. Zfeinst (talk) 23:01, 26 November 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 23:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are many types of financial risk. The authors selected 5 and wrote a paper about them. But is the paper notable? If it was a book, it would have to meet WP:NBOOK. Some papers have been influential enough to merit a separate article, but I don't see any evidence that this is one of them. The External links are just spammy links to investment advice, which is everywhere on the Internet. The sections with "Eta® model" also look pretty spammy. Apparently they refer to the MacroRisk Analytics site, which is half dead -- 404 errors when you click anything. – Margin1522 (talk) 20:50, 5 December 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. L Faraone 22:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Alliance (UK)[edit]

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

Dead links to official websites and barely any credible third party coverage aside, this article is clearly a thin promotional piece for an inactive political party, and as such fails Wikipedia policy on notability and organisations. The Populist Alliance has not taken part in ANY of the 22 by-election for the current Parliament, so cannot point to ANY active political campaigning. They cannot prove any elected officials at ANY level, so cannot satisfy Wikipedia policy on being a party with official active politicians on any level of British electoral administration. I cannot see any reason why they should have an article when using Wikipedia policy on organisations, they most certainly are not a part of British politics by any measure. doktorb _words^deeds 14:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs, a google search unearthed nothing other than an official website that doesn't even have the article name. Szzuk (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Instead of moaning about dead links, repair them. (The Electoral Commission records this party as being deregistered in October this year - the record is there though the link has changed.) Instead of complaining about lack of third party coverage, find some. Nominator says "this article is clearly a thin promotional piece for an inactive political party" - hardly! - but if it is, then edit it. Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude

If you can update that dead link reference,that would be helpful. I have yet to find any third party coverage, and if you know of any please add it. If significant third party coverage exists then of course the page should survive, but I for one can't find any. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (changed from Keep). This is one of a number of UK political party AFDs opened by same nominator. All seem to have been registered political parties. This one may or may not have less references immediately available. But as with all the others, where referencing meeting wp:GNG is shown, I believe the only reasonable outcome is keep. No complaint about this nominator meant at all, but I have seen other series of related AFDs put forward by other persons which have turned out to be not-well-thought-out, and this, like those others, seems wasteful of community attention. When/if a number of the AFDs are clearly failing, I think the appropriate thing for the nominator to do is to withdraw all the others. --do ncr am 21:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or merge/redirect to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, per my comment below....redirecting rather than deleting is superior. --do ncr am 11:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs more sources but sufficient to keep for now. -- GreenC 20:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note "The Populist Alliance has not taken part in ANY of the 22 by-election for the current Parliament, so cannot point to ANY active political campaigning. They cannot prove any elected officials at ANY level, so cannot satisfy Wikipedia policy on being a party with official active politicians on any level of British electoral administration" [<-that is a quote by nominator of their own nomination statement at top of AFD, not a quote from elsewhere, and this confused me--doncram]. As this remains true and accurate, can I ask User:Green Cardamom, User:doncram, User talk:Jonathan A Jones, and User:Emeraude how they can say with a straight face that this party is "notable"? It's all very well saying "they have third party coverage", but a) it's barely anything worth talking about and would not satisfy many other editors when faced with the same evidence, and b) it's not coverage of notable success, so fails Wikipedia policy. They have not taken part in ANYTHING for YEARS, they are not a political party doing ANYTHING of note by any measure, so how can you support this article wasting space? I ask you to look at the readership stats for this article - is it worth voting "Keep" for that amount? Please reconsider your opinions. I remain adamant that this article, and all the others on my current tranche of AfDs, must be removed. doktorb _words^deeds 05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to precisely where you think I have said (with a straight face or otherwise) that this party is notable. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To doktorb, you seem to be citing some accepted or proposed notability standard for political parties (though there is only one quote mark, so i am not sure what passage is a quote). Could you please link to the notability standard you refer to? --do ncr am 11:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see now: Doktorbuk's quote at "*Note "The Populist Alliance..." above was a self-quote of their nomination statement at the top of this AFD, it was not a partial quote of any Wikipedia notability standard or proposal. I added an italicized note after the quote to clarify, i hope. --do ncr am 20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:doncram I am using notability guidelines coupled with common sense. If a political party is neither active nor has history of notability, then how can they be notable? doktorb _words^deeds 14:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you want to understand what notability means on Wikipedia then read Wikipedia:Notability. Secondly, could I have an answer to my question above please? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all about policy. They do not meet policy guidelines, on top of not being notable 'in the real world'. Can you prove to me that they are (not that they have been written about, that they are notable). If I have misinterpreted your stance on this, I apologise, I may have mixed up your post on another AfD doktorb _words^deeds 17:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doktorbuk, contrary to your comment above; It's not all about policy, I want to let you know that its all about wikipedia policy here. I strongly suggest that you should follow the wikipedia policy and not your own personal policy. You may need to consider reading WP:Notability and WP:GNG as well. Wikicology (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikicology, you are mistaken. We can dismiss rules if we need to. I can see a party which has not achieved anything, has not taken part in any high profile campaigns, appears nowhere in any current news media. How can Wikipedia call them notable on these terms? doktorb _words^deeds 18:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable per significant coverages in reliable sources. Wikicology (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balderdash User:Wikicology, and you know it. This party has achieved nothing notable, in the real world, and therefore breaks Wikipedia policy. This site does not act in isolation. doktorb _words^deeds 20:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all that matters in an AFD is Wikipedia notability, largely to be gauged on whether reliable sources are believed to exist, not any other type of notability. And it is very important that wikipedia-notability is not temporary, while the deletion nominator is mistakenly using current status of the party as an influential factor in their thinking. As for "real world" notability/importance, we all should feel free to use that in choosing topics where we choose to make contributions in wikipedia. But what's important to some is not at all important to others, and we can't judge those others, and it seems not helpful to go around trying to tear down their contributions.... :) . --do ncr am 20:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 11:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Being inactive is not a reason to delete (or half of Wikipedia will be going). Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Emeraude, prove to me that this political party has achieved enough as a political party to be considered a notable organisation. doktorb _words^deeds 14:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need. GNG does not require a subject to have achieved anything.Emeraude (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is every need. User:Emeraude, if a party has not achieved anything, they are not notable, surely? doktorb _words^deeds 18:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not the same as achievement. Wikipedia keep articles on the basis of notability. Although achievements enhance notability. Wikicology (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being "adamant" that all the articles must be deleted doesn't help...what matters is Wikipedia notability, which has not been the argument for deletion, and there have been some other misunderstandings (e.g. missing the fact that notability does not need to be current), so I tend to think all 15 AFDs should be closed with KEEP. Allowing for new discussion of a selected one, strictly about whether it meets Wikipedia notability standards. Clearly some of the articles are slam-dunk KEEPs on wikipedia-notability standards; I suggest picking one that is not so clear, not sure if this Popular Alliance (UK) is the best one or not. But for sake of reducing confusion, I suggest all be closed KEEP for now. --do ncr am 20:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think this is probably the only one of this vast pile of AFDs which is actually justified. It is, of course, true that just about everything Doktorbuk says above is complete nonsense, but I struggle to see that this party achieves the basic WP:GNG threshold: the fact that his arguments are completely and utterly wrong doesn't mean that his conclusions are. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:34, 1 December 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 23:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But, well, I don't think a bunch of editors should have to search through all 15, just on odd chance. But okay Jonathan A Jones, i change my vote to Merge and Redirect instead (with target the UK political parties list-article. Certainly including the reference info there, that this was a short-lived party, is appropriate. --do ncr am 23:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not even clear to me what name we should be looking for the party under -- Popular Alliance, Populist Alliance, or Populist Party. As a second choice, redirect to the List of political parties in the United Kingdom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all similar political party articles on the basis of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and bring out the cluebat: Seriously, dude. Exactly what policy requires that an organization be currently active and currently achieving anything? The US Whig and Federalist parties haven't won any elections in what, centuries? What genuine policy grounds do you have to advocate deletion? Notability does not have a sell-by date. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:08, 12 December 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 Snow keep (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 08:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Courtesans[edit]

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

This article violates trademark act of 1994. Trademark belonging to Mr Howard Toshman, who registered "The Courtesans" trademark on 12 August 2013. Application number 3017753. Intellectual Property Office full decision can be found under this link- http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-challenge-decision-results/t-challenge-decision-results-bl?BL_Number=O%2F480%2F14 Skippertheeyechild (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A trademark infringement would appear if the brand "The Courtesans" was exploited commercially be Wikipedia. This is, however, not the case. We have lots of articles about trademarked brands like Coca Cola, Altoids, or Maltesers. Also, The Courtesans is just a redirect to Eileen Daly where the trademark case and the Courtesans band are a minor part of the main article. Reporting about a trademark does not an infringement make. De728631 (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It appears the dispute stems from the fact that there appears to be a UK manager who trademarked "The Courtesans" in the United Kingdom as the name of a (non notable?) band, which conflicts with Eileen Daly's band of the same name. Sucks for Daly, but irrelevant to us. We don't give ownership of a page title on trademark claims (otherwise WWF would point to the World Wildlife Fund rather than act as a disambiguation page). If Toshman's band gains notability, a discussion on what to do with the page title The Courtesans would be warranted, but lacking another target of notability, the current redirect (which was restored after this AFD was filed) is fine. Reso lute 00:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. There is no trademark infringement here. Epicgenius (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect. If Toshman's band becomes wikinotable enough for an article, it can be rewritten to be about them instead. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. No trademarks are being infringed by the existence of Wikipedia articles. An article on Toshman's band would fail WP:CRYSTAL and there is no appropriate redirect target that I can find - if there was I would suggest disambiguation, but there seems to be nothing that we could write about them at this time. Eileen Daly was verifiably in a band by this name for a time, even though they lost the right to use the name as a result of the trademark decision, but that still makes it a valid redirect target. Nothing to do here. Ivanvector (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect. Not notable as a band, as established in the first AfD (and nothing has changed there) but a reasonable search term for Eileen Daly at the moment. --Michig (talk) 06:50, 3 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cadigia Ali[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose only substantive claim of notability is that she ran for, but did not win, election to Toronto City Council. This is not a claim of notability that gets a person over WP:NPOL, but no other substantive claim is being made here at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. googled her. small media flurry during campaign. She may become a notable politician some day, just isn't one yet.ShulMaven (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Per nom. She may become notable in time but as for now I believe this article falls under WP:TOOSOON.Canyouhearmenow 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Jacox[edit]

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

99% of stunt performers/coordinators don't get enough media notice to qualify for either WP:GNG or WP:ACTOR. He's not in the same class as Yakima Canutt or Rémy Julienne. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure an unsubstantiated sweeping generalisation is helpful in this discussion, and certainly does not constitute an appropriate argument for specific article deletion. According to Wikipedia:Notability, 'Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity.' Stunt performers and coordinators perform an important role in the film-making industry, and I believe that selected persons within that category, including those with long careers and award nominations, should have Wikipedia pages. Fififolle (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. You don't see an "appropriate argument" for deletion? How about sources that satisfy GNG? None of the current references qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find any secondary sources for notability--Mevagiss (talk) 20:58, 18 November 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 12:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More than one source on the page satisfies GNG, and the others are independent, if not secondary. Fififolle (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Which sources would those be? The organization for which he is a member? That violates GNG's "independent of the subject" requirement. Two announcements of award nominations? Not "significant coverage", plus he didn't win. An interview by somebody named Kempton Lam? Not "reliable", nor is the interview a "secondary source". That leaves the "How to be a real, stunt car driver" article, which fails to address "the topic directly and in detail" and is not a "secondary source", as his claims are from his own mouth, and aren't particularly notable in any case. Have you actually read GNG? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:17, 29 November 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 23:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ukash[edit]

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

I stand by my original prod rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement". Edits by SPA and some edit warring since does little to change my opinion; most of the added (and removed) content was unreferenced and promotional (unref claim of "Canadian Prepaid Award 2012 – Best Prepaid Marketing Campaign" etc.). Prod was removed by SPA Paywithukash (talk · contribs)... @Sargdub, JamesBWatson, and Drscox: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 17 November 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 12:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I live in the UK and have come across Ukash quite a bit. They have been up for awards this year (http://www.cso.com.au/mediareleases/20828/newvoicemedia-secures-ukash-as-finalist-for-uk-it/) They've also been at the forefront in trying to raise awareness against online scams (http://www.sourcewire.com/news/84918/ukash-recognises-shop-staff-combatting-fraud). They are frequently mentioned in the press, at least here in the UK, and deserve to stay on Wikipedia, for sure. Tris2000 (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: They have won many awards, including Two Queen's Awards For Enterprises, and definitely qualify for an article. --KnightMove (talk) 08:38, 1 December 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 22:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOLPay[edit]

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

I stand by my original prod rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you," _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added the original PROD rationale since it got cut off. 04:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs)

@Tokyogirl79: It was intended to be omitted. Through I did forget to add that it was deprodded by creator who added more sources ([10]); unfortunately I do not consider them reliable enough to warrant me changing my opinion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah- you should probably still include it in some format in the deletion discussion so people coming into the AfD know your reasons for deletion immediately, without looking at the article history. You can remove it if you like, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 17 November 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 12:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 19:42, 1 December 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 22:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Goldman (businessman)[edit]

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

No independent notability except the company, which is the more notable. He's already mentioned there. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 02:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing mention in NYDaily, and some sources of dubious WP:RS, don't make it a valid encyclopedic entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note Likely paid editing, see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79#SavvyMedia Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:22, 20 November 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 12:16, 24 November 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 22:57, 1 December 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 Nova União (mixed martial arts). czar ⨹ 01:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André Pederneiras[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter or trainer. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Nova União (mixed martial arts) Virtually all of the sources I find are passing mentions of him being somebody's coach--which is what he does at Nova Uniao. It's true he technically meets WP:NMMA since he fought for a UFC title, but it's hard to see why he got that bout considering he has 1 lifetime win in MMA and that loss was his only top tier match. The article's sources are Facebook, a mention that he was graded in BJJ by Marco Ruas, and an "interview" on the website of a company that sells MMA and BJJ gear (hardly a reliable source)--nothing to help meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nova Uniao. Doesn't meet WP:GNG for a standalone article and a 4 fight, 1 win MMA career doesn't seem enough to make him notable as an MMA fighter. Best known as a BJJ instructor which is his role with Nova Uniao.Mdtemp (talk) 16:20, 1 December 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 22:56, 1 December 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. RogDel has made a valiant, but ultimately futile, effort to defend this article. The claim that the newspaper sources amounted to significant coverage did not have consensus amongst other editors. I have to agree with this, the articles are not about Joshi either in whole or in part. Instead they merely ask Joshi for an opinion on the MANS questionnaire. Newspapers ask opinions of all sorts of people all the time, my local paper asked mothers their opinion on a new school crossing, a national paper might ask claimants their opinion of a change in the benefits law. That does not make them notable. Perhaps it is being implied that Joshi is some kind of unofficial spokesman for the astrologers. That doesn't cut it either, it has been established over many many deletion debates that spokespersons being named in newspapers does not establish them as notable.
The WP:ACADEMIC claim was completely rejected and I won't comment further on that. The claim for him being a notable aphorist has a little more going for it, but this was not accepted in the discussion. Widely quoting an aphorism may be evidence for notability of the aphorism, but only if the source then goes on to discuss it. In none of the sources quoting one of Joshi's aphorisms is either the aphorism or its author discussed at all. All we have is the quote. This does not mean that Joshi is definitely not notable, but the sources currently presented are inadequate to verify that he is notable and we cannot have an article on that basis. SpinningSpark 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kedar Joshi[edit]

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

This is a previously deleted title. Previous discussion here found the person is not a notable philosopher, even as one on the fringe. The present article asserts that he is a notable aphorist, but previous discussion at Wikiquote found otherwise (sustained on review, and extensively discussed here and elsewhere). This much is old news, but this is a new article.

The present article contains new material asserting that he is an astrologer notable for defending the field. The citations provided do not rise to the level of significant coverage under WP:GNG, nor do they indicate particular recognition for accomplishments under WP:BIO. Notwithstanding an awful lot of useless stuff on the interestnet (noted in previous discussions), I am not finding anything that supports these claims of notability. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The following three points seem to indicate that this subject is notable:

1. Notability as an astrologer and a critic of the MANS's campaign:

The fact that multiple published sources, which are presumably independent and reliable, cover the views/opinions of only two to three among quite a few experts (i.e. astrologers and others, The second source mentions that most astrologers are dismissive of the MANS's efforts), seems to indicate the prominence and notability of those experts, who include the subject. (Note: The coverage clearly seems to be nontrivial (or more than a trivial mention), which is a requirement for notability.)

Note: Regarding the reliability of those two sources:

The Indian Express is a broadsheet newspaper (and not a tabloid) founded in 1931, which seems to have received several awards, and there are loads of WP articles that link to the article on it. The Caravan, which is a long-form narrative journalism magazine, also seems to be cited in a number of WP articles. I think they are presumably reliable and acceptable sources.

2. Notability as an aphorist:

Correctly attributed citations of a person's aphorism/s in multiple (and presumably independent and reliable) published sources would be sufficient objective evidence that the person is notable as an aphorist (i.e. noticeable or capable of being noted or worthy of notice as a source of aphorism/s).

Note: Regarding the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources to write a whole article:

Per WP:NACADEMICS, a person is notable if s/he is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. Now, it is possible for such person to have no significant coverage of him in independent reliable sources. In such case, WP:ACADEMIC says that once notability has been established through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details. Also, per WP:BASIC, primary sources may be used to support content in an article, though they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Thus, once the notability of an aphorist is established through independent sources, non-independent sources may be used to write a whole encyclopedic article.

3. I think it is presumable that Gokhale's seven (7) works related to the subject amount to an independent published source, since Gokhale is given as the sole author of these works; and I think it is also presumable that it is an acceptable source, since the journal is deemed academic (it is listed in DOAJ, which lists quality controlled scientific and scholarly journals). And these two presumptions seem to support the subject’s notability. ~ RogDel (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. (NSTP, UQV) Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. (aphorist) Ningauble (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments rebutting some particulars in the three points by RogDel:

Notability as an astrologer and a critic: Here is the news flash – A skeptic invited some astrologers, clairvoyants, & etc. to demonstrate their prognostic abilities, none of them took him up on it, and a few, including this "self-described philosopher and purveyor of theories" (theories that don't even have a fringe following), voiced their disdain for his methods. (It must have been a slow news day in Pune.) The news that one Kedar Joshi was among those who were baited for this "study" that never happened is trivial coverage, and it is unsurprising that there were few other people available to quote for opposing views.
Notability as an aphorist: Having things that are plastered all over the interestnet quoted a few times does not make someone a "notable aphorist". Regarding the claim that significant coverage is not required: Kedar Joshi meets none of the criteria at WP:NACADEMICS and, in particular, is certainly not the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal. He holds no comparable position of authority at any prominent institution, academic or otherwise.
Gokhale's works: As described in previous discussions linked above, articles in the newsletter of an organization catering to undergraduate and amateur philosophers are not sources of any academic gravitas. An article on Gokhale himself has been deleted due to no apparent importance or significance.[11] A large proportion of his works (appearing in that newsletter or self published) are concerned with Kedar Joshi, so I would describe them as non-independent colleagues, except "colleagues" would imply they have some sort of professional standing – which neither of them does.

Note also that the contributor may have a conflict of interest. Informal/amateur snapshots uploaded at commons (e.g. [12] [13] [14] [15] and others) give the appearance that User:RogDel is, at least, personally acquainted with the subject. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments The Caravan source clearly mentions that most astrologers are dismissive of the MANS's efforts. The Indian Express source says that the MANS got around a dozen informal queries from astrologers and others. There are much stronger reasons to believe that the two to three experts (including the subject) whose views are covered by the two sources are considered important/notable by the sources. And the coverage is clearly more than a trivial mention; in other words, it is significant coverage which is required by WP:GNG.

Again, if the sources are presumably independent and reliable then it, I believe, is irrefutable that correctly attributed citations of a person's aphorism/s in such published sources would be sufficient objective evidence that the person is notable as an aphorist (i.e. noticeable or capable of being noted or worthy of notice as a source of aphorism/s).

Philosophy Pathways, even if it is at some places self-described as a newsletter, is deemed an academic journal (it also seems to be self-described as an electronic journal). A listing in DOAJ seems to be a sufficient indication of that, since DOAJ lists quality controlled scientific and scholarly journals. The fact that a large proportion of Gokhale's woks are concerned with the subject does not seem to imply that the works are not independent.

I have no conflict of interest. And this is not the only article that I have recreated after deletion. These are few examples: Abhay Thipsay, Christina Singer; and they look notable and worthy of inclusion. I'm indeed a very determined contributor. It is only the challenges to the existence of this article, such as notability boilers, which made me work on it. And I would work on any other challenged article I created as long as I believe in the reasons for its inclusion in WP. I may have made mistakes; my knowledge of notability and stuff may have been incomplete; but I believe to have improved and have made improvements. The images I uploaded at commons were merely downloaded from the Internet Archive, where presumably the subject himself had uploaded them. E.g. Kedar Joshi (sometime between 1998 and 2001). The appearance you mention is completely false and deceptive. ~ RogDel (talk) 18:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first paragraph in the foregoing post: Neither of the sources describes the subject as an expert. "The Indian Express" describes him simply as an astrologer. The Caravan piece further qualifies him as "self-described philosopher". (I also think the credibility of the Caravan source is diminished by overstating the case. I do not doubt that those who replied to MANS were critical; but I seriously doubt there is any basis for believing that "most astrologers" have even heard of MANS, much less taken a position on their study that never happened.)

Regarding Philosophy Pathways (home page, Wikipedia article) and its International Society for Philosophers (home page, Wikipedia article): I am not going to re-argue the case at this point, but I encourage others to investigate their nature. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By expert I only meant a person who is skilled at something; e.g. an astrologer is supposed to be skilled at astrology. That's all. I don't understand why the credibility of the source would be diminished. Do you not believe that he is evidently a self-described philosopher? MANS, founded in 1989, seems to be quite a well established and well known organization which appears to have declared astrology as a superstition on its website. I think there are good reasons to believe that most astrologers would be pretty aware of MANS. ~ RogDel (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two references consist of #1 a two-line quote #2 a single line quote. The related works section is unclear how it relates to Joshi. The source appears to consist of a web site run by a single person (George Klempner [email protected]) since the contact information is his email and phone number, and no editorial board is mentioned. The articles that are "dialogs" with Joshi are written by Raam Gokhale, and at least one is prefaced with "An Imagined Dialog on Eastern and Western Philosophy and the Nature of Knowledge". So this is Gokhale having an imagined dialog with Joshi. All of those "related works" are by the same author in the same publication, and none of them purport to be the words of Joshi, nor do they cite any works by Joshi, who could himself be imaginary. Note that I also removed the superlative terms from the article ("noted" "notable") as those are not appropriate for a WP article. LaMona (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the two references consist of quotes, the coverage clearly appears to be more than a trivial mention of the subject; and seems long enough to write useful content. Gokhale's works seem to cite some of the subject's aphorisms or quotes at least at the beginning which indicates that the Kedar mentioned in the dialogues is no other than the subject, even if one of the dialogues may have been mentioned to be imaginary. (e.g. 'If knowledge is my God, doubt would be my religion.' - Kedar Joshi, cited in JUST-IF-ICATION at the beginning.) Philosophy Pathways appears to have numerous editors, including Christopher Norris, Distinguished Research Professor in Philosophy at Cardiff University. And the subject seems clearly to be a notable aphorist. ~ RogDel (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is kedar joshi, the subject of the article being discussed. Raam Gokhale is my relative (cousin), and although he contacted me and initiated dialogues after coming from the USA, i suggested him philosophy Pathways for publication. So i don't really think that his works could be considered independent of me in the Wikipedia sense for notability. However I'm indeed a notable astrologer. I was Interviewed on phone by a reporter from the Indian Express named prasad joshi (he is not my relative, though we have a common last name) about my opinions regarding the MANS issue, because I'm kind of known to be a staunch critic of its campaign. A reporter from the Caravan, anosh malekar, also independently contacted me and personally came to my house and Interviewed me for about an hour. Reporters from Marathi language newspapers have also interviewed me several times in the past. I hope this will help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedar joshi 1979 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 20 November 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 10:29, 24 November 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 22:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WorldCat seems to mention that the subject has authored 12 works in 14 publications in 2 languages and 21 library holdings worldwide; e.g. Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Jesus College Library, University of Cambridge, Pembroke College Library, University of Oxford, Central Library, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, University of Melbourne Library, Yale University Library, British Library of Political and Economic Science, etc. Is that too, then, not an indication of his notability, maybe per WP:Creative? The subject's works appear to be self-published and yet they seem to be included or represented within the collections of several notable academic libraries, which may be equivalent to meeting the WP:Creative criterion that a person is presumably notable if his/her work (or works) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. In other words, would such reputable academic libraries hold the works unless they consider them (and/or their author) notable or important? They presumably would not. ~ RogDel (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worldcat is a union catalog of over 70,000 libraries. Being held by 21 of them is not highly significant. (I wrote a book that is held by over 1,100, and believe me, I'm neither famous nor noteworthy!). As one academic librarian said in an interview "We are the people who buy the books that no one wants to read." In other words, major academic libraries have contracts in which every book published in X language is shipped to them automatically. Even if no one ever takes it off the shelf. That's their job. LaMona (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Karen, I find it hard to believe that you are not notable. You seem to be widely cited by peers, so you may meet WP:Creative criterion that the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Ala.org mentions about you that She has spoken frequently at conferences and meetings and has been quoted or interviewed in a variety of media. loc.gov mentions, She is a well-known metadata expert and has served on the MARC standards committee, the NISO OpenURL committee, and has advised in the development of MODS and other metadata efforts. ~ RogDel (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the WP article "Academic library" seems to mention in the lead (though this may be unsourced), Academic libraries must determine a focus for collection development since comprehensive collections are not feasible. Librarians do this by identifying the needs of the faculty and student body, as well as the mission and academic programs of the college or university. ~ RogDel (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, works in the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums, referred to in WP:CREATIVE, are prominently featured by those institutions. Being in the catalog of a large academic library is not remotely equivalent - they collect vast quantities of obscurities. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right about the non-equivalence, but I still think that inclusion within the collections of several notable/reputable academic libraries (some small, some big) might indicate some notability. It may not be high notability like the one indicated by representations within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, but it may be notability still; especially considering that academic libraries are required to determine a focus for collection development since comprehensive collections are not feasible. ~ RogDel (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article require additional independent sources to establish the notability as well as the article seems to be written for promotional purposes as suggested in earlier AfD. Delete as per BPL and nomination. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was only my relative incompetence in article writing and the knowledge of RS and notability that, I think, messed the earlier article on the subject. I've no promotional interests and I don't think there is any good reason to believe that I do. My talk page suggests that many of the articles I created were challenged on speedy and prod grounds and I made efficient efforts to save those articles. Even I argued the Philosophy Pathways source to be independent but the subject himself seems to have commented contrary to that. Two of the sources given seem to have non-trivial (i.e. significant) coverage of the subject, which should be sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. Let me quote WP:ONLY: Notability is about having published, non-trivial information (i.e., more than a mere mention) in multiple sources independent of the subject, and the article itself not being the first place to provide the information. And as argued before, the subject also looks notable per WP:Creative, as an author as well as as an aphorist. ~ RogDel (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, presuming that User:Kedar joshi 1979, who commented in this discussion, is indeed the subject himself as he claimed, I weakly doubt the validity of his (presumably honest) opinion that the mere relation between Gokhale and the subject (as cousins) and the subject suggesting Philosophy Pathways for publication of Gokhale's works make the source "non-independent". ~ RogDel (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Sources in the current version of the article aren't sufficient to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP is not a Democracy, and a mere statement that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability does not look helpful especially when so much detailed rationale have been given in support of notability. ~ RogDel (talk) 22:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I don't find any of the discussion above convincing, and in my experience when someone is having to try that hard to establish notability, it's because the subject just isn't notable. In particular, I think you're abusing WP:ACADEMIC. You're making the best argument you can with the materials you have in front of you, and while your argument is logical, thoughtful and well-written, I think it falls well short of being persuasive. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) If my argument is logical, thoughtful and well-written, how can it fall well short of being persuasive? (2) I don't know how I'm abusing WP:Academic. (3) I think I had to try hard to establish notability because sadly many folks don't seem to understand the concept of significant coverage and notability. From what could be written in the article, it is clearly more than a mere mention of the subject. WP:GNG seems to be clearly met. ~ RogDel (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per the points outlined by RogDel. However, I would also like to see more Indian sources included in this article, as I suspect that would strengthen claim of notability. Sadfatandalone (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC; relies entirely on two sources, coverage of subject in which is in-passing and trivial. Doesn't even come close to WP:GNG. Same concerns raised in prior AfD are valid here. --slakr^\ talk / 00:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in the two sources is more than a trivial/mere mention, given that about 5 to 6 sentences could be written about the subject based on the two sources. Also, I never in fact thought that the subject is notable per WP:ACADEMIC; I only wanted to cite it as an example regarding the issue of writing a whole article. The subject seems clearly to be a notable aphorist (i.e. noticeable or capable of being noted or worthy of notice as a source of aphorism/s). ~ RogDel (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To sum up, the subject is at the least (1) a notable astrologer, since the coverage in the astrology related sources is plainly non-trivial; and (2) a notable aphorist, since correctly attributed citations of a person's aphorism/s in multiple (and presumably independent and reliable) published sources would be sufficient objective evidence that the person is notable as an aphorist (i.e. as a source of aphorism/s). ~ RogDel (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then also append WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to the list of reasons for deletion, because the article's labeling of "notable aphorist" is synthesized—in a footnote I might add—from arbitrary mentions in sources (likely mentions by subject's friends, colleagues, or simply followers of the subject's blog). The fact that even one of the the reliable-source mentions label him a "self-described philosopher and purveyor of theories" is the equivalent of the reliable source letting us know that he's just some random dude. --slakr^\ talk / 06:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The label "self-described philosopher and purveyor of theories" does not imply that he is not a notable astrologer, only that he is not a notable philosopher, and the citations of aphorisms are in quality sources, like notable newspapers and journals (e.g. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, The Times of India, Progress in Oceanography, etc.), which are presumably independent and should be sufficient to establish notability as an aphorist. ~ RogDel (talk) 06:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, I'm not sold. I don't think the coverage in reliable sources passes the bar. Nha Trang ^Allons! 21:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be prejudice against coverage that is short yet nontrivial; but I don't think that would help Wikipedia. The idea of nontrivial coverage seems to be misunderstood. ~ RogDel (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial." — WP:Notability; whereas the coverage in the case under discussion is nontrivial. ~ RogDel (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG. Vrac (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbera Caffè[edit]

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

The article is promotional. All the source material is self-penned or advertorial. The author has been on Wikipedia for 6 months and has contributed nothing but this article and variants on it, Franchise Café Barbera, Cafè Barbera Franchise. The article makes no claim to notability. Bazj (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 24 November 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 22:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Promotional, no significant sources. LaMona (talk) 22:04, 7 December 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. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Vadillo[edit]

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

Delete: Even with the BBC reference, this article has certainly not established Vadillo's notability. The article has only one neutral source (the BBC reference). The other two are not third-party sources. One is a bio that appears on his publisher's website. Presumably he wrote it himself. That's standard practice. The other source is merely the website of the company he owns. I've found some internet references to him, but most of them are on blogs or on sites which are also connected to the subject or his group. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The article is currently poorly sourced and I'm not overly familiar with Umar Vadillo. However, I did find a few media articles that make reference to him.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703882304575465623070689934
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-5-120142-Call-to-introduce-dirham-dinar-to-end-usury
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/07/14/business/introduction-of-islamic-dirham-dinar-urged-to-get-rid-of-usury/
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/malaysians-embrace-islamic-gold-dinar-20100904-14v51.html

I also found a few more scholarly books that make reference to him. For example:

"On this occasion the finance guru of the Murabitun, the Spanish convert Umar Ibrahim Vadillo, restated his message on the end of western imperialism through the return to the golden age of the Dinar.... Vadillo has since then attracted a great following of converts, middle-class Muslims and Islamic finance experts." Jan Stark, Malaysia and the Developing World: The Asian Tiger on the Cinnamon Road (Routledge Malaysian Studies Series) [2012], p 139. ISBN 0415699142

While Shaykh Abdal-Qadir is the religious leader of the Murabitun movement, Umar Vadillo, a Spanish convert, has become its religio-legal expert (a ̄lim). Bruce Kapferer, Kari Telle, Annelin Eriksen, Contemporary Religiosities: Emergent Socialities and the Post-Nation-State [2010], p 112. ISBN 0857455346.

In 1992 in Birmingham, England, Umar Ibrahim Vadillo organized the first of a series of barter markets for goods produced by Muslim immigrants. Seeking to stand outside of the national economy by creating self sufficient networks... Bill Maurer, Mutual Life, Limited: Islamic Banking, Alternative Currencies, Lateral Reason, ISBN 1400840716

Does this provide enough evidence of notability? I'm not sure - it might be worth asking some administrators for guidance but for now I would be inclined to keep the article. RookTaker (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RookTaker:, we ought to insert those sources in the article - that might make it easier to look at it holistically and judge the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MezzoMezzo:, in truth, I am not particularly interested in the Umar Vadillo article and would rather spend my time editing articles I am interested in. Perhaps the creator of this article @Thefireball777: can use the sources above to add relevant useful information about Vadillo. Failing that I can look to incorporate the sources listed above.RookTaker (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contesting Umar Vadillo Deletion Thanks @RookTaker: for your in-dept study into the matter. I am going to reproduce the article with the above sources plus more like, BBC, Aljazeera etc. Hopefully it will not be deleted this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefireball777 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction of the Article[edit]

@RookTaker:I have recreated this article with the following authentic sources.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703882304575465623070689934
http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-5-120142-Call-to-introduce-dirham-dinar-to-end-usury
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/07/14/business/introduction-of-islamic-dirham-dinar-urged-to-get-rid-of-usury/
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/malaysians-embrace-islamic-gold-dinar-20100904-14v51.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3061833.stm
http://gad-distribution.com/dinar-movement-the-muslim-struggle-for-economic-freedom-pe762.html?n=1/, Producer: Garnata Media

Coproducers: Al Jazeera,

"On this occasion the finance guru of the Murabitun, the Spanish convert Umar Ibrahim Vadillo, restated his message on the end of western imperialism through the return to the golden age of the Dinar.... Vadillo has since then attracted a great following of converts, middle-class Muslims and Islamic finance experts." Jan Stark, Malaysia and the Developing World: The Asian Tiger on the Cinnamon Road (Routledge Malaysian Studies Series) [2012], p 139. ISBN 0415699142

While Shaykh Abdal-Qadir is the religious leader of the Murabitun movement, Umar Vadillo, a Spanish convert, has become its religio-legal expert (a ̄lim). Bruce Kapferer, Kari Telle, Annelin Eriksen, Contemporary Religiosities: Emergent Socialities and the Post-Nation-State [2010], p 112. ISBN 0857455346.

In 1992 in Birmingham, England, Umar Ibrahim Vadillo organized the first of a series of barter markets for goods produced by Muslim immigrants. Seeking to stand outside of the national economy by creating self sufficient networks... Bill Maurer, Mutual Life, Limited: Islamic Banking, Alternative Currencies, Lateral Reason, ISBN 1400840716

and many more

So its deletion should be reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefireball777 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 16 November 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 10:16, 24 November 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 22:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GorgeCustersSabre, thoughts on these sources? czar ⨹ 23:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are ok, but they say more or less the same thing: that Vadillo introduced gold and silver dirhams and dinars to Kelantan, a Malaysian state, where it has not become legal tender. Is this enough to justify the article itself? I'm still not convinced. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:18, 2 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bowman (poet)[edit]

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

I do not believe that this poet passes our threshold for notability. I'm willing to change my mind if somebody finds non-trivial coverage by reliable sources but I haven't and Google searches are complicated given the familiarity of the name (see our disambiguation page Thomas Bowman). Pichpich (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Like Pichpich I am wiling to change my mind if somebody finds non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, but my attempts at googling his name with the names of any of his 3 books of poetry turned up nothing, nor did googling his name in various ways with "Love is" , which the article describes as his most famous poem, nor did googling his name and"bush poet". Newly created article by new user. I did post on the creator's talk page, explaining the kinds of validating articles that an article on Bowman would need.ShulMaven (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Austlit lists 3 volumes of poetry but no other mentions of the poet or his work anywhere. It appears, and I may be wrong in this, that the volumes were either self-published or published by a group as a means of fund-raising. I agree that it doesn't pass the relevant notability criteria. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 4 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our Time In Reality[edit]

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

This article on Book, doesn't appear to be meeting the inclusion standard. I'm unable to find even a single promising Google search result for the subject title as keyword. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some source is found indicating what is notable about this book. 331dot (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is a broken link to an Amazon product page. A search of the ASIN (B00QFZDLD2) that appears in the url brings up a link to the book's Kindle Edition. The wiki page is copied from the Amazon description. To boot, the publication date is December 1, 2014. It's unlikely that any significant source has written about it at this point. DiscantX (talk) 07:43, 8 December 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 per WP:SNOW. If nominator wants an article to be expanded/improved, they are advised to discuss it on the respective article's talk page not at WP:AFD. We here only discuss whether a subject is eligible for inclusion or not on Wikipedia. They are also requested to perform few checks BEFORE nominating an article for deletion. Please note that WP:Deletion is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Adams (optometrist)[edit]

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

No indication of how this person has made any notable contribution to the field of optometry. Victor Victoria (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep If you had looked through the article history (WP:BEFORE), you would have seen that a PROD was denied because "EIC of well established international journal, meets WP:PROF#8". The journal is Optometry and Vision Science. --Randykitty (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not withdraw my nomination until his contributions to the field of optometry are better detailed in the article. I'm sorry, but writing an article in the journal Optometry and Vision Science just doesn't do it for me. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read again. Publishing an article in a journal, even the most prestigious one, would not be a reason to !vote "keep". Being the EIC (editor-in-chief) of a respected international journal is. Please read the appropriate guideline (WP:ACADEMIC). --Randykitty (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Being the Editor in Chief of a journal just means that he assigns reviewers for papers that are submitted (and he has the last word on whether to accept a paper). Although it may sound like a big honor, it really isn't. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then you should have the (accepted) guidelines revised, because those explicitly mention that being an EIC makes a researcher notable. Note also, that this only goes if the journal is a reputable one, we're not talkin predatory open access journals here. And being an EIC is indeed not an honor, it's a tough job including a lot of hard work with a lot of responsibility. That responsibility is exactly the reason that publishers do not give this job to just anybody. And if you really think that being an EIC "just means that he assigns reviewers for papers", I'm afraid you still have a lot to learn about academic publishing. --Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's just agree that the work entailed in being an editor in chief of an academic journal is irrelevant to whether or not the article should be kept. As for the criteria enumerated in WP:ACADEMIC, the paragraph following the criteria states that
        The criteria above are sometimes summed up in an "Average Professor Test". Put simply: when judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?
        I submit that the article, as currently written, fails to convey that the subject of the biography surpasses "the Average Professor Test" and with all due respect, being honored with the title of Editor-in-Chief of the Optometry and Vision Science journal is a minuscule step above "the average professor". Victor Victoria (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it is not a "minuscule step". Only a very small proportion of scientists ever become EIC of a respected journal. And whether the article 'as currently written, fails to convey that the subject of the biography surpasses "the Average Professor Test"', now that is really, really, REALLY besides the point. (AfD is not for cleanup, remember?) And one of the first things (WP:BEFORE) you do when contemplating an AfD for a scholar is to see whether they had an impact on their field. A simple Google Scholar search shows a list of articles each one cited hundreds of times. Now please stop wasting our time. --Randykitty (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        True, only a small proportion of scientists ever become EIC of a respected journal, but many more are asked and decline, because outside of Wikipedia, this "honor" is not much of an honor. Victor Victoria (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but it starts looking like you have absolutely no clue about what constitutes notability for an academic. With the current pressure to "publish or perish", it's only logical that being an EIC (the person who can accept or reject your paper) is one of the more prestigious things in academia. Where you get the idea that this is a WP-specific thing is a mystery to me. As an academic myself, I can guarantee you that in real life it is the same. Only notable people get asked to be the EIC of an established journal. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as Randykitty says, editor of major journal, Dean at a major university. And, pace User talk:Victor Victoria AFD is not the place to argue that articles are paltry. The question here is whether the subject is notable. This academic clearly is. The thing to do is to speedy keep and tag it: Needs improvement.ShulMaven (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE - he's had literally thousands of cites at Google Scholar. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly a person who has made a notable contribution to the field of optometry, and well done to the users who cleaned up the article a bit in the past day. "Pepper" @ 05:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, the cleanup resulted in a reduction in the article size, not an expansion of the article. Of course, whether an article is a stub has no bearing on whether it should be kept or deleted, but it appears that with notability of just being an editor in chief of a journal, there is not much to write the subject. Although another Wikipedian claims that the subject of the article has a large Google presence, it's not readily apparent (at least to me) that this large Google presence is due to significant contributions to the field of optometry. Victor Victoria (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sadly, you keep failing to grasp how things work in science, if you really think that thousands of papers citing Adams' work does not show significant contributions to his field. We're not talking simple Ghits here, this is GScholar and the "cited by" figure below each "hit" show the numbers of other scientific papers that have referenced that particular paper. --Randykitty (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Federica Quercia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This player is not notable by project standards; she has no Fed Cup or WTA main draw appearances, has not won any ITF tournaments above the $25,000 category, had no remarkable junior career (neither a Grand Slam champion nor ranked within the world's top 3), and there are no further claims that she is otherwise, at present, generally notable. Jared Preston (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. --Wolbo (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott (footballer, born 1998)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable independent sources covering this youth footballer, who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY as he has not played in a professional league. Valenciano (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this page for speedy deletion as an unremarkable person - I have not even been able to find what "BVFC" stands for. The only source is the self-published teamstats.net page. St Anselm (talk) 01:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyr Neilsen[edit]

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

Basically an unsourced BLP. Nothing in the article is referenced and even if it was, there doesn't seem to be anything that meets any notability standards.Mdtemp (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not qualified to comment on how notable the marital arts activities are. But there seems to be nothing in the way of achievements, other than serving as a senior instructor. The Hávamál book pretty clearly fails to qualify under WP:NBOOK. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially an unsourced BLP with no indication of him being notable as either a martial artist or author. Papaursa (talk) 18:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Doversola[edit]

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

Notability seems to be based on teaching martial arts to some actors and being a stuntman, but notability is not inherited. Nothing to show notability as an actor or martial artist.Mdtemp (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has been discussed in depth by several independent sources, which are cited in the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aymatth, the sources prove he meets GNG. Aside from him being of obvious note to the film industry he's notable in his own right, founding a school of karate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Opening a dojo and founding an obscure martial arts organization does not make one notable. Lot's of people do that (hell I've done that). Not decided on notability but just saying.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A subject is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage from reliable independent sources. The reason why the sources have noted the subject is irrelevant. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was my point - my vote on notability (when and if it comes) in this case will depend on if I consider WP:GNG to be met.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article shows he was on the cover of Black Belt magazine, the subject of two lengthy articles in that magazine, the subject of an obituary in a book on showbiz characters and mentioned by various other sources. An image search shows many other sources, including mentions on several covers of MA Weapons and Kick magazines, presumably refering to articles inside. This image and this image from MA Weapons are obviously from one such article on the subject. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough independent and reliable sources to meet GNG here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 4 December 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. L Faraone 22:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party (UK)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (United Kingdom)

Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK

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

This party are not notable or important enough. They have not stood in any of the 22 by-elections in the 2010-2015 Parliament, they have no proof of credible third party coverage, they do not have any evidence of notable campaigning in recent months, or indeed recent years. They have "0"s down the entire list of elected positions on the right hand side. With no evidence of recent activity, with no notable personalities involved, with no by-election candidates, with no elected officials, they are nowhere near important or credible enough for a Wikipedia article. doktorb _words^deeds 16:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 17:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the fifth time this has been nominated (and at least the third time by the present nominator!). Sure, the infobox looks silly with the 0s and that's easily solved by deleting the infobox which, on most articles about political parties, serves no useful purpose anyway. And if lack of recent activity is a basis, let's delete Whigs. Emeraude (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rather silly post User:Emeraude. The Whigs are self evidently notable. Can you say the same about LUK? doktorb _words^deeds 19:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would prefer to discuss the Wessex Regionalist Party, The Common Good (political party), or the Popular Alliance (UK)? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will User:Jonathan A Jones, I want to try and clear up such articles as best as I can. doktorb _words^deeds 09:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask only because we discussed this very point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (UK) (2nd nomination) back in February 2012, and nothing seems to have been done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The refs aren't up to much and the party is irrelevant, it has such a small amount of coverage more or less anyone could get a party to this level of notability. I can't understand why this has survived 4 AFDs - but I'm sure it will keep coming up for deletion until it does get deleted. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add. Now it makes sense, this has already been deleted twice - it had a slightly different name. Szzuk (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bit of a mess this one, finding old AfDs all over the place. As well as the ones linked above, there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party UK and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (United Kingdom), which both resulted in delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- It's really quite simple. This is a minor, even a very minor party and it has no chance of attaining power at this stage. (Rather like UKIP at one time!) But that's not the point. It is a registered party and has contested both local and national elections. One of its candidates was elected to a parish council for a while. It does have news coverage, as do all parties that contest elections. But, and here's the key issue, when it's deleted and some person in the future comes across Libertarian Party in print (or even in a Wikipedia article on a constituency's election - see, for example, Devizes) there is no way that Wikipedia will allow that person to know anything about the party. Wikipedia will ensure they remain in ignorance! This is a digital encyclopaedia - there is no shortage of paper, there is plenty of room. The great thing about Wikipedia is that it can cover things that don't get any detail anywhere else without the constraints of space. Emeraude (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - But there is so little third party coverage of them, Wiki could become the main point of reference point, and that's against policy. Wiki has limits on content and with good reason. It is not an indiscriminate collection of content doktorb _words^deeds 11:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I previously nominated this myself but then found a solitary wp:rs which gave it notability: a Daily Telegraph article explaining why the group wasn't notable & shouldn't have been set up in the 1st place. By a magnificent piece of philosophic irony (see talk page) the article survived & the reference was deleted. I subsequently found the same organization had been previously deleted but reappeared with the same details but 'UK' added. It's time for it to go -and stay gone! Whoops ..should have signed my message! JRPG (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Add If the article is kept, it should be significantly shortened and its solitary wp:rs -the Telegraph comments on its irrelevance included. JRPG (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are a registered and still-active UK political party, so there should be no question of deletion. And that really should be the end of the discussion. Anything more suggests censorship and bias. I think there is something seriously amiss when an article goes to AfD five times. Are there some people who just won't accept keep as the answer (doktorb certainly doesn't), or is there a sustained bias at work against having articles about minor political parties? I note a number of other ongoing AfD articles proposing deleting articles on other political parties. We are going down a dangerous route if for political parties we require notability through sustained positive reporting in established press. Control of media is essential for any political party in power or cartel of parties that monopolize power by exchanging it every few years. This results in the activities of minor parties being not reported in the media, and if they are mentioned at all there will be consistent bias against them and belittling (and often outright hatred) of their aims and supporters (the cited Telegraph example is such an article). That is why their mere existence as political parties should be enough to ensure they can have a Wikipedia entry. This should be especially true if the political philosophy of the party is far more significant than the number of their supporters or voters would suggest. The question of what is or is not libertarianism is a very active topic in Britain. And Britain's "first past the post" system ensures minor parties almost never gain seats anywhere, so attempting to gain seats is not seen as a priority or even a necessary function of a minor political party. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response User:Tiptoethrutheminefield, although you have been rather scatter gun in your content. I am not biased against this particular party, and I don't consider it relevant that the topic of libertarianism is an active dinner party topic or not. This party barely made any impact, at all, whatsoever, in the political culture of England, let alone the UK, in the brief time of its existence. It had one Westminster by-election failure, to my knowledge, and existed largely as an on-line fad. There is nothing to indicate any importance or credibility whatsoever, and by most marks, it fails Wikipedia policy on notability. That is at the centre of my argument - does it meet Wikipedia standards? Answer: No. Your final few sentences about media control and voting systems are utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand. doktorb _words^deeds 18:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The article amply demonstrates that it passes this test. Emeraude (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia does not keep an article on the basis of the subject impact alone but on the basis of notability. The fact that the subject of the article is a minor party, may not provide valid criteria for an AfD nomination. However, reliable sourcing is the most important factor for AfD nomination. Wikicology (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To User talk:Emeraude and User:Wikicology - can you point to which notable achievements this party has had in its existence? The fact they exist is not enough for Wikipedia, they have had to *achieve* something. Wikipedia is not a repository of each and every organisation ever to have been created. doktorb _words^deeds 21:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, they don't have to achieve *anything* other than significant coverage in reliable sources. Which this party has just about managed: it's marginal, perhaps, but it's not trivial and certainly not non-existent. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's not the most notable party in the history of the UK, but it's just about over the threshold. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a registered party that has fielded candidates in elections and has been covered. Contrast to Transhumanist Party (at AFD also still i believe), which has not. I have seen too many AFDs about political parties. We need an RFC and/or other approach to setting a clear notability standard for political parties. My view is that this Libertarian Party UK article meets the standard. --do ncr am 05:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - marginal, as said above, but gets over notability line. Metamagician3000 (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (duplicate posting to 15 AFDs). There are about 15 simultaneous AFDs about UK political parties going on, including about 11 alphabetically, started a little while ago:

For this one note the deletion nominator has further disputed the list-item notability of the Patriotic Socialist Party, deleting its entry in the List of UK political parties by this edit.

And four more recent additions (the asserted new "tranche" of AFDs?):

I rather object to all of these going on separately, as this is expensive of community attention. In fact I suggest it is inappropriate to open multiple related AFDs separately rather than as part of one multiple article AFD (see WP:MULTIAFD). But after asking the deletion nominator of most of these to withdraw some, and finding no agreement on their part (rather than withdraw any AFDs, the deletion nominator has stated that they plan to open a new tranche of AFDs), and from past experience about AFDs, I expect there's no way to stop the separate AFDs going on. Some of them are headed for KEEP already, IMO.

Not a single one of these articles should be deleted, IMO. At worst, an article can be MERGED and REDIRECTED to List of political parties in the United Kingdom, keeping the edit history available to properly credit contributions and to facilitate re-creation. And, IMO, they should all probably be KEPT, as there is documentation of party registration for every one I believe, and there is coverage.

Note: in response to one or two previous deletion campaigns that I have noticed (not involving the current deletion nominator), i have posted notice of the multiple AFDs going on at some of the AFDs, and given links to other AFDs. This is NOT wp:canvassing; it is appropriate to point out the commonalities; this posting is transparent, not biased/selective in where it is posted, is not posted to user talk pages. My message does indeed have a point, that at worst any article should be merged and redirected, not deleted, which I think is reasonable to share and post at every one of these. I further suggest that others having any view post at every one of the AFDs (no matter what is your view). --do ncr am 19:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is beginning to get silly. (After all, how many AfDs have there been on this article?) There's also a few reliable sources listed in the references. --Biblioworm 04:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To Biblioworm Whilst I haven't contributed to discussions of other parties, I do have an objection to this one -as it simply changed the article name following deletion -whilst not adding anything significant. JRPG (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. -- GreenC 19:59, 30 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note about relist I was ready to close this as "keep", but then checked the article and some of the arguments put forward in this discussion. First, there are zero independent sources in the article discussing the subject in-depth (the electoral commission is independent, but only establishes that the party exists, nothing more). Second, whether this has been nominated before, or whether other articles are simultaneously being nominated is irrelevant. An AfD discussion should be about whether the subject meets our criteria for verifiability and notability. Nothing more, nothing less. Hence, I find that most "keep" !votes here are irrelevant and despite the seemingly numerical majority, there is as yet no consensus to keep. Because of all this, I have decided to relist this debate and invite the participants to formulate their arguments based on policy and, if available, add any good references to the article. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an overwhelming opinion in favor of keep. Most were not just "votes" - they were accompanied by reasoned opinions, with many editors expressing worry about the existence of this AfD - and its context, sitting as it does within a raft of similar AfDs (all by the same editor). The fact of the repeated nominations by the same editor IS significant. How many times do the same arguments need to be rehashed? I think that establishing that a political party exists should be the defining criteria for keep. That HAS been established, as you admit. I think we should treat a political party rather like a place name - if there is evidence that the place or the party exists, that is enough justification for an article's existence, even if it is only a stub. To require anything more invites bias against political parties that exist within societies whose media is heavily under the control of established parties or regimes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am not going to participate in this debate. when presenting arguments, please cite the guideline or policy on which it is based. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not participating in the debate, would you withdraw and cross out your "note about relist"? The relist template is all that was required. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tiptoethrutheminefield, I think User:Randykitty is perfectly in the right to point out what they have on this matter. doktorb _words^deeds 19:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going far beyond merely pasting in a relist tag and giving a brief reasoning, Randykitty expressed opinions about this particular AfD, then stated that he/she does not want to be involved in the discussion. If the opinions remain, then they are part of the debate regardless of what Randykitty wants. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that Tiptoethrutheminefield's insistence means that I am not an uninvolved admin any more, whatever my original intention or whatever I do. So I'll refrain from closing this and will, instead, cast a !vote. As said in my relist note, I originally thought to close this as "keep", based on the large number of !votes in that direction. However, after reading the article and reading the keep arguments, I did not feel that I could close it as "keep" in good conscience and decided to relist so that those arguing to keep this article could come up with valid arguments and sources (and provided some indications where there arguments were deficient). I just went through this whole debate again. The article does not contain a single independent source about this party (election results really don't establish notability). In the above debate, only one single source seems to have come up: an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph. This in itself is not enough to establish notability either. Many keep !votes are based on ILIKEIT ("it's a political party and all such should be kept") or IDONTLIKEIT (there are other AfDs going on/this has already been at AfD 5 times). None of this is based in policy. What other AfDs are currently open is immaterial, as are previous AfDs (2 of which ended in deletion anyway, completely undercutting this rationale). There is no guideline stating that any political party is notable (nor should there be, I think). There are a few !votes stating that "it's just above the threshold", but these don't explain why that is the case. In the absence of sources, I'm afraid that there is only one policy-based option left: Delete. --Randykitty (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The party is small, insignificant, relatively new, and has no real coverage in sources. Of the sources in the article, all but one are WP:ROUTINE establsihing only that the party has stood candidates. The bar for being allowed to stand in British elections is set very low (£500 + 10 signatures) so there is no way that having candidates can be considered notable in itself. The remaining source is an interview with Ian Parker-Joseph, the party leader, in Politics.co.uk. Interviews are generally considered to be WP:PRIMARY and, by themselves, cannot establish notability. The Telegraph piece mentioned above is an editorial rant advising voters not to support small parties. It says nothing encyclopaedically useful about the party itself and it is telling that the piece has not been used as a source for any fact in our article. SpinningSpark 15:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed, I added the Telegraph article -which neatly sums up both the party and this article -it should never have been created -(and re-created) in the first place. JRPG (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd close this, but I think I'd save any potential upset by instead adding to consensus. Read through all the arguments here, and RK's summary is on point. The main defense of this article topic is that (1) it is a registered political party, which is not a content-specific guideline, and (2) it has continually returned to AfD. These policy-less arguments do little for consensus, which as RK said, is about general notability arguments in the absence of a content-specific guideline. There were a few vague waves to the GNG/significant coverage, but no discussion about how it actually fulfilled this or what those sources were. And the only two sources that anyone considers substantial in this discussion were previously discussed as such in past AfDs and subsequently (and I'd say accurately) analyzed by Spinningspark. So what can I add? I did a mega-search of 55 ProQuest databases and found nada for sigcov. (Though I did get a laugh out of the LPUK search, where "Lucid Optical Services and Laser Physics UK" and "Little People UK" were far more popular than the Lib Party.) AfD's motto is "show me the sources". The pile-on keeps for similar articles at AfD (mentioned above) do us a disservice, as I have already said. So, all in all, another reminder that WP consensus is judged by the strength of policy-backed rationales and not head count. czar ⨹ 02:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this and all similar political party articles on the basis of WP:IAR (Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has previously been closed at AFD as a KEEP. Notability is not temporary. Carrite (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not true User:Carrite doktorb _words^deeds 08:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the contrary: true, true and true. And seeing as you made at least two previous nominations before this that resulted in keep, you ought to know that and tell the truth about them! Emeraude (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment User:Emeraude, do you think that the deletion decision should be respected? doktorb _words^deeds 20:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Carrite is 100% correct. Notability is not temporary: this is a core concept on Wikipedia. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, Tiptoethrutheminefield, it's a bit less than 100%. Notability is indeed not temporary. This means that if, at some point during its history a subject met our notability guidelines, it is also notable nowadays. The crux is in met our notability guidelines which, over the years, have become a bit more stringent. Also, in past AfDs, editors often were less concerned with sourcing than we are now. As a result, it is quite well possible that something kept at AfD years ago will now be deleted for lack of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I was thinking more of the AfD proposer's "no evidence of recent activity", no by-election candidates, with no elected officials" justification for deletion when I stressed that notability is not temporary. None of that AfD justification is to do with notability because if the party was notable when in was more active then it is still notable regardless of its current activity level. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an active, formal political party in the UK. I think that should be enough. Metamagician3000 (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary so whether its active or not doesn't matter. This party never has met the notability criteria & I don't understand why there is any issue. If it ever meets it, it can have an article. JRPG (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And you made a previous nomination that also resulted in keep..... Emeraude (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not quite -I withdrew the nomination having found and added the much discussed Telegraph article -promptly deleted by Libertarian supporters! It now fails WP:N JRPG (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Let me repeat this: Some of the previous AfDs resulted in a "keep" decision. Others resulted in a "delete" decision. In all, that history is decidedly undecided. So none of this is relevant if notability cannot be established in this debate. Please forget that history and concentrate on the issue at hand: is there any notability here or not. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close with No Consensus Fact is, this party has a negligible membership, laughable budget, and ZERO success at the polls. It exists, but none of its supporters on Wikipedia have been able to source it persuasively, presumably because no editor wastes reporting time by assigning articles about a party that has zero... well, you get the point. But the thing is, Libertarians are, er, doggedly enthusiastic about their cause. Delete it, they will re-create it (not absurd since, after all, the party does exist), somebody will take it to AFD, and this argument will go on forever. So just Close with No Consensus this time every time it comes up for AdD and move on.ShulMaven (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough external, reliable sources to prove notability. Sadfatandalone (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to back up that claim by naming two of them? SpinningSpark 11:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Minor political party with minor coverage, but still likely plenty left unresearched. Seems GNG has been met and aside from the unsourced "political views", is a stub-like article. As a political party, I am sure the political views and campaigns could be established with some research, especially with non-digital documents. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A wp:rs almost as exciting as my Telegraph post, their leader reported someone for not filling in a form. Read all about it! FYI, there are several blogs which suggest its splitting. JRPG (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for an answer from User:Emeraude doktorb _words^deeds 14:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting? I've been away from Wikipedia for three or four days. But I do not answer questions which are not relevant to the present discussion. Emeraude (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, User:Emeraude, waiting. I asked you a direct question linked to this debate, and would like a response. doktorb _words^deeds 19:04, 13 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chang Jia Quan[edit]

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

Non-notable martial arts style. Nothing in the article is sourced and there are no claims to show notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the contrary, multiple independent sources cover the topic in detail, including news articles ([16][17][18] ) and academic sources([19][20][21]). So it can esaily pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, it's listed as intangible cultural heritage protected at national level, and anything protected at a national level is inherently notable. --114.81.255.40 (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't access any of those pages so that's not much proof to me. Can you show it's an official national cultural heritage?Mdtemp (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See [22]: 806 Ⅵ-34 苌家拳河南省荥阳市--114.81.255.37 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's listed among hundreds of other things like the Lhasa Jockey Club and certain martial arts moves and forms. I still don't think it shows notability and would like to see some significant independent coverage. If it's a national treasure it shouldn't be hard to find coverage of it. Although not required, it would be nice to see something in English since this is the English WP. Mdtemp (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is far from clear - there is certainly no attempt to show why the martial art is notable. There is not enough information to indicate the reliability of the references and although foreign language references are acceptable the form they are in now do not help the case. It looks very much like the article was copy pasted from somewhere which is another issue. I am not voting yet - but I suggest a bit of an article clean-up to make it easier to make an informed choice.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find significant independent coverage, although I got a number of ghits. I couldn't access the sources given by the IP above so I'm voting to delete this article unless someone comes up with some significant coverage from independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 7 December 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. slakr^\ talk / 09:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Call To Action[edit]

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

There's no indication that this organization is notable. The best source I found is this Catholic Herald article which mostly serves as a platform for some bishop's position and does not cover the organization in any detail. Practically all of the current content is from the organization's own website, original research or personal opinion. Huon (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a one-page introductory description of a Catholic Reform Movement in the UK with over 1500 members, representatives and a core group in every Catholic diocese. It has met with Diocesan Bishops and Cardinal Nichols. Citations are given to articles in the Catholic Press and the main UK Catholic magazine, the Tablet, and there is also a quote from the Catholic book of Canon Law! Criticisms of lack of objectivity have been taken on board, and controversies are now referred to. Queries about why there is no Wikipedia page have been received by the organization, and that is one reason for the entry. There are many conservative Catholics who hate and libel A Call to Action. It would be absurd to delete this article, which has already obviously aroused interest as the history page shows, even though some of the response has clearly been malicious. I helped set up the page by using a freelancer, as I confess I am not experienced on Wikipedia. I am a member of the organization but not part of the national leadership team. Tomcapa1 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete The cited sources are not sufficient to show significant, independent coverage. The citation to The Tablet is essentially a "Letter to the Editor" by one of the group's founders declaring their intentions. (Not independent.) The citations to the Independent Catholic News basically report on the group's meetings (again, not really significant coverage). The citation to the Vatican2Voice represents a justification for the group's activities, but is not about the group itself. The other citations are to the group's own website. All in all, nothing significant. Changed to "weak keep". See reasoning below. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 23:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

* Delete per WikiDan61. Incidentally, Tomcapa1, accusations of malice without supporting evidence (as shown in the above rebuttal and extensively in edit summaries in the page history) are not the best way to gain support on this site. --Richard Yin (talk) 06:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to listen to the BBC broadcast mentioned at the bottom of this discussion, so I'm going to withdraw my !vote for now. --Richard Yin (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment yes I apologise for accusations of malice to the previous request to delete poster, and have withdrawn them. The accusation remains true in the history in the case of one set of edits from one person who is a well known enemy of this organization, blogging against it everywhere, and I have indicated reasons for the claim of malice in the history eg references to a bishop who has resigned through a scandal but who has nothing to do with A Call to Action. The same editor has had to be banned from the national website for aggressive posts. I must also say that this organization has been in existence only since 2012--it seems rather excessive to expect a huge number of media references to it. I have cited several but you say they are not substantive enough. Well, it is hardly going to be in the Catholic Encyclopedia yet, but it has over 1500 members already, including many priests, and religious, has met with a variety of bishops and the Cardinal in an official capacity, and has hosted 3 large national conferences. Tomcapa1 (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the organization has not yet been in existence long enough to have a "huge number of media references", then it may be too soon for this organization to merit a Wikipedia article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have explained above why there is a reason for this organization to merit a Wikipedia article. It is also necessary in order to distinguish it from US Call to Action-- which does have a wiki entry. Note too that the ref to Vatican Voices referred to above is in fact a citation for Catholic Canon Law, which defines the right and obligation for all members of the Church to express their opinions, and this is the raison d' etre of A Call to Action. I really had tried to make this a brief introductory entry because people had asked about it not being on Wiki and to avoid confusion. I had not wished to make it a piece of theological polemic or to load such an entry with more than a few references. I have now added another press release from the Bishop of Portsmouth, not from A Call to Action, in the Catholic Herald, and I can add a few more articles in the national Catholic press if you wish. I rather hope you don't wish, as I don't believe they are necessary!Tomcapa1 (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomcapa1: You have given your rationale for why you believe this organization should merit a Wikipedia article, but your rationale is not in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Requests from your members for the organization to have a Wikipedia page do not mean that your organization merits a page. Your belief that this is an important organiztion is not a valid argument for retention. Your argument that this article is needed in order to differentiate the English group from the American group of the same name is also irrelevant: this name problem is ATCA's problem, and it is not up to Wikipedia to resolve it. And your belief (that evidence of significant coverage is unnecessary) is misguided; such evidence is very necessary in order to verify that this organization meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Also, the availability of neutral sources might actually make it easier to create an article that is free from partisan polemic. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coment The enquiry about an A Call to Action website did not come from a member, but precisely an enquirer. This movement is found all over the place in the UK Catholic Press and magazines. Please tell me how many more articles you would like me to cite. It is the subject of considerable controversy and discussion,, as you would know if you were familiar with that area. The Cardinal-Archbishop does not have official meetings with organisations of no significance. It is true that little of the commentary is neutral -- although I note the name Independent Catholic News speaks for itself. I would imagine that various religious sites have that problem-- indeed I have read somewhere on the guidelines the difficulty of finding neutral material on religious and political issues. I wonder how Professor Dawkins' views on religion are dispassionately assessed for example. Although unrelated as such to the American organization A Call to Action has an analogous status and as I have said that has a Wiki entry. Meanwhile I will access some more evidence. Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcapa1 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomcapa1: Since you've asked for a number of how many articles to cite, and since the article currently validly cites precisely zero significant independent articles (the one citation that looked like it might actually be something, in the Independent Catholic News is a broken link), let's start with two. WP:GNG stipulates that

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

General consensus has come to intepret this statement to mean that a subject should have been the topic of multiple instances of significant coverage. So, two valid article citations would be a good start. And you don't have to preface every comment you make here with the word "Keep". You've already made that point. If you wish to truly follow the AFD norm, preface your further comments with the word "Comment" as I have been doing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) This is an article about an organisation with 1,500 members in a country with a Catholic population of 5 million. The organisation would, therefore, represent only 0.03% of this.

2) Discussion as to whether this should be deleted or not should be kept strictly within Wikipedia's notability guidelines and not emotions about whether one feels passionately about the organisation or otherwise. I feel passionately about my high school tiddly-winks group, but it is hardly notable.

3) I have to agree with Richard Yin regarding accusations of maliciousness. I have done some Googling and it does seem that this organisation/group has a tendency to be heavy-handed with critics. Such an attitude has no place on Wikipedia.

4) That a Cardinal has met with members of the organisation, does not equate to notability. Bishops meet with people all the time. It is part and parcel of their work.

5) The article, as stands, is poorly written, a subject of various edit wars, and, as mentioned above by other users, poorly referenced. The article is less encyclopaedic and rather an advert for the organisation. None of these, of course, are reasons for deletion, but it must be noted that there are significant issues with the article as it stands.

6) As I have mentioned to the main contributor before, I believe that there is a conflict of interest which prevents objectivity in some situations.

Personally, I feel the page would follow the notability guidelines more, if it had a significantly larger membership that was more representative of the overall population. Mangwanani ^(talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a very big distinction between the nominal number of RCs in the UK, and the number of active Catholics. Within that number are those shown in surveys such as those published in the Tablet (but not of Tablet readers) of Catholic disagreement with public statements of supposed Catholic positions, and this represents at least 50 or 60% of the numbers. In other words each active member of A Call to Action knows many others who support them and in turn therefore represents a large body of opinion within the church. However, I cannot prove this, and I certainly cannot provide a variety of neutral sources for you to verfify-- although I refer you again to Wiki guidelines on controversial religious opinion which explain the impossibility of doing this. I can certainly refer to other articles in the press, but these will indeed be on one side or the other. On the matter of Bishops, no the Cardinal does not meet with insignificant groups, and the Bishop of Portsmouth is the author of the article I have just added about the meeting with A Call to Action, so he obviously regarded it as important enough to issue a press release to the Catholic Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcapa1 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, criteria for deletion according to Wikipedia's guidelines must be objectively followed and notability also judged according to these same guidelines. I have met most of the bishops in England and both cardinals, that does not justify me having my own article. If you can argue for the article to stay within Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then there would be a much more solid foundation. I also just wish to say that I have no opinion either way as to whether the article should be kept or deleted - I see arguments for both sides - but I do believe there are serious, material issues with the article that need addressing, as I believe that as it stands, it falls under several criteria for deletion and not just on notability grounds. Mangwanani ^(talk) 00:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am ambivalent about the future of the ACTA article. Albeit a small group, ACTA's presence within the Catholic Church in England and Wales nonetheless deserves objective coverage. However, as a contributor who does not toe the ACTA line, I have been denounced as a 'known enemy' and have been banned from an ACTA forum as a punishment. In the circumstances I will no longer contribute to the ACTA article. HayesBob (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted the above text for readability. If anyone feels I shouldn't have done it, feel free to revert; if you feel I grouped the comments wrong, feel free to modify. --Richard Yin (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question Does anyone mind if I re-format the discussion above for readability? There is a lot of text that could do with indenting as replies. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] No objections here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] No objection. HayesBob (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am rather sorry that Bob Hayes has been banned from the ACTA website, and it was nothing to do with me or this Wikipedia article. I appreciate what appears to be his support for not deleting this article, which is very charitable of him. I do understand the previous arguments for deletion, and I also apologise for my inexperience in formatting. Following the advice given I have now added references from the conservative national Catholic paper the Catholic Herald that calls the organization 'booming' and interviews Jean Riordan the National Chair at some length and with some objectivity about the organization. I also added a BBC national News item on the subject which also evidences a debate on BBC 4s famous national Today programme between Ms Riordan as representative of A Call to Action and the Secretary to the English and Welsh bishops.Tomcapa1 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment has been moved from the top of the page to the bottom to maintain proper chronological sequencing.

Delete I believe this article should be deleted for several reasons. I don't believe that the subject meets Wikipedia standards for notability. Its membership numbers are far too small, especially as a proportion of Catholics in the UK. I also don't believe it, as written, is encyclopaedic. It reads as a publicity piece for the organisation. This is evidenced by the comments from some of its authors below who have confirmed that the reason it exists is as a form of promoting the organisation. It would also appear that those editors who have written the article have done so in some cases to "settle scores". This is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Sue De Nimes (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment has been moved from the top of the page to the bottom to maintain proper chronological sequencing.

Keep

1) This article does need improvement, especially by putting it into a more neutral mode, and adding more established external references, of which there are a good number I find by searching, and some references to related structures and organizations described in Wikipedia. I think the original article was composed by people not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia's norms, but @Tomcapa1: has shown readiness to learn about these and work to bring the article into line, perhaps with help from HayesBob. Statements made in the article also need more support in some cases. There are references to A Call To Action on other established Wikipedia pages.

2) I cannot agree with User:Sue de Nimes that an organization which has been referred to on mainstream media in the UK a number of times is simply not notable. Numbers of members of a group like this is not in itself a good test of significance in an entity like the Roman Catholic Church - a significant committee or religious order may not have large membership, but will still be worthy of note by reason of its function in the organization of the church.

3)WikiDan61 mentions the founding letter in The_Tablet. This was clearly of importance as the cause of several hundred Catholics converging on London to create A Call To Action, but this letter is but one among many references which exist, and these should perhaps be added to the article where relevant. User:Richard_Yin has not really given a Wikipedia-relevant reason for the article to be deleted I believe.

4) Of the criteria listed by User:Huon in requesting Deletion of A Call To Action, the first two are amenable to an improvement process for the article. The entity described in A Call To Action does meet the notability standards of Wikipedia, as mentioned in established external sources and Wikipedia itself. The article can be improved to show this, answering User:Huon's first two criticisms.

5) A Call To Action is not an orphan as in User:Huon's request: it has references under Association of Catholic Priests as well as the US organization Call to Action which is entirely distinct.

6) The style of the article should be given a chance to improve.

Barquwq (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Barquwq: Your chief comment of significance (i.e. one that addresses a policy issue under which this article should be deleted) is the significance of the letter in The Tablet. But this source cannot be considered as "significant independent coverage" (as required by WP:GNG), because it is not independent. Anyone can write a letter to the editor of a publication (major or minor) and have it published; this does not make that person or entity writing the letter notable. If the article is retained, then it can be improved; that is a matter for a different discussion. The only point of interest here is whether there is sufficient independent reliable information in available sources from which to construct a meaningful article, and I have not yet seen any evidence of that. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the article and refs and it isn't up to scratch. Szzuk (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WikiDan61:Please note evidence of notability is now clearly established by reference to debate on BBC Radio 4 Today programme, the premier radio news outlet. between Chair of A Call to Action and the secretary to the English bishops-- this hit the national news as the footnote reference shows. There is also the new added reference to the interview in the national Catholic Herald with the Chair entitled 'Booming Movement'Tomcapa1 (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC) Tomcapa1 (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a news story about A Call To Action. It is a news story about a larger issue of openness of the Catholic Church in England and Wales regarding issues of sexual ethics. A representative of A Call To Action was interviewed on the subject, but that does not make this a significant source about the organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This, however, is a significant piece of journalism about the organisation published in the Catholic Herald, and qualifies as the kind of coverage needed. Changing my vote to Weak keep. However, if the article is kept, vigiliance will be required to keep it from becoming a battleground. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopelessly promotion. Should best be started over. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ ">[[User:WikiDan61|WikiDan61] Thank you, but surely the fact that the Chair of A Call to Action was chosen to debate this subject on national news programme is itself evidence of notability too Tomcapa1 (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not necessarily. The notability issue is a tricky one at Wikipedia. We're not trying to run a popularity contest. Rather, the notability requirement serves to assure the availability of reliable sources from which to write a verifiable article. The inclusion of Riordan in this national radio programme tells us that BBC looks to her as a source of input, but it tells us nothing at all about the organisation. We do not get any more verifiable information about the organisation from this source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Am now rewriting whole entry in consultation with someone who will help me make it more objective and improve expression and formatting. Tomcapa1 (talk) 11:56, 22 November 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (negotiate) @ 15:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have edited again to try to make more objective. Am also in consultation about improving formatting. I note that Latim Mass Society of England and Wales has a Wiki article, and gives no figures for membership there. I feel that Mangwanani ^(talk) 15:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC) in his comments on the numbers involved is not really in touch with the realities of UK Catholicism eg in Portsmouth Diocese there were only 600 respondents to the Synod on the Family, yet A Call to Action has over 100 members in this diocese.Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Catholic in the UK with close links to many bishops, both in the UK an in Rome, I am very in touch with the realities of UK Catholicism. 600 respondents represents a vastly greater number than that as each of those respondents will have spouses and children of their own so that number of 600 is only a) the people who took the survey in the first place and b) of the people who took the survey, a fraction of the people they in turn represent. However, none of this has anything to do with Wikipedia's policies on notability and it is those guidelines we must follow. I have to look at this objectively with those guidelines at hand. I do get the impression that ACTA thinks itself far more influential and far more important than it actually is. I have seen several photos from ACTA gatherings and I notice that the average age of those present is 50+, if not 60+. That does rather ignore a huge percentage of the Catholic populace. Moreover, most young Catholics are far more traditionally minded than any ACTA member and probably goes a long way to suggest why the Latin Mass Society and Juventutem are far more successful and far more notable than ACTA. For an organisation that promotes "dialogue" yet silences critics on their own forum and censors critical viewpoints from a Wikipedia page - which is meant to be unbiased - one has to wonder what exactly is going on here. However, this is not a discussion to have on Wikipedia, and especially not on this page, which must focus on the actual renown of ACTA, and I have to say that renown is not great. )

""'Comment I note again that Mangwanani ^(talk) 20:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC) has not responded to my points: ATTA's widespread coverage in the national Catholic press, entries on BBC news and reflections of this booming new movement in the conservative Catholic Herald. Just as the respondents to the Synod survey represent others as is said, so does ACTA, as the survey results itself show-- broadly a large group in favour of reform. What is seen as the age profile of photos of ACTA conferences is irrelevant, and I have to say, ageist. The claim that most young Catholics are conservative is totally unevidenced and counter-intuitive, and does not seem objective and neutral at all in this context. Nor is it appropriate or for there to be a defence of an individual asked to leave the ACTA website: after a considerable number of complaints that he posted all the time in a way that some people found offensive and clearly did not support the mission statement that members are supposed to agree with. Tomcapa1 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But is this entry by Mangwanani ^(talk) 20:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC) -- I assumed so, but it isn't signed is it? It appeared to be an answer to what I sent him but if I am wrong I apologise Tomcapa1 (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was signed until Tomcapa1 messed up the formatting and deleted my signature from my comment. @Tomcapa1, please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's editing 'language'. I have addressed the points raised by Tomcapa, namely: there has been some national coverage on the group. I would not go so far as to call this widespread. Claims that young Catholics are more traditionally oriented is not unevidenced: see here, here and here for a few citations. This is, however, not the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is that ACTA is a small organisation and has little information available that is independently verifiable. As I have now said on numerous occasions this must be looked at strictly and objectively within the Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability, notability and neutrality. @Tomcapa1, please read these pages. I have linked them here, for ease of access. As the article currently stands, it does not meet these requirements and is quite close to the deletion policy. Mangwanani ^(talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAs noted there is no way that evidence of notability can be denied to a national organization whose Chair is invited to debate the Secretary of the English bishops on the Today programme and which is referred to so frequently in the national Catholic Press, both favourably and unfavourably. Tomcapa1 (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Tom, it has already been pointed out to you that you need to cite sources demonstrating the notability of this organisation. That you are an agent of the organisation also means that any attempt to write from a position of neutrality is going to be difficult. I am still of the belief this page should be deleted, however if it is to be kept it shouldn't be written by anyone connected to Call to Action. Sue De Nimes (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of actual notability; the article itself is a mess and as DGG says hopelessly promotion in tone. There's no real prospect of a neutral, notable article written from independent sources. Mackensen (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too soon at best. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.Charles (talk) 18:34, 30 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment without wishing to be rude it does not appear that the last comments have been by people who have read the changes or the talk page. However there is still work to do on the formatting Tomcapa1 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomcapa1 has an obvious conflict of interest and would best stay away from editing on this subject.Charles (talk) 22:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was also my concern when the article was created. I raised this issue with him on his talk page. Mangwanani ^(talk) 01:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It surprises me to read here that a number of improvements have been made to the article, because only having read its current incarnation it is (still) promotional in tone and insufficiently supported by significant third-party references. The alleged "widespread coverage in the national Catholic press" is not shown by the references provided, and the BBC coverage doesn't amount to more than fifteen minutes of fame. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some sources are not about ACTA itself, the others are in Catholic newsletters (perhaps a large niche, but a niche all the same). There is only one in mainstream news, and that one does not mention the organization. (And the "blogspot" entry is ... just another blog.) The persons arguing for the organization's importance based on numbers of members, etc., seem to misunderstand what is required for an entry in WP. LaMona (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @(talk) 22:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC) I am rather in despair about this kind of comment. The article you mention about the interview with the Chair of Acta on BBC news does mention Acta, and that is why Ms Riordan the Chair was interviewed on the TOday programme-- it is very clear: did you not read it? Tomcapa1 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not despair: I re-read it and found the mention (it is a single sentence). That does not change my !vote, however. Sorry. LaMona (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I too agree with Charles that this article is WP:TOOSOON and in reality has no real depth. It's references are weak and it's written in a very blatant promotional format IMO. I am surprised this AfD debate has gone on this long?Canyouhearmenow 14:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most sources seem to be primary from the group itself, no sign of notability outside of those with vested interest in the subject. Sadfatandalone (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Comment @Mangwanani (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2014 Well, I have to say I do not agree with your view that this is not a neutral article now, and that I have a conflict of interest. I am not an 'agent of A Call to Action'- but a member. Why would someone neither for it or against it write on it anyway, but I have done all I can to follow the guidelines. There is now clear evidence of notability-- BBC, Catholic papers, The Times etc.-- and I would like examples from the article of bias. You did refer to Juventutem, which has a Wiki article. Yet it is a much smaller organization than A Call to Action and the article is written by an agent of the organization. Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LaMona (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)It is very clear that the whole seoond half of the news is about A Call to Action-- that is why the Chair of the Organisation is being interviewed.Tomcapa1 (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Juventutem is not comparable to ACTA. It is represented in over twenty countries and is active in numerous cities in each of those countries. It has international significance, which ACTA - so far - is unable to demonstrate. Mangwanani ^(talk) 19:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Too small, a group, within a group. Overly promotional. Too many unencyclopedic terms, indicating an agenda. Phrases like 'polite, but skeptical', 'amusing parody' - too many adjective describing people and media, not objective at all. Pjposullivan (talk) 05:27, 12 December 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. Sam Walton (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WebMoney[edit]

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

User:Cirt requested AfD discussion, so here we are. I stand by my original prod rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, Piotrus, for bringing this to AfD. I did say it was worthy of discussion at AfD itself, but I'll defer to community consensus about whether or not it should exist as an article here on Wikipedia. Good luck to all in the discussion, — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of WP:RS. The only reference that would even possibly count is the QHA one, which is a tiny news brief mentioning the subject tangentially. If this is the best that can be found, then the subject is not sufficiently notable at this time. —Swpb^talk 15:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am rather surprised to see a nom like this coming from Piotrus. Yes, the article in its current state is horrible. Yes, the few references it has are mostly no good. But no, the subject is not non-notable. How can it be, with Webmoney being one of the widespread online payment systems used in Russia; one with millions of users; one with scandalous history; one with coverage in multiple sources? Indeed, one quick glance at the sources used in the Russian wiki counterpart and at the results gbooks returns convinces me that the article is easily salvageable. The only thing lacking is volunteers to bring the article up to standards (and no, I am not volunteering).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 17, 2014; 17:27 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ezhiki: Most of those book mentions are in passing. They are helpful, but can we show that the subject received any non-passing coverage? Perhaps it is in some of the Russian sources, which I have trouble reading? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, many sources only mention Webmoney in passing, but there are still plenty that deal with it directly, and not just in Russian. Take this book, for example. It has a whole chapter about Webmoney Transfer, and that's only one book I was able to find in 30 seconds, using a random search, without looking at Russian sources, all before I had my morning coffee :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); November 18, 2014; 12:57 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 24 November 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 ⨹ 16:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, for yo? - have you seen the chapter, or did you (as I did) go to Amazon and look at the Table of Contents? Second, I've tried to investigate the publisher, which is pretty obscure, but cannot at this point tell if it's a "pay to publish" situation. The academic "pay to publish" is very close to being "self-publish" with perhaps a bit more oversight, but I must say that the books coming out from that publisher look an awful lot like desperate "publish or perish" stuff. Third, the only articles that I find in the US press about WebMoney Transfer are articles about illegal activities that run their money through online money schemes. And these are only mentions. I'd definitely lean toward "keep" if some better sources could be found. LaMona (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen this chapter—it was freely available in the google books preview at the link I provided above (and some parts of it still are). The publisher is a division of Macmillian Publishers—hardly obscure. I can't comment on the possibility that it's a "pay to publish" situation, because I don't know what signs to look for in this case, but the book covers a good variety of digital currency systems, not just Webmoney. Also, we shouldn't be looking only at the English-language sources. A quick search of Russian books shows several titles about Webmoney (although one, of course, would have to look at the actual text to determine whether those books satisfy our reliable sources criteria).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 8, 2014; 14:28 (UTC)

Macmillan is a well-known publisher, but like many "big business" publishers today they have a number of branches that began as separate publishing houses. I have found some discussions about the publisher's reputation: [23]"Things get iffy with Palgrave Macmillan" [24]. etc. At best it's a medium-reputation academic publisher, formed in 2000 from a minor US branch of St. Martin's Press (that probably wasn't doing well). I unfortunately couldn't see more than the ToC of the book. LaMona (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -At first I was not going to get into this AfD but then I started looking at it a bit more and I found it to be very interesting. I agree with Ezhiki that this article is in a deplorable state, however, I do believe it's content is far from being non-notable and I further feel that it meets the WP:GNG requirements. With some rewrite and proper sourcing I think this article could make a nice addition to wikipedia.Canyouhearmenow 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All this article needs is some improvements. The subject seems to meet WP:NOTABILITY and the article has grown to quite a size. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Font[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't meet WP:NMMA with only 1 top tier fight, but it seems likely he'll get the additional fights he needs since he won his UFC opener. I know that's WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I'd rather not see this article deleted just to be recreated in 6 months. I guess my preference would be to see this article saved in userspace until he gets those 3 top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't currently meet any notability criteria. I have no objection to this article being saved in userspace or being recreated when he gets his three top tier fights.Papaursa (talk) 18:27, 7 December 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 ⨹ 16:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA and assuming he'll meet that criteria is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mdtemp (talk) 16:21, 1 December 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Skyy[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Kindzmarauli (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 2 December 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. This debate has been open for over a month now and it's time to close it. The one redirect !vote can be discussed on the talk page of the article but there isn't a consensus for this to be deleted at this time. A large portion of the discussion is on how to improve the article which can also be taken to the talk page. Since being nominated the page has been significantly improved @DGG: if you'd rather have an admin close this than a non-admin, please let me know and I'll revert myself here - but this really has come to a stopping point. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 14:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PetSmart Charities[edit]

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

This is not independently notable; it is already covered within the main article, and the net effect is promotional for the company DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I am an instructor for a course in the education program and this article was created by one of my students (Pnwkev). It's easy for me to assume good faith because I know the author and context in which it was written. More importantly, I reviewed this topic before the article was written and I felt, and still feel, that the subject is clearly notable under WP:ORG. I did a search on LexisNexis Academic and found more than 300 hits for "PetSmart Charities" in major US Newspapers and nearly all of these articles are profiles of the organization or descriptions of their charity work. In a quick pass right now, I just added references and profiles published in USA Today (twice), The Chronicle of Philanthropy, The Oklahoman, the Las Cruces Sun-News, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the St. Petersburg Times. I could gets many dozens more. The subject is clearly notable. This article still has deficiencies, but they can be fixed. —mako ๛ 06:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one of the sources seem RS for notability. I am not convinced any of these 100s of articles are more than mentions of local events, or disguised press releases. Of the ones you now have, I don't think a single one of the ones I can seem is acceptable for showing notability, tho they may be RS for showing what the organization does. (I changed as many of the Lexis links for the references to free links that do not depend on access to Lexis--using a paid link when not necessary is not good practice) (1) The Las Cruces Sun-Newws article is primarily about a local group, and mentions that it is sponsored by PetSmart (2) is almost entirely about the parent company, only mentioning the charity in 1 out of 10 paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) are from their own site (7), the USA Today article mentions PetSmart in one short paragraph of a general article that lists multiple organizations. (8) :he chronicle of philanthropy article, which I cannot see, appears from the title to be a mere listing of multiple charities. (9) is their own site , (10)is to their site, but its a dead link (11) was written by their communications manager (12) I cannot see but from the title it appears to be about multiple grants (13) and (14) are from their own site (15), the second of the USA tToday articles, mentions PetSmart in one paragraph of a long article. This leaves us with no reliable substantial sources at all.

Every substantial corporation (in the US at least) has an affiliate that does charitable contributions. The fundamental business purpose of such groups is to get publicity, or sometimes, to promote the owner's personal values. Every such write up is in effect a press release. Should we therefore write two articles for each of the enterprises, one for the frankly commercial side and one for the community relations side?

One of the roles of a workshop organizer is to pick topics that are certain to stay in Wikipedia and cannot reasonably be challenged. I gave a neutral deletion rationale, carefully not saying it was written with a promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, corporations in the US have charitable giving departments, but in this case PetSmart Charities is a completely separate organization. The programs that the org facilitates and funds have no connection back to PetSmart, and frankly they are two entities that have very different goals. I also added a couple of additional sources to the article.-- pnwkev 08:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnwkev (talk • contribs)

the additional sources would seem mere mentions also.One page in a book, and an article about a general method. DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By your standards, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals page should be deleted as well. They're both animal welfare organizations and they both provide similar services to the community. The only difference I see here, is that PetSmart is in the name of one charity, which apparently means it should be immediately deleted or merged into the PetSmart article. The problem is that it's a completely separate organization which is why the article was created. People assume they are one in the same, when in fact they are not. Furthermore, there are now other articles that have linked to this article because linking to the PetSmart page did not provide sufficient information. pnwkev 03:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnwkev (talk • contribs)

Unlike many other charitable arms of large companies, customers at PetsMart are systematically asked to donate to PetSmart Charities when they buy things at the store. Some of them will look for a neutral writeup of the organization to help make their decision. I strongly believe that we would should try provide one. A paragraph or two, several times, in publications like USA Today, plus many descriptions of their charitable work in local newspapers, seems like strong enough evidence of notability to me. Clearly, the links their website establish facts about the organization and don't establish notability. I think the other sources do. —mako ๛ 15:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure how asking customers at the checkout becomes an argument for notability. I get asked to donate at checkouts fairly frequently. And a paragraph or two isn't enough evidence of notability -- it actually depends on what that paragraph or two says. A mere recounting of the fact that the charity exists doesn't establish any kind of significance. Not to mention that the links to their website are not considered reliable sources. I looked at the sources I could get to, but really don't see any notability compared to the thousands of charities out there. I'm sure it's a fine charity, but I say ~~Delete~~. See below: getting closer to keep, although needs a few more good sources. LaMona (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's among the 400 largest charities in the US makes it more notable than the "thousands of other charities." The organization is large and very active. "Those paragraphs" describe the charity's work and funding programs because that work and funding programs are viewed, by the authors articles in newspapers that include USA Today (repeatedly!) as noteworthy. If 300 descriptions of their work in major US newspapers and being among the top 400 largest philanthropic organizations doesn't qualify for notability, what does? —mako ๛ 04:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give more info about those 300 descriptions in major US newspapers? In a search (using EBSCOHost) today I found 3 articles about the charity, none of which are in major newspapers (although the search also returns many results that only have the term "PetSmart" because that is how the search in that database works). I also got zero in a search in a database of newspapers. I don't have access to Lexis-Nexis so I cannot see what the search looks like there. The articles that I found are actually superior in notability to the ones in the WP article, so I will try to add them. For example ones from the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 11/15/2006, Vol. 229 Issue 10, p1558-1558. Link #7 mentions the charity in two sentences in a fairly long text. The links to the PetSmart site should be dropped or greatly limited in number. I think the article can be improved, and will see what I can do, but in its current state it is not showing evidence of notability. LaMona (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much LaMona for helping improve the article and for finding some better references! I raised the fact that there are hundreds or articles in Lexis Nexis to make a point about breadth of coverage. According to WP:ORG, we only need be concerned with finding several good ones. I haven't looked at them all but I think that its safe to assume that other references in newspapers from Lexis Nexis Academic are generally going to be similar to the ones I already included or will be less convincing. I selected a sample from ones in papers I knew were reliable and from a diversity of papers and journalists. A lot of them seem to be animal welfare beat writing in mid-sized city newspapers. Many will be passing references to the organization and the projects its funded. As you might also imagine, many are repeated mentions by the same newspapers and by the same journalists. For example, all five USA Today articles are written by the same columnist. —mako ๛ 03:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mako, since you have better article access than I do, the article needs some third-party sources to replace at least some of the cites to the organization's own pages. One or two articles with information about the charity's different programs would be great. Also, I'm not sure what the general convention is for linking, but if you can find links that do not lead to a paywall that would also help those of us who don't have access. (I once worked at a U with great access - after leaving I found out how hard it is for non-U civilians to do research!) LaMona (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it were an independent organization I would agree with you. But since it is not (despite the usual legal details of corporate structure), it can be and is covered on the main page. I don;t even think a redirect from the name is needed, as anyone looking for it would search under PetSmart. From WP:N, even meeting the notability criteria doesn't mean there should be a separate article if best covered in a more general page. We routinely use this to avoid making separate articles on branches of a company, whether geographic or functional. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a section on major donations -- which is much more notable than the previous sections on adoption centers, and which are cited from veterinary journals. The article still needs cleanup, removing many of the links to the PS site and finding better sources for the adoption activities. I didn't format the citations (was in a bit of a hurry) but will try to get to that. With a little more work, this article could become a keeper. LaMona (talk) 17:45, 11 November 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 02:29, 13 November 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (say) @ 15:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PetSmart. The only coverage I could find in a search was mentions, along the lines of "PetSmart charities funded this", "PetSmart Charities commissioned the survey", etc. Not the kind of significant coverage required for WP:ORG. Disclaimer: There are several references in the article that look like they might be significant coverage from national sources, but they are all behind a LexisNexis paywall so I couldn't evaluate them. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, here's the text of the St Petersburg newspaper article (sorry i lost the formatting in it):

"When checking out at PetSmart, there is an option to donate $1 toward pet rescue or adoption. Where does this money go? / Donations go to the general fund of PetSmart Charities Inc., a nonprofit foundation that was created in 1994 to provide grants to animal welfare programs. / The funds are then distributed to pet shelters, humane societies, emergency relief organizations and animal rescue groups, says Kim Noetzel, communication manager for the charity that is based in Phoenix. Some of the grants go to national organizations and some stay within the state where donations are made, she said. In its 14 years, the charity has given more than $70-million to animal welfare groups. This year it hopes to give out $23-million. PetSmart Charities is a 501(c)(3) public charity that reported income of $20,423,278 during the fiscal year ending Jan. 28, 2007, with 93 percent of that coming from contributions. From that, $13,430,730 was given to animal programs. Administration took $583,611 and professional fundraising another $1,420,255. / To see more about PetSmart Charities, go to www.guidestar.org. You'll have to register to get access, but it's free and once you're on you can get financial reports on any public charity."

Hope that is helpful. --do ncr am 02:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found an online version of all but 3 (I think?) of the articles referenced in the article added those links to the article. —mako ๛ 02:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From a Pittsburg news article: "Since 1994, PetSmart Charities, an independent 501(c3) nonprofit animal welfare organization is the largest financial supporter of animal welfare efforts in North America, having provided more than $134 million in grants and programs benefiting animal welfare organizations. Through its in-store pet adoption partnership with PetSmart Charities, the company has helped save the lives of more than 4.4 million pets." That was within an investor-oriented article: "PETSMART HAS REASONABLE INTRINSIC VALUE", by Rudd, Lauren. Pittsburgh Post - Gazette [Pittsburgh, Pa] 19 June 2011: C.1. It is a really major charity, the biggest of its type in U.S. or Canada or Mexico. There is plenty of coverage about it.

Another article is "PETSMART CHARITIES INC. IS FOCUS OF THE SHANYN DUBAY TOURNAMENT": [South Broward Edition] by LOURDES RODRIGUEZ-FLORIDO Staff Writer. Sun Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale] 20 Aug 2000: 3. It is all about a charity golf tournament in honor of a young person who died, who was devoted to the charity; the golf tournament proceeds go to Petsmart Charities, it is relevant.
There are lots--perhaps hundreds--of sources like the following in Oakland Tribune: "ARF receives grant / ARF has been awarded a two-year grant by PetSmart Charities to fund a spay and neuter program targeting homeless, free-roaming cats in Contra Costa County. / "This grant will enable ARF to drastically reduce birth rates and increase the number of friendly cats adopted from shelters," says Elena Bicker, executive director. "Our goal is to alter 1,600 free-roaming cats annually to stop pet overpopulation at the source. / "We would like to thank PetSmart Charities for this generous grant, and our partners for their support in making this project a great success." / PetSmart Charities, Inc. is a nonprofit animal welfare organization that saves the lives of homeless pets, separate from PetSmart, Inc. / And in other ARF news: Save the date for "Wine & Whiskers." / Join ARF in celebrating 10 years of saving the lives of rescued dogs and cats at Wine & Whiskers, an evening of specialty wines, hors d'oeuvres, live music and silent auction from 5 to 8 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 28, at Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation, 2890 Mitchell Drive in Walnut Creek. / Reservations are $80. Register online at www.arf.net or call 925-256-1ARF. Don't delay, as this event sells out quickly. ("Faith Barnidge: Good Neighbors are Volunteer Center of the East Bay, Locks of Love, ARF and Contra Costa Regional Medical Center", by Barnidge, Faith. Oakland Tribune [Oakland, Calif] 27 Aug 2013.
Anyhow, while i think it should simply be Kept, redirecting would obviously be superior to deletion. Simply keep. --do ncr am 01:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National non-profit with coverage. -- GreenC 20:32, 30 November 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Within DGG's and MelanieN's comments above is reflected some cynicism, I think, about the likely purpose of the charitable nonprofit in complementing the commercial purpose of Petsmart the corporation. I too am rubbed the wrong way a bit by the repetition in Petsmart Charities's statements that the nonprofit is completely separate; of course it is part of Petsmart marketing and they must feel it is working out well, for it to be continued. I don't want the Wikipedia articles to accept the "separateness" sycophantically. However, we need to find some critical views published that say "separate is nonsense" and put that into the article; that is a matter for editing. We shouldn't impose our view by editorially by saying that the charity must be covered within the corporation article only because we personally believe it is not separate. Do let's find & use some critical coverage. Or at least point out the marketing advantage it provides. But this is a major charity and i already expressed my view that it should be kept. --do ncr am 00:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is much like Ronald McDonald House Charities, which gets a separate article or threee (+Ronald McDonald House Charities Canada and Ronald McDonald House New York). --do ncr am 00:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus. (non-admin closure) Aerospeed (Talk) 00:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capital District Key Club International[edit]

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

Non notable district/region of a notable organisation. A list of past officers/convention sites doesn't add to its importance. Redirect to Key Club perhaps Gbawden (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Gbawden: if you want the page to be redirected instead of deleted then you should do it yourself and not make an AfD out of it. Is that what you're advocating? Dea db eef 07:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would rather delete but if others prefer a redirect I would be happy with that. I would have redirected it myself but given the effort that went into it I suspected my redir would have been reverted so felt a discusson was warranted. Gbawden (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I stand at redirect to Key Club per WP:CHEAP as the nominated district fails WP:GNG et al. Dea db eef 07:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The District has over 16,000 members and raises almost $100k every year for various charities. There is no argument that is is a notable district. That being said, the page needs work; the list of past governors is now around seventy individuals, just has not made it online yet. The same goes for District Conventions, which have happened annually since the 50's. Out of 33 Districts internationally, it is by no means the only one with its own Wikipedia entry, either. See Southwest District Key Club and California-Nevada-Hawaii District Key Club International as examples. User:Jxmorris 15:22 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no argument that is is a notable district. Yes, there is. It is almost nonexistent in its online coverage and elsewhere. I'll refer the new editor and seeming SPA to WP:GNG and invite them to explain how this page meets, or could ever meet, this policy. Out of 33 Districts internationally, it is by no means the only one with its own Wikipedia entry, either. See WP:OSE. Dea db eef 22:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be called "Capital District of Key Club International". Not sure why the "of" is missing; if it could be replaced, our problems, hopefully, would be solved. See here. User:jxmorris 23:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. Even with the modified search term, there is no substantial secondary coverage of the district to establish notability. My stance remains. Dea db eef 00:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The list of Past Governors has been updated. List of Convention locations and themes to come, along with a secondary source. Thanks for your help. User:jxmorris 14:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Our District is covered in The Capital Kiwanian, Capital District Kiwanis' magazine, here: [[25]]. Source added to the main page as well. User:jxmorris 00:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a primary source; secondary sources are needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. I can't find sufficient proof that these exist. Deadbeef 19:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 November 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 12:40, 24 November 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 ⨹ 15:58, 1 December 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). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ProPay[edit]

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

My original prod rationale, which I believe is still fully valid, was " _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The PROD rationale from Piotrus, taken from the article history, was: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back." —Swpb^talk 15:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, the browser borked and ate most of my post; thank you for finishing, it, User:Swpb, and thank you User:Dylanfromthenorth for the ping. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've pinged the nominator to come and provide a deletion rationale; I looked in the article history for the prod reason but there wasn't one for that either. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although patents do not count towards establishment of notability, PCWorld and possibly ecommercebytes seem to be reliable, independent sources. —Swpb^talk 15:25, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: The (unlinked) PC World article describes a product offered by ProPay, not the company itself: [26]. This is basically a gadget review; and it does not reflect significantly on the maker's company notability. As ecommercebytes doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, and I've never heard of it before, I don't think it is a very reliable source (but if someone wants to argue in favor of it, I'd gladly listen). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Piotrus: I only provided deletion sorting for this discussion. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my bad, I meant to @Swpb:. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 25 November 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 12:26, 24 November 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 ⨹ 15:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NKosi Ntsikayezwe Sigcau[edit]

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

Under-sourced and non-netural. —Swpb^talk 15:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 16:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on procedural grounds. Nominator states that the article is a BLP, which is a "Biography of a living person". This person died in 1996. There are indications of notability in the article, and I will support deletion only if a diligent search for reliable sources has been conducted, swpb. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can search for RS and bring the article into an acceptable state if you want. I'm not obligated to do so. —Swpb^talk 12:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to Ntsikayezwe Sigcau. The article is definitely under-sourced, but while one of the sources already in the article is a speech, and therefore probably not a reliable source in itself, the other source does seem reliable and should have prompted a search for more before nomination, particularly since there was a clear claim in the article for WP:NPOL#1 - which he meets, even though as this source says, the parliament of which he was a member was a provincial rather than a national one. (And previous mentions in this source, while not particularly detailed, rather suggest that press coverage should be forthcoming from the 1980s and 1990s.) The reason for the suggested move is that nkosi is a title roughly meaning chief - available sources often either use "chief" instead or omit the title altogether. PWilkinson (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's long established that AFD is not clean up, so being "undersourced and non-neutral" are not valid reasons for deletion and, contrary to what the nominator says in a reply above, yes, it is clear from the WP:AFD page that people nominating any page for deletion should go through the preliminaries outline at WP:BEFORE ("if there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources....The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.") as otherwise we run the risk of losing valid content. Besides meeting WP:POLITICIAN, the subject receives coverage here, here, and here. Valenciano (talk) 01:16, 8 December 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 Hannibal . SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conquests of Hannibal[edit]

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

I don't see the purpose of this misleadingly titled and redundant article. What's here that's not in Hannibal? I pledge eternal hatred for this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE. Nearly all of this is, in fact, a word-for-word copy of parts of Hannibal. Only fails A10 speedy deletion by its long history. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion seems to have gone missing in the day-by-day listings. I believe I have corrected the issue. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:24, 1 December 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 15:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hannibal, his conquests should be mentioned in his article. If anyone was bold enough, they'd put a G12 on the article. I'm not sure, but is copying straight from another wiki article allowed? Doesn't seem right to me. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After some serious excavation, it looks like the first edit of Conquests of Hannibal was a copy/paste job from the Hannibal article of 2007. There does not appear to be any attempt to split, so I'd treat it as a duplication or redundant content fork. As for whether the title makes for a good redirect, "conquests of Hannibal" refers to his whole life. I don't think it's a particularly helpful search term and if used in a phrase, linking just his name would be most appropriate. @Aerospeed, as for whether it's okay to copy straight, all WP contributions are licensed under cc-by-sa such that it's fine to reuse them in whatever as long as the author(s)—or at least source—are attributed (not done in @Arcyqwerty's 2007 edit) and that future revisions are published under the same license. So in WP's case, it's fine to merge information or split out summary style when a section gets too big, but the author/page should be attributed, and the old section should be reduced accordingly. In this case, the page is just fully redundant to Hannibal's bio. @Rcsprinter123, heads up that you accidentally relisted the page twice czar ⨹ 23:28, 1 December 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. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation facility[edit]

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

This article is barely even a stub; it's more a dictionary type definition. There is already more content about explanation facilitiess in the Expert system and Knowledge acquisition articles. If at some point there is so much additional info in one of those articles we can spin off a new one but at this point I think this article should be deleted. MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Expert system article doesn't use this exact term, but it does cover the same ground in more detail. If "explanation facility" is better than "explanation capabilities", the expert system article can be edited to use it. – Margin1522 (talk) 21:27, 6 December 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 general consensus that elementary scools are generally not notable, and nobody in the discussion disputed this. It was discussed whether this particular school passes WP:GNG. Whereas a good job was done, there were no consensus if the local coverage find is sufficient for GNG. A pretty typical situation, I close this as no consensus defaulted to keep. One can retry in a couple of years and see whether consensus has been shifted.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chevy Chase Elementary School[edit]

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

An elementary school in Maryland. Elementary schools are generally not notable. Prod was deleted because, "This is the 53rd Article in the category Public elementary schools in Maryland. Multiply that by 50 US states and international locations and that to me negates the claim about elementary schools not being on wiki." This is an obvious lie as Category:Public elementary schools in Maryland lists only five, not 53 elementary schools. Two of those listed are redirects. Bgwhite (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "into the school district article or the appropriate locality article" as WP:WPSCH/AG#N :-

"Articles on elementary/primary schools or middle schools will normally be merged into the locality article (such as a village or town) unless they can clearly demonstrate that they can meet the notability guideline."

Nothing obviously notable about this school - only refs are to the schools page on "Montgomery Schools" website and the town "Document centre". - Arjayay (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Montgomery County Public Schools, where it is already mentioned. I really wanted to keep this article, because the school is more than 100 years old (not the current buildings though). But I couldn't find the coverage needed to call it historic. --MelanieN (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not "notable" because it's an elementary school but because - as noted - it's almost a hundred years old and the building (or part of it) was the first official school of Montgomery County, Maryland. See Chevy Chase Historical Society link. It's not easy to find references to it, at least not with standard Google searches that turn up a lot of other "Chevy Chase" stuff, but I bet there's enough out there to get it over the basic notability hump. JohnInDC (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The school appears also to be designated by ~~Montgomery County~~ the Maryland Historical Trust as an Historic Site - I haven't been able to find a textual listing but this interactive map will identify the school if you enter its address (4015 Rosemary) into the query field. Also I stumbled across the application for the designation, here. JohnInDC (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folks who are looking into the history of the place might want to bear in mind that for many years it was known as "Rosemary School". Some older material may refer to it that way. Finally I think that the article tracks the Town of Chevy Chase material a bit too closely - not word-for-word, but the paraphrasing is a bit too close for my tastes, and, having noticed this, I'll take a crack at cleaning it up as soon as I have a moment. JohnInDC (talk) 02:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a burst of energy and cleaned up the article, removing a lot of tangential stuff and using more original prose. I also found sound links for the school's designation as an historic site and added a quote about the architectural details that appear to have helped qualify it as such. The article is now shorter, cleaner, more suitably referenced, and I think is a much clearer Keep than the earlier iteration. JohnInDC (talk) 03:45, 1 December 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 14:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~*merge~~ into either the school district article or the history of the town. It could become a stand alone article if coverage could be in memoirs or essays by notable figures (all I found was a mention in a self-published memoir by a political type whose kids went there) Or if there were sources stating that it is architecturally or historically significant. I didn't find any in a brief search, not clear, for example if an historic designation has come through.ShulMaven (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The historic designation did go through; it's listed at p 274 of this publication hosted by The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. JohnInDC (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~*merge~~ I like this school! It's old, cute and has a nice history. What I can't find is significant coverage to make it notable. Historic designation from the city seems like local coverage to me. Jacona (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The designation was by the county, which being immediately adjacent to Washington, DC, and with a founding dating back almost 240 years, has no shortage of significant and/or historical candidate sites. Don't mistake it for parochial boosterism! JohnInDC (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable as a building, if not as a school. All of the sources provide reliable and verifiable references are about the history of the building itself, meeting the notability standard as a building. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are over a million properties on the National Register of Historic Places, 80,000 are listed individually, but this is not one of them, so is clearly not notable in national terms - Arjayay (talk) 11:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Of course, national notability is not required. The designation by the county certainly doesn't carry the same weight as a national designation, but the determination by the county that the site has historical & architectural significance (in, as I noted, a county with loads of history in it already) suggests that this is not just another elementary school, one like every other, and so why are we bothering to single it out here. It's a hundred years old (give or take), it was the first permanent public school in what has become the 17th largest school district in the country (!), and had the first public school library in that county. I appreciate that notability is hardly an open and shut case here but there needs to be more to the deletion side than "elementary schools are generally not notable.". JohnInDC (talk) 12:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~to district~~. Excellent effort improving the article's sourcing, and I'd like to see that preserved in the district article, but much of the sourcing is very local or insufficiently independent in nature. It's all very good content for the history of the district, which is considered baseline notable, but there's nothing here that notes why this school is exceptional or enough unaffiliated, significant coverage for purposes of the general notability guideline. I did a run of ProQuest and found little to bolster the case for keeping this article separate—all local coverage and passing mentions. czar ⨹ 02:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if this is to be Merged, rather than Kept, the better destination would be Chevy Chase (town), Maryland rather than Montgomery County Public Schools. The former would more easily accommodate the existing narrative (along with perhaps a photograph one day); the latter is not much more than a list of the county's 200 schools and a two paragraph digression about one of them would be out of place. JohnInDC (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such a section on an elementary school would be unduly weighted in either article methinks, but sure, either is fine by me. (I think it stands a better chance of staying in the district, though.) czar ⨹ 04:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty confident that few would object to the addition of a bit of non-statistical content to the article on Town of Chevy Chase! Also - and this came to me later - I think the school & its history are more significant to the Town, than to the School District today (where history notwithstanding the school is just one of a couple hundred schools to be administered). Anyhow that's FWIW. Also while I'm here I want to say that I really appreciate the thoughtfulness of the discussion, and think that this is exactly how AfD should work. Whatever the outcome, thanks to all. JohnInDC (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rethinking per arguments by JohnInDC and Alansohn. The historic designation did go through, even if local it is significant. And it means that the people of the region do not wish to "delete" the building. Plus the fact that it is "the oldest" and that there is significant local coverage of and local affection for this landmark building. Although I first voted "merge", I think articles on beloved, historic, architecturally or otherwise notable buildings serve Wikipedia better as stand-alone articles linked than as small sections in larger articles. This should be linked from the school district and from the town. And I certainly hope somebody posts an image or 2. ShulMaven (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ShulMaven, where do see "the oldest"? I see a claim that it has the oldest (existing?) school library in the county... but that's it, and that's county-level. czar ⨹ 22:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ShulMaven, JaconaFrere, and Czar:. It is not the "oldest school". According to Montgomery County Public Schools, nine other schools are older. County historic designation is not a reason for nobility. Three of the refs come from county level government and one ref from city. Application for designation is not a source to be used for GNG. Not sure how four local, government refs count as "significant" coverage. Bgwhite (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how these dates are measured but per the Chevy Chase Historical Society (link above): "In 1917, Montgomery County opened its first official school building, a two-story art-deco inspired brick structure called the Chevy Chase School (although residents fondly refer to it as the “Rosemary School”)." JohnInDC (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The historic designation seems to be at the state level (it's a bit confusing) but I found a Maryland link and substituted that. Also, the Montgomery County Public Schools page seems to be pretty much just wrong, indicating that this school opened in 1936 when it is pretty clear from all the sources that it has been operating at the same place since 1917. JohnInDC (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JohnInDC From Montgomery Public Schools own info, it was built in 1936. From your own historical link, it too says 1936 (p.274). In addition, there are over 10 buildings built before 1935 that were schools, but are now county or privately owned. So, there are atleast 17 older buildings. There may have been a previous Chevy Chase building, but the references, including the school district, say 1936. Bgwhite (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ShulMaven, The oldest, currently used as a school, was a high school built in 1892, 44 years before Chevy Chase was built. Bgwhite (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Montgomery High School - founded in 1892 and, per its website, the "oldest public high school in Montgomery County", would seem to eclipse Chevy Chase Elementary as the oldest school in the county. Perhaps the Chevy Chase School is the first elementary school - dunno. Bears examining. Interestingly however the Richard Montgomery School has only existed in its current building at its current site since 1942, when the existing school was destroyed by fire. A new school was constructed on a new, nearby parcel and that is where the school is now found. Link. So if the only proper measure of a school's age is "duration in a particular building in a particular spot", the indisputably older Montgomery School loses out to Chevy Chase Elementary. JohnInDC (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In agreement with ShulMaven and others. Change from Merge to Keep. Jacona (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know that notability is not inherited, but for what it's worth, I've discovered that the fellow who designed the 1930 wing of the school, one Howard Wright Cutler, designed a couple of churches in DC that have found their way onto the National Register (see Lincoln Temple United Church of Christ and Eldbrooke United Methodist Church). He was also the dominant school architect for the county from the mid 1920s through mid 1940s, and this school is considered a good representation of his style. There is, interestingly, no article on him here and so now I have a project for the weekend. JohnInDC (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Having a noted architect design one section or the entire building doesn't confer notability. As the school wasn't built until 1936, how can they have a 1930 wing?

What two sources? Montgomery County Public Schools does not count. Surely you aren't suggesting that the Town itself is wrong when it says the school was founded in 1917. JohnInDC (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery County Public Schools, Motgomery planning (p.274) and application for designation says one wing in 1930 and the other wing in 1936. The school was started in 1930 and wasn't occupied until 1936. I assume the great depression had something to do with the delay. Montgomery County Schools does count as a source. When a school was built is information that can come from a reliable primary source. See WP:PRIMARY. The school not being occupied until 1936 is a fact. Bgwhite (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Town itself say a building was constructed in 1917. That was the old building. I quote from page 37, "In 1930, a 12-classroom brick building was constructed at a cost of $94,000. It fronted on Rosemary Street, and caused the closing of Valley Place as a through street. The southern portion of thes structure remains as part of the current east wing. With its new address, the school became affectionately - but never formally - known as 'Rosemary School'."

EVERY source says 1930 or afterward. NO source says 1917. Bgwhite (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Town of Chevy Chase source makes it clear that Chevy Chase Elementary has been on the Rosemary site since 1917. The current buildings date to 1930-36, but the school was founded in 1917, and the 1917 and 1930 buildings existed alongside one another for 6 years. The Town says, a school was built on the site in 1917: "The school fronted on Valley Place, which at that time connected Rosemary Street and Meadow Lane". Page 37 here. Same page: "In 1930, a 12-classroom brick building was constructed.... It fronted on Rosemary Street and caused the closing of Valley Place as a through street." This makes it clear that the 1930 building was constructed alongside the 1917 structure, on Rosemary Street. "The southern portion of this structure remains as part of the current east wing. * * * In 1936 Chevy Chase added another brick building.... During this year, the 1917 structure was demolished." School founded and built, 1917. New wing built alongside in 1930. Yet another wing built in 1936, 1917 building demolished. This is simple and clear. And the Town's description meshes perfectly with that of the Chevy Chase Historical Society, here, which notes the construction of the 1917 building and states that this building was referred to locally as "The Rosemary School". Even the application pdf you cite for the school's founding in 1930 says that "During the 1920s, the Chevy Chase School at Rosemary... needed to be enlarged." (See next to last page of text.) It is abundantly clear that a school was founded on the Rosemary site in 1917, and has been operating continuously on that site as as school. Perhaps the other sources are confusing the dates of the (remaining) buildings with the date of the school's founding (an application based on the architectural significance of the school would not likely waste space describing a structure that no longer exists) - perhaps not. But there's really no disputing that Chevy Chase Elementary School, in one or another form, has been there since 1917. JohnInDC (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The school received a National Blue Ribbon Award in 1993-94, which - according to this AfD Keep determination anyhow - is generally considered sufficient to confer notability on an elementary school. JohnInDC (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional AfDs discussing "Blue Ribbon" Awards: here, here and here. JohnInDC (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blue Ribbon School award is a rejected rationale for an auto-keep. The award is too commonplace to constitute something creating automatic notability. Carrite (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that ordinary elementary schools are presumed non-notable. We have long ago rejected the notion that the 7,000 so-called Blue Ribbon Schools are automatically notable. This is the run of the mill honor. 04:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - It's not an autokeep , but certainly does carry weight (per the selection of examples I offered) and has to be considered along with everything else that we know about the school: The school was established on this site nearly a hundred years ago; its more recent wings, dating to 1930 and 36, were designed by a prominent local architect and are regarded as exemplary of his style; the first public school library in the county was established within the school; and the school is a State Historic Site. None of this is run of the mill and on its face takes the discussion out of the general (not hard-and-fast) rule that "elementary schools aren't notable". JohnInDC (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a few past discussions about Blue Ribbon awards and notability, with editors expressing various views on whether it is sufficient by itself to confer notability. It seems to be an open issue, though not a hot topic lately. In any event pretty much all agree that it's a significant award, not merely routine or insignificant. E.g. here, here. JohnInDC (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a quote from Chevy Chase Historical Society coverage to the article, using a source that is mentioned above but was not yet in article. It seems to clearly meet wp:GNG based on sources included in article or in this AFD discussion. There's a lot of factual info to add from historic site nomination form provided by a commentator above, and perhaps there will be sources related to Howard Wright Cutler that may be found in the future. I also think the Blue Ribbon schools award counts for something, while more importantly for the AFD, a local historic site listing can be sufficient on its own to establish Wikipedia-notability, IMO. As an alternative better than deleting, this could conceivably be moved/redirected to a new list of local historic sites, e.g. a "List of local historical sites in Chevy Chase" or in Montgomery County" But even if such a list existed, there's more specific coverage of this so it is justified to keep it split out. It is best to simply Keep, based on GNG being met. [[--do ncr am 02:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See article about architect Howard Wright Cutler. I already voted to keep, but when I did the keep argument seemed borderline. It is much stronger now in several ways, but, when it comes to architects, notability truly can be inherited, in the sense that being designed by a notable architect adds to the notability of every building he designed, sometimes it is enough all by itself to make an otherwise unremarkable building notable. But in this case, I think that the identificaiton of the architect puts this article clearly into the column marked: obvious keep.ShulMaven (talk) 19:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Elementary schools are generally not notable. Could not find many sources to add to article either. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That elementary schools are not commonly kept at AfDs does not in itself disqualify every elementary school which appears at AfD. On the merits, I think this page is in far better shape than when it was prodded and nommed for AfD. IMHO the CCHS reference clearly establishes lengthy history and directly details the subject. The application for designation as an historical site establishes the notable architect connection, again directly detailing. That the application was accepted and the building so designated validates statements in the application. So we have an historical building by a notable architect. And then we have an almost 100 year-old scholastic community continuously associated with the building. These days that's a long time for a primary school. We have a verified claim this school hosted the first school library in Montgomery County. Then we have the additional Blue Ribbon designation, which by itself would mean nothing but adds additional direct detail to pagespace. This article now meets GNG; in detail and sourcing this article far surpasses the vast majority of high school articles which are commonly kept merely because of common practice, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 02:49, 12 December 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. The topic is not a hoax, and overall consensus is for article retention. A name change discussion can continue on the article's talk page, since more than one has been proposed here. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannulated cow[edit]

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

This is a Hoax Bogger (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bogger (talk) 10:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Zip notability, zip references. No idea how it lasted all this time. If there's any verifiable material, it should be moved to other articles, not separated out into a non-notable, non-noteworthy, non-cited article. Softlavender (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC) UPDATE: Striking per hroest, but it really needs fixing. Softlavender (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge? There is actually a potential reference here [27], which may be the original source of the article, and another here [28] and a US academic-institution mention here [29], so it isn't a hoax. However, unless the article can be developed and integrated and given a more logical title I don't think it is worth keeping as a standalone topic. I'd suggest it might be merged within Cannula as a sentence or two within the Veterinary use section using the above references. Libby norman (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nope it's definitely not a hoax but there's no evidence of notability beyond this one source [30]. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename it - Well after searching "fistulated cow" it certainly does exist & notability is certainly there, Although there does seem confusion with the name it seems "fistulated" is more common than "Cannulated". –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content (and the photo?) into the Veterinary Use section of Cannula. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Far from a hoax, it seems to be a standard method used in cow research. That said, should it have an entire article on its own? I don't know. A good article would need to talk more about how it is done and why with solid scientific references. LadyofShalott 14:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders whether the nominator made any attempt whatsoever to search the scientific literature before simply stating, "this is a hoax", rather than attempting less drastic measures like an appropriate merger. LadyofShalott 15:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree the nomination wording is ridiculous -- not even a punctuated sentence, and capitalizing the word "hoax". Odd at best; bad faith at worst. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info The correct term seems to be Fistualted Cow [31] [32] [33]--Sanford.poon (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 18:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fistulated* Bogger (talk) 09:29, 26 November 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 14:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename the method is well known and described in biology textbooks but could be extended to other animals, instead of Cannulated Cow a better lemma would be Fistulated animal or Fistulation. According to Van Dyne et al the technique is used in Horses, Dogs, Geese, Hens, Pigs, Cattle, Rat and Sheep. Possible scientific references (reviews) are:
- Cottyn et al The estimation of nutritive value of dairy cattle feed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1963769
- Van Dyne et al Development and Use of the Esophageal Fistula: A Review http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3895540
- Holechek et al Botanical composition determination of range herbivore diets: a review http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3898308

and these are just a few references that I could come up with as somebody not familiar with the field. Looking at the French and German article, the topic is discussed in the scientific and popular media, therefore I opt to keep it. --hroest 10:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename - I think hroest has the right idea. A more general article on the technique as used in various animals is both notable and useful. It should be distinct from the articles we currently have on fistulas and stoma (medicine). LadyofShalott 15:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- More possible refs (technical and popular):
- Turner and McIlwraith's Techniques in Large Animal Surgery [34]
- "Standard Operating Procedure for Rumen Fistulation in Dairy Cattle" [35]
- "Fistula cows – with holes in their stomachs" [36]
- "Techniques and Procedures for In Vitro and In Vivo Rumen Studies" [37]
- "A PERMANENT RUMEN FISTULA CANNULA FOR COWS AND SHEEP" [38]
Keep and Rename -This is a no-brainer to me.Canyouhearmenow 14:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:ODD. I have seen this (disgusting) procedure on an episode of Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 9 December 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. (nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Old Alleynians F.C.[edit]

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

Article about an amateur football club with no apparent claim to notability. Was speedy deleted and then re-created by the same editor. PamD 13:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: I think the FA Vase participation might convey notability: I don't remember noticing this assertion of notability in the previous, deleted, version of the article. Aplogies. PamD 13:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Origin of Nyako clan of the Yondoru people[edit]

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

This looks like a copy-paste, and the source is not cited. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a copy-paste of an essay - the pictures are missing, but the captions remain (e.g. "(L-R): Kenyi lo Kiden, Lemi lo Mile, Hilary Logoro and Joseph Taban"). Assuming it was written as part of an academic course, copyright will probably rest with the poster's college. Totally unreferenced and massively over-detailed. Arjayay (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree completely with Arjayay Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Mohammad Bashir Uppal[edit]

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

This person lacks the wp:notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. No coverage, could not find any reliable source. Seems to be COI. Fai zan 14:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be speedy. kashmiri ^TALK 23:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SNOW close because it could just as well have been speedied as per CSD#A7, There's not even an assertion of notability in the article. Looks like an autobiography. Wikipedia is not for personal profiles, he's at the wrong site.. should have gone to linked in or facebook? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted Thundermans[edit]

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

I don't see why this episode is notable. The only information listed is plot and cast. Dcbanners (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a disambiguation page with a short summary and entries for each episode list. Article as it stands here as nominated for deletion does not meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone-article and significant independent coverage in reliable sources to support an article does not exist. Ratings and short episode guide summaries are all that can be referenced and are in the episode list articles. Plot summary is from viewing episode itself, a primary source insufficient to support an article. It just restates information at List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes#ep35 and List of The Thundermans episodes#ep25. The major reason to have this article is the fact that it is common to two different shows and having the common info in one article is better for maintenance. The common info is limited, though, so some redundancy in two articles is not unwieldy. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed the article to be a disambiguation page as I suggested above. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in present form. Dcbanners, what do you think of it as it now is? Would you consider retracting the nomination? Boleyn (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 December 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. Wifione ^Message 16:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Five WP:BLPs, relying entirely on primary sources with not a shred of reliable source coverage, of people who are "notable" only as treasurers of the Law Society of Upper Canada (the regulatory body for the legal profession in Ontario.) I've tagged some other articles created by the same user for the same reason for improvement instead, as they made stronger claims of notability (e.g. holding a provincial or federal judgeship), but being the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:LAWYERS by itself — if it's the only claim of notability that can be made, then a person doesn't get an encyclopedia article on that basis alone. No other substantive claim of notability is being made for any of these people, however, and with purely primary sourcing there's no WP:GNG claim to be made either. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 09:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janet E. Minor's article claims notability on other grounds, though I am not sure if it is sufficient. The same goes for Eleanor Susan Elliott.

Thomas G. Conway's 2007 award seems to meet the requirement. Ditto with Laurie Pawlitza, who "was selected by Canadian Lawyer Magazine as one of the "Top 25 Most Influential" people in the justice system" (from the article). People who are recognized as being at the top of their field are notable, as noted both in WP:ANYBIO and in the following section on "creative professionals".

So, keep Thomas G. Conway and Laurie Pawlitza. Neutral on Janet E. Minor and Eleanor Susan Elliott. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even an WP:ANYBIO claim still has to be reliably sourced to count — primary sources are not acceptable proof that a person belongs in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources may not be used to provide evidence of broad coverage and the like. They can be used to support particular facts, such as the awards won, unless there is reason to believe they are unreliable when it comes to reporting those facts. Given the significant professional consequences of misreporting awards, etc. on their websites, I think we can generally take for granted that professional websites are reliable for reporting those bare facts. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but the evidence of broad reliable source coverage has to be there to make the person eligible for a Wikipedia article in the first place — primary source referencing is certainly acceptable for some confirmation of facts after enough reliable source coverage has been added to cover off the basic notability issue, but no matter how many seemingly impressive facts you can rattle off, they still don't qualify for an article if the primary sources are all you can come up with. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He meets the criteria, so is covered. For the sake of completeness and usefulness as an encyclopedia, we do not always insist on evidence of broad coverage in the press if certain other (specified) criteria are met. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that if certain specified criteria are met, then the evidence of media coverage doesn't have to be as broad as it does to get over GNG. But the person's passage of the criteria in question still has to be verifiable in at least one reliable non-primary source. The volume of reliable sourcing necessary to get the person into Wikipedia is certainly reduced if a person passes one of those subject-specific guidelines — but no notability criterion ever reduces that volume to zero. "Inherent" notability for any class of topic exists only in the sense that for some classes of topic, we know for a fact that reliable sourcing about them does exist somewhere even if the article isn't already in a FA-class state. Such notability is not extended as an exemption from the requirement to cite reliable sourcing, however — that would open us up to having to keep hoax articles about people who claim to pass one of the notability standards but actually don't. Reliable sourcing still has to exist, however, and a biographical article about a person (especially if it's a WP:BLP) always still has to cite at least one independent reliable source regardless of what notability criterion they're claiming to meet. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already mentioned once, WP:LAWYERS was not intended by its author to be a exhaustive listing of every factor that might make a lawyer notable. James500 (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've mentioned before, none of Wikipedia's subject-specific inclusion guidelines was intended by its author to be an exhaustive listing of every factor that might make a practitioner of that occupation notable — they all leave room for other considerations and new points that might not have been previously considered. So just going around saying this every time somebody invokes LAWYERS, without actually addressing any specific reason why the specific lawyer(s) in question might actually qualify for inclusion, isn't a productive contribution to the discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the arguments that you have advanced for deletion is that when I recently wrote the draft proposal WP:LAWYERS, it did not occur to me to include a criteria that consisted of holding the highest office within the gift of the practitioners of a country, state or province or holding the highest office in the governing body of the practitioners of a country, state or province, or something to that effect. Is there any reason, that you can think of, why such a criteria shouldn't be included in WP:LAWYERS? James500 (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Because "treasurer" is not "the highest office", (2) neither is it an office that inherently makes its holder a topic of any inherent interest to anybody not directly involved in that organization itself, (3) even if a person does pass one of our "automatically notable" subject-specific inclusion rules, our article about them still has to be based on at least some actual coverage in reliable sources — it reduces the amount of coverage you need to cite to start an article with to a lower volume than it takes to get over GNG, but does not completely exempt you from having to cite any reliable sources at all — but "treasurer of the Law Society" is not an office that necessarily guarantees in and of itself that any such coverage will actually exist. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sources call it "the highest office" in Ontario on both counts: "The Last Day, the Last Hour" (Toronto University)240; (1941) 11 Fortnightly Law Journal 129 [39]; (1927) 24 Delta Chi Quarterly 33 [40]; (1880) Dominion Annual Register and Review 199 [41]. James500 (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The treasurer is the leader of the entire organization now? Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that is what the sources mean by "highest office". The "senior officer" of one of the four Inns of Court in London is certainly called the Treasurer (Final Report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services, cmnd 7648, vol 1, para 32.3). This may be the origin of the terminology, since Canada is a former colony. The Inns were founded before the end of the fourteenth century, so it should not be suprising if they use a lot of archaic terminology such as applying the word "treasurer" to the head of the organization. James500 (talk) 03:24, 27 November 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 09:58, 23 November 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, Sam Walton (talk) 11:17, 1 December 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 Starlight Express#Characters. Wifione ^Message 16:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dinah the Dining Car[edit]

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

Minor Character from Starland Express. Ridernyc (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 16 November 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 06:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The show is actually called Starlight Express and Dinah is not a minor character. The worst case here is some sort of merger per WP:ATD but I'm content with the page as a reasonable spin-off for this long-running popular success. Andrew D. (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starlight_Express#Characters. The problem here is that I can't find any actual in-depth coverage about this specific character that would show that she's actually notable outside of the series. The musical is long running, but that doesn't automatically mean that the specific characters merit an article outside of the main entry. Typically characters usually have to have a LOT of coverage to really merit an article, akin to almost Harry Potter levels of coverage. Most of the time the most a character will get is a little more coverage in a list page for characters in a series. In any case, the problem here is that not only is the article written from a fan's perspective, but it could also be argued that because there are no sources on the page (and none out there that would really be usable), the entire article could be considered WP:OR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:19, 23 November 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, Sam Walton (talk) 11:14, 1 December 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 Starlight Express#Characters. Haven't deleted before redirecting; so if anyone wishes to recreate the character in the future with reliable source support, you have the material ready and waiting... Wifione ^Message 16:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Buffet Car[edit]

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

Minor Character from Starland Express. Someone seems to have made articles for literally every character in the musical. Ridernyc (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 16 November 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 06:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The show is actually called Starlight Express. The character is a recurring one and one of only four female characters. The worst case here is some sort of merger per WP:ATD and so deletion would be unhelpful. Andrew D. (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starlight_Express#Characters. Like my rationale in the AfD for Dinah, I just can't see where this character has received the coverage necessary to merit an article outside of the main page for the musical. A musical's popularity doesn't automatically mean that all of the characters merit their own pages- it can make it more likely, but it's not a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:21, 23 November 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, Sam Walton (talk) 11:10, 1 December 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 - original synthesis. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cilnidipine vs Amlodipine[edit]

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

Unsourced, perhaps WP:OR, lacks context (what are these drugs for?), lacks WP:NPOV. Bazj (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is pure WP:SYNTH, and is unneeded as both the drugs in question already have articles. Everymorning talk to me 13:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not relevant to anyone apart from hypertension specialists. Presented in incomprehensible fashion and without references. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced, and since when do we house articles that are simply comparisons of things? --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman of State Bank of India[edit]

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

The article imparts no information. The list of chairmen should be incorporated into State Bank of India (fully populated from Category:Chairmen of the State Bank of India rather than this incomplete list), and the article deleted. Bazj (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - rather speedy delete. Jethwarp (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No point in having a separate page for the chairman. Athachil (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --per nominator. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:27, 5 December 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 Mandwani. Consensus is against keeping, but a redirect has sufficient support. Michig (talk) 07:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Mandow Rind[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreated content fork of Mandwani The Banner talk 21:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, unnecessary content fork. Anotherclown (talk) 20:23, 21 November 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 05:25, 24 November 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 ⨹ 05:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I performed a few searches and couldn't find much in the way of coverage, so unfortunately I don't think there is WP:Significant coverage to warrant a stand alone. That said, my searches were limited to online, so it is possible that there are offline sources that haven't been uncovered. As such, I'm open to reconsidering my position if anyone else can find some suitable references, and happy to consider a redirect if a suitable target could be suggested. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mandwani, where this article was copy/paste forked from. The text here is the same as the appropriate part of there, so a merge would be redundant. That article is up for AfD as well, but a cursory check suggests the case is less clear there than for this one. Right now it is technically a G5 for being previously deleted, and a G12 for an un-attributed copy/past fork, so a redirect seems logical to me. Crow^Caw 00:26, 5 December 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. Wifione ^Message 16:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodoxy and the Charismatic Movement[edit]

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

Essay-like article on an extremely minor religious movement, no external sources documenting real-world impact and significance. Most of the article merely covers theological beliefs from a decidedly internal, POV perspective. Overall quite poorly written, both grammatically faulty and heavily tendentious, and very poorly sourced. Has been sitting around without noticeable improvement since being created by a single-purpose account four years ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:35, 18 November 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 05:14, 24 November 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 ⨹ 05:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something like the Charismatic movement in the Orthodox Church. The article is about the interface of the Chrismatic movement and the Orthodox church, largely in America. The article probably needs improvement, but it is about a signficant subject and we should keep it in some form. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and that's from an editor who prefers to rescue articles where it looks possible and worth doing. The topic is worth covering on a country or continent-by-continent basis, so this could be the start of a page on Charismatic influence on the Orthodox Church in the United States or ...in North America, but it is patently a very partial view in both senses of the word, sourced mainly from a single website/organisation namely stsymeon.org. If not deleted, it would be best to turn it into an article on the subject of that organisation alone, if there were any independent sources about it. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 02:33, 8 December 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. czar ⨹ 01:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Somerville[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:Creative and WP:NOT and also the references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. 2602:306:CE9A:860:9580:22D6:79F5:B55E (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete He's a successful local TV journalist who has won several local Emmys. But I also need to see coverage about him in independent reliable sources, and I'm not seeing it. The only such reference I could find in a search, and the only one cited in the article, was a San Francisco Chronicle piece which was significantly about him. We need more than one such piece for notability. I used that item to expand the article, which curiously did not detail his broadcast career; as nominated it was mostly about his family, and the references were mostly about a picture of him that went viral on the internet. Despite my expansion I still think he fails GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 27 November 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 ⨹ 05:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the SF Chronicle piece metnioend by MelanieN, I found a decent San Jose Mercury News piece on him, and also a LA Times article on an incident involving racist Asian names. I think he meets the GNG. --Cerebellum (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that the coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News are adequate to establish notability. He is a multiple award-winning TV journalist of longtime high visibility in a major media market, the San Francisco Bay Area, and is now one of the leading news anchors in that market. Personal disclosure - I watch his broadcasts several times a week. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Recent profile in the San Jose Mercury News puts it clearly over the top in meeting notability.ShulMaven (talk) 20:55, 1 December 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) 07:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sal Castaneda[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:Creative and WP:NOT and also the references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. 2602:306:CE9A:860:9580:22D6:79F5:B55E (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A couple of minor awards, and a mention in a San Francisco Chronicle column, do not add up to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to KTVU#Notable current on-air staff, where he is already mentioned. I couldn't find significant coverage of this person. (In other news, I was very confused until I realized SF can mean San Francisco, not science fiction ;)) --Cerebellum (talk) 05:04, 1 December 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 ⨹ 05:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local radio personalities receiving local coverage isn't sufficient to merit an encyclopedia article in my view. A redirect to KTVU would not be unreasonable. --Michig (talk) 07:17, 8 December 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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments czar ⨹ 08:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Foley[edit]

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

Not a notable actress. Article is only 2 sentences long. Creator removed PROD tag JDDJS (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notability is there -

bsckids.com/2014/09/clare-foley-talks-gotham-and-orange-is-the-new-black-exclusive-interview/
sknr.net/2014/09/24/75856/
fashionnstyle.com/articles/19892/20140519/orange-is-the-new-black-season-2-cast-member-clare-foley-talks-playing-young-piper-jodie-foster-s-advice-on-being-a-child-star-and-more.htm
digitalspy.co.uk/ustv/s243/gotham/news/a570843/fox-boss-on-batman-prequel-gotham-these-are-stories-never-told.html#~oXeDHbDgSthzDo
justjaredjr.com/2014/11/24/clare-foley-teases-poison-ivys-return-in-tonights-gotham-fall-finale-jjj-interview/
mashable.com/2014/05/16/orange-is-the-new-black-season-2-premiere/,

For some idiotic reason one or more of the links is blacklisted hence being listed like this ... Sorry, Anyway the cites aren't perfect but they're better than nothing, –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a link is blacklisted, there is a reason for it and therefore they cannot be used to prove notability. The mashable link doesn't work, and digitalspy just barely mentions her. The other links are about her, but they are not popular websites, so that does indicate significant coverage, and if they are blacklisted, they are not usable. Her role on Gotham is currently a minor one. The only reason why it is attracting any attention at all is because of who the character is. That role is not nearly enough to show notability. I find it very strange that the article did not previously mention her role on Orange Is the New Black. (I have since added it to the article.) I don't watch it, so I don't know how significant of a role she plays. However, it is enough to convince me allow that I won't object to this AFD being closed at Nomination Withdrawn as long as the notability tag reminds on the page and that there is no prejudice against a renomination in the future. I am still not convinced that she is notable, but I am convinced that she might be notable, and she might get more significant coverage as her role on Gotham expands. However, if in a couple months she does not receive any more significant coverage, I do intend on nominating it again. JDDJS (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Davros[edit]

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

A spin off product from the BBC's Dr Who series, in what form I'm not entirely sure (looks like it was sold as a CD). Scant evidence of notability other than a bunch of fansites, forums and blogs. Warrants a delete in my view.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problems, lacking significant reviews or coverage:

Sionk (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment these are all Big Finish audio dramas - essentially a radio play on CD. They are indeed a spin off product but are widely distributed and have a large listenership. Artw (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Artw (talk) 06:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I've added some reviews as references, that ought to help. Artw (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Granted the Sci-Fi Bulletin website seems to claim some form of editorial oversight. But that's hardly proof of wide distribution or large listenership! They need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: The Doctor Who Universe is an ever-expanding enterprise that will occasionally result in some associated pages not being up to an acceptable standard at any one point in time. As Big Finish Productions is "licensed to produce authorised Doctor Who audio plays" then I believe those audio plays inherit the inherent notability of the original production. Yes, the articles need more references but that is surely an editing problem rather than a notability one. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments are getting surreal, have you never come across WP:NOTINHERITED? And to have more reliable references, they firstly need to exist, which they don't in these instances. Sionk (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The current article lists four separate reviews taken from 1. Sci Fi Bulletin [42]; 2. British Fantasy Society; 3. Sci Fi Online [43]; and 4. SF Crowsnest, all reasonably reliable by the looks of them. I think this article therefore satisfies the criteria completely.

Yes, I admit the WP:NOTINHERITED aspect is one I'd overlooked, but surreal? "Having the disorienting, hallucinatory quality of a dream; unreal; fantastic"? No, just incorrect. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of American football players who died during their career[edit]

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

This topic fails WP:GNG. It's WP:LISTCRUFT because "the list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "the list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia." Tchaliburton (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 00:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does not violate policies given. An AFD discussion was created for List of sports people who died during their career and from what I've seen (without looking at the discussion) the consensus was create an article for each sport and multiple articles have been created as a result.
Keep: There are many more articles of this nature worthy of deletion than this. There's easily enough references. StewdioMACK (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List on a notable topic. Not sure how you'd describe it as being un-encyclopedic TBH. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have a real problem with how this list is defined, which effectively amounts to indiscriminate factoids. The majority of players listed as having "died during their career" actually died from causes completely unrelated to their career. That's a bit like having a list of calico cats who died in Florida; one characteristic has nothing to do with the other. Furthermore, a substantial number of the listed players are not notable. If we're going to keep this list, the criteria for inclusion should be tightened. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment This list isn't about the deaths being related to their sport. Rarely do athletes die directly from an injury suffered in a game. It's just a collection of players who were still active but met an untimely death. I will add a note addressing the issue to avoid confusion--Rockchalk717 06:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, RockChalk. Fair enough: then we should be discussing the multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss football players who died during their career -- as a class, not as individuals -- to demonstrate the notability of this list's presently defined subject. I don't think those sources exist that discuss such deaths as a class. More athletes on this list died from car accidents than died from game-related injuries -- and, yes, that's just random, indiscriminate trivia -- no more notable than Hollywood actors, American politicians, or military personnel who died during their carers. I would strongly support keeping a list of football-related deaths, but not a random list of football players who died in car accidents, from illegal drug use, and gun-related homicides. It's clear from several "keep" comments above and below that some discussion participants believe that this is a list of football-related deaths, not what it actually is. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this fits under WP:CSC #2, which does apply to dead people. Putting policy aside, the causes of death appear to have a lot to say about football players (perhaps related to concussions?). This list could actually be very useful to researchers. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contrary to the nom, I find this list to be very encyclopedic. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the assertion that the list is "indiscriminate" is incorrect. It is specifically discrimiate about football players who have died while active in their career. See WP:DISCRIMINATE essay for more details. As for the rest, I've often wondered about this myself. There may be a call to limit the list to those who died during a game, or died to injuries sustained during a game, or only professional athlets in the NFL--but that is an editing issue for the list article (should X, Y, and Z be on this list, or just X?) and not a deletion of the entire article issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated by others, this list isn't indiscriminate. The deaths of still-active professional athletes receive particular attention, see for example "Adams 11th active NFL player to die since 2000", (Yahoo! Sports, Dec. 17, 2009). --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:23, 2 December 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 Hannibal . SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conquests of Hannibal[edit]

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

I don't see the purpose of this misleadingly titled and redundant article. What's here that's not in Hannibal? I pledge eternal hatred for this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE. Nearly all of this is, in fact, a word-for-word copy of parts of Hannibal. Only fails A10 speedy deletion by its long history. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion seems to have gone missing in the day-by-day listings. I believe I have corrected the issue. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:24, 1 December 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 15:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hannibal, his conquests should be mentioned in his article. If anyone was bold enough, they'd put a G12 on the article. I'm not sure, but is copying straight from another wiki article allowed? Doesn't seem right to me. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After some serious excavation, it looks like the first edit of Conquests of Hannibal was a copy/paste job from the Hannibal article of 2007. There does not appear to be any attempt to split, so I'd treat it as a duplication or redundant content fork. As for whether the title makes for a good redirect, "conquests of Hannibal" refers to his whole life. I don't think it's a particularly helpful search term and if used in a phrase, linking just his name would be most appropriate. @Aerospeed, as for whether it's okay to copy straight, all WP contributions are licensed under cc-by-sa such that it's fine to reuse them in whatever as long as the author(s)—or at least source—are attributed (not done in @Arcyqwerty's 2007 edit) and that future revisions are published under the same license. So in WP's case, it's fine to merge information or split out summary style when a section gets too big, but the author/page should be attributed, and the old section should be reduced accordingly. In this case, the page is just fully redundant to Hannibal's bio. @Rcsprinter123, heads up that you accidentally relisted the page twice czar ⨹ 23:28, 1 December 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.