Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 February	16 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Wallace (cyclist)[edit]

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

This Shaun Wallace is referenced many times in Wikipedia,but often the links from his name take the reader to the Mastermind champion. THIS Shaun Wallace was very accomplished in his sport, earning Commonwealth games medals for England at the Games in 1982, 1994, and 1998 and was a successful professional during the 12 year gap between the first two Games listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbshaun (talk • contribs)
Keep. Being an Olympic athlete should be sufficient notability on its own.--Dmol (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was a one-liner about a cyclist at the time I nominated. Usually such articles don't survive the deletion process. I don't mind if this is closed early, though. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 04:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the time of nomination (2 minutes after creation) it was a sourced, one-sentence, stub, which asserted (though not shown in the source given) that he was an Olympic athlete. It now has a second source, though I'd like to see a source to support the Olympian status. There may also be some COI/autobiography. But give the article a chance: not appropriate to bring to AfD. PamD 14:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there reliable sources, then feel free to close as a keeper. The only source I could find that says he's olympic athlete is this at sports-reference.com. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 06:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just disambiguated links in 9 cycling articles which were pointing to lawyer/quizzer Shaun Wallace. Some lazy editors there, unless perhaps the redlinks were already there when his article was created! This SW is clearly notable, with or without the Olympics. PamD 15:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And fixed another link from Cycling at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's 1000m time trial, where he's shown as coming 16th. PamD 15:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason for deletion given. But this chap was an Olympic athlete and we keep all those. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 19 February 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 February 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:58, 19 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Hondru[edit]

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

I see no evidence expressed in reliable sources that indicate this individual may pass WP:PROF. I do see a single-purpose account spamming us with this article, as well as ro.wiki, where, by the way, the subject's biography up for deletion.

By way of context, let me add that Hyperion University, whence Hondru retired, is a private university. That by itself is a red flag, since private universities in Romania are awful, and any academic worth his salt will teach at a state university. Moreover, the quality control agency for Romanian universities recently released a report identifying failing departments. It assigned a failing grade to the following departments at Hyperion: Computer Science, Geography, Physics, Electrical and Telecommunications Engineering, Systems Engineering and Information Technology, Engineering and Management, Law, Communications, Sociology, Psychology, Philology, History, Theater. (Makes you wonder what wasn't failing!) Hondru was in the Philology faculty, so "former professor in a failing department at a failing diploma mill" isn't quite the most brilliant calling card one can have. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a CV with no assertion of notability and not a single source. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drenge (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND . No indpendent refs. No evidence of any chart success. Maybe too soon. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author has added multiple RS reviews since the nomination, easily passes WP:GNG. --JamesMoose (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable given a Google search on 'drenge album'. --Michig (talk) 07:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably time for a snow close now that there are multiple reviews added to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see no problems with WP:NOTABLE or any other related issues. References seem fine. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 01:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 18 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Sandino[edit]

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

Unconvinced that career to date classes the subject as notable enough for inclusion Flaming Ferrari (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Active in local politics in Yolo County, CA, but not actually elected to anything there. Appointed to his current job in 2007 by Schwarzenegger, and has not had significant coverage since. In fact, even his appointment to the post only made his hometown paper (and one other little one nearby), not even the Sacramento Bee covered the appointment. Note that I added these two to the article just now. It seems that he is not notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the chief counsel for a small department of a sub-national entity does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Thanks for trying, Alf; it appears the coverage just isn't there. --MelanieN (talk) 16:56, 22 February 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. The primary rationales for deletion were not meeting the general notability guideline due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources, the policy of verifiability, and claims of notability relying upon original research. The primary rationales for keep were based on verification of a single source and statement of personal opinion. Even taking the cited source into account, Wikipedia is neither a directory nor WP:MEMORIAL of people who, at one point in the past, just so happened to live a little longer than people before them (but did nothing else remarkable and weren't the subject of stuff saying they were/are remarkable), as the length of that list would be arbitrarily huge. slakr^\ talk / 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Wiggins (supercentenarian)[edit]

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. No references since July 2012. Anything that can be salvaged in available in other longevity articles. PROD declinedby User:Necrothesp because: "see Oldest people; most have articles; take to AfD". CommanderLinx (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he was the world's oldest man (albeit briefly), then this should be enough to keep the article, but I can't find anything to back that up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Lacks any citation. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. This article is OR with all statements synthesized presumably from one source (an uncited GRG list). The claim that most "Oldest people" have articles not only fails WP:OTHERSTUFF but is also misleading, barely half of the "Oldest men" have an article (and I suspect others are similar to this as the creator of this article has created many such articles). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I didn't deprod because "other stuff exists" but because prodding is only for uncontroversial deletions, as clearly specified in WP:PROD. This is something that is frequently overlooked (or ignored) by editors who prod articles. If there is any chance of the individual being notable, which is suggested by the fact that similar articles do exist, then an article should be taken to AfD rather than prodded. Personally, I'm completely neutral on whether this article is kept or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think the subject's status (world's oldest man) can possibly trump WP:GNG and, by extension, WP:V. Inability to produce sources means that both notability and verifiability are insufficient. GregorB (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - world's oldest man is good enough. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He had the status of world's oldest man for over a year. That's pretty notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you both provide reliable sources to support the article? Others above can't. At this point, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:V. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:27, 12 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was a citation in the article (or maybe it was in a previous or later article in the series of oldest persons, i am not sure how i found my way to it) to http://www.grg.org/Adams/B2.HTM which is a table of oldest persons, a work of the Gerontology Research Group, which has a wikipedia article, and which seems to be a generally accepted source on the world's oldest person. The table's line on James Wiggins indicates that two verifications for him are "United States (SSA)" (perhaps the Social Security Administration?) and a "Kestenbaum study" (perhaps an academic, published study, but I can't find it easily). A publications page at GRG lists a number of published tables listing supercentarians published in "Rejuvenation Research", a journal associated with the leader of the GRG. The GRG's assessments are or were apparently accepted for Guinness World Records, and by the New York Times in this 2007 article about an oldest person's death. I don't really know how anyone can determine who is the oldest person alive, for certain, but it does seem reasonable that this group apparently does keep track of very old persons and can say whether someone is the oldest known to them, documented sufficiently for them to accept. So I think the James Wiggins wikipedia article claim should be clarified to say he was the oldest person alive that was known and documented sufficiently for that group, which does seem to be an authority. Anyhow, it seems there is authoritative-type sourcing available, meeting the requirement of several editors commenting above. --do ncr am 15:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is so non-notable that the article does not even attempt to tell us anything about his life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The state of the article is not evidence for (or against) notability, nor is it a reason to delete; AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 23 February 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. Whether it is a TV series, DVD series, or something else entirely, the consensus (except for sockpuppets) seems to be that it isn't suitable as a standalone article in this format. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chikara Season 11[edit]

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

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

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

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

All in-universe summary of a professional wrestling tv pay-per-view/DVD show season. If this is notable in any way, then WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even a television series. It's a DVD series of events from 2002 to 2013, and four internet pay-per-views from 2011 to 2013. As far as I know, Chikara never made it to TV. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to TV, CHIKARA used to have a TV show that aired in Italy. - Turtlepump (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a detailed summary of everything that occurred during CHIKARA's Season 11. CHIKARA is an valid entry is this Wikipedia, and I've linked to it. Also, please advise how this irreparable? It has appropriate links and factual information that can be proven through those links. If you are going to make claims such as this, I feel that you should give more specific information as to what is wrong with the entry. In addition, while you may not be a wrestling fan, that does not make this article "useless". This history will an invaluable source for those researching CHIKARA and it's history, especially now that the company has recently returned. Also, if this is just all in-universe TV Season recap, then why haven't the Season recaps for The Simpsons and other TV shows been marked for deletion as well?--BabsChikara (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:INUNIVERSE: "in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become." Detailed summaries of fictional/theatrical events are not appropriate, and certainly not in an un-encyclopedic tone. Instead, if you want a separate article about this topic, you should adhere to WP:42, and establish its notability using reliable, third-party sources; then, a short summary may be in order.

The rest of your argument boils down to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is considered an invalid argument in AfD discussions. (To be sure, quite a few articles of this kind have been deleted before.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Again, if you claim that this is fiction and should be deleted on those grounds, then you should also label summaries of The Simpsons or other similar TV shows seasons for deletion as they are fictional. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a true rebuttal to my argument. Also, my claim to keeping the article on the site is not centered around that claim. The events in the Season Summary actually happened to these characters and the links prove it. While the seasons may tell a story, they are based on real, live events. I linked directly to the results page and to the actual event itself, where it can be viewed. CHIKARA is very detailed and this is a brief summary. Just because you may not be a wrestling or CHIKARA fan and therefore would have little use personally for article, that does not mean others wouldn't find it useful or that it does not not add to the CHIKARA entry in this Wikipedia, which makes it an valid and valuable entry. --BabsChikara (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on-topic. The non-deletion of other articles is only a valid argument when those articles have actually undergone AfD discussions, in which case they count as precedents.

As for the sources, there is exactly one non-affiliated source, which is simply not enough per WP:GNG. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, there are multiple independent sources here. - Turtlepump (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used have been established as valid and reliable, as per Wikipedia guidelines. Said sources have also been used and referenced on the other articles that summarize CHIKARA seasons, which, not counting this one, currently number seven in all and have not been objected to in this way. In fact, if you look at the original editor's talk page, they have received proper guidance in the establishment of valid and reliable sources from another editor versed in the subject regarding one of their other articles, and had satisfactorily corrected their use of inappropriate sources. If this is regarding the length of the article, I do believe that it could be pared down given time, but I would hate to lose the information contained within, as others would certainly find it useful and it would be a great resource for people trying to become acquainted with the subject material. RaveBlack (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is exactly one third-party source here, pwponderings.com. The rest are simply the DVDs of this season. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional third-party sources can and certainly will be added. They do exist. The article should have been marked as needing such and not marked for deletion. --BabsChikara (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to contain any encyclopedic content whatsoever. The argument that we have articles on Simpsons seasons is completely bogus. Take a look at something like this, The Simpsons (season 5), it bears no resemblance to the article in question. --Daniel(talk) 17:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, issues with style should be noted as such and not immediate calls for deletion. In addition, I was replying to the original argument that the article should be removed because it is fictional and I used the Simpson's seasons as an example for my rebuttal.--BabsChikara (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the style, it's the content. The key here is that the Simpsons article covers real world non fictional topics, while this does not. There doesn't appear to be anything salvageable here. It's all written as a fan summary rather than an encyclopedia article. --Daniel (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - I am in process of editing it and adding the third party sources. The Simpson does do that and I do feel that it belongs here no doubt, but that wasn't the original argument. CHIKARA also covers real world, non-fictional topics as well, along with linking it to other aspects of culture. It also belongs here. I have no issues with the criticism for style and sources. Those can and are being corrected; however, the article should have been marked as such and not for deletion.--BabsChikara (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note: The page has been edited and the third party sources added. Thank you. --BabsChikara (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television-related discussions? Nope, more like DVD-related discussions. Since when has Chikara been on TV? From 2002, it has been you watch live or buy the DVD. From 2011 to 2013, there were four internet pay-per-views released. Since when has CHIKARA made it to TV? starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all the smartmarkvideo DVD references. They only show that "the DVD exists" and what matches occurred. There's no match reports which means we don't even know what happened in the match or even who won the match. There's no point to those sources. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was a series of live events and it is available for live streaming through Neon Alley, which is an online anime streaming service that is not run by the company. Being on TV is not necessarily a requirement for notability or measure of importance. --BabsChikara (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's just that I had erroneously assumed this was a TV series. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, being on "free" TV is a measure of importance, because it reaches a far wider audience than having to purchase each DVD and internet pay-per-view. This week's TV episode of WWE Raw is an example. It was watched live by 4.849 million viewers in the United States alone. WWE's pay-per-views like Survivor Series (2013) receive only 179,000 buys. WWE's most popular PPV, WrestleMania 29, did not even receive 1.1 million buys. Things that reach a wider audience are more important and notable, because in turn they will receive more coverage. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 13:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's the actual number of viewers as established by an independent source that establishes notability, not the medium itself. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Under the Hood, Chikara's third ever iPPV held in December 2012, was watched live by 525 fans. Meanwhile it drew 1025 iPPV buys. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might I say I'm discussing with BabsChikara as to how to improve her edits in Wikipedia. It remains to be seen if this article can be saved. The article currently does have WP:PW endorsed reliable sources for event reports - Pro Wrestling Torch and PWInsider. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecreamed (talk • contribs) 21:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft. I actually really like Chikara, but these articles (this and the other season articles, which should also be nominated) just aren't going to work on Wikipedia. EVEN if they were completely rewritten, Chikara events, outside of their iPPVs, are just not notable. They get virtually no coverage from any major wrestling sites considered reliable by the WikiProject, which is why you have to go to bottom of the barrel sites like Cagesideseats and PWPonderings for results. And if a site like PWTorch posts results, they usually just post the results of the matches and don't touch the stoylines, which is basically what these articles are all about.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Lafayette Journal and Courier, the Philadelphia City Paper, The Reading Eagle, The Village Voice, and CBS Local are considered reliable sources. They are present in the article. Folgertat (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Non-trivial Newspaper sources such as the Lafayette Journal and Courier, the Philadelphia City Paper, The Reading Eagle, The Village Voice, the Chicago Sun Times, and others and news sources such as CBS Local that were added since the beginning of this afd make this article worthy of a clear keep. All of these sources meet the requirements for reputable sources. A subject does not get covered in the Chicago Sun-Times, CBS, and many other sources if it has not established notability in the mainstream world. The argument that was presented by Ribbon Salminen disregards the fact that there are almost 10 mainstream newspaper sources that covered this subject. The quality of the writing in the article can be changed and is therefore not a valid argument for deletion or keep, as is the basis of the argument that was presented by Daniel before these newspaper sources were added. The presence or lack of presence of verifiable sources can not be changed and is a valid argument for deletion or keep. The sources either are there or are not there, and in this case, many mainstream sources are there. There are almost 10 newspaper sources with non-trivial coverage, which is more than enough to satisfy the notability requirements. It is worth noting that some of these sources even pertain to some of the less significant events of the season, such as The Reading Eagle covering Benefit for Baseballtown Charities. That event was not as significant as, for instance, King of Trios, and it is one thing for the more significant events of the season, such as King of Trios, to receive newspaper coverage. When even the less significant events obtain newspaper coverage, you know that the subject meets notability requirements. The administrator who handles this discussion should also keep in mind that the first delete vote came before the newspaper sources were added and the notability of this subject was clearly established. Folgertat (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this user is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry per the findings of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FolgertatLM2000 (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coverage from the Village Voice and CBS Local are just announcements, not the kind of significant coverage that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT#Routine coverage require. They can't even be used as sources for the occurrence of an event, since they were published prior to it. The Reading Eagle and Chicago Sun-Times articles look more like proper coverage. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chikara absolutely is notable as is the King of Trios tournament and their iPPVs. They get coverage from all major sites in the business. But these articles about Chikara seasons are not. I would argue against season articles of Ring of Honor Wrestling and that's a national television program. Chikara is not. It's a series of live events held in school gyms.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I basically rewrote most of the article to improve the article's writing and I added new sources to Portland, Maine's Press Herald, Portland, Maine's The Phoenix, the Philadelphia Mausoleum of Contemporary Art, two Geekadelphia articles, and two Philebrity articles. There should now be plenty of sources.

The main objection to this article and reason for deletion was that is was not note-worthy and it has been proven through the required third-party citations that it is. In addition, it adds additional context and content to an already existing entry, furthering an understanding of the subject matter already deemed worthy of the Wikipedia. The editors of this article have, at every suggestion, met the criteria and suggestions set forth here and on talk pages to show the worthiness of this subject. I am asking that the deletion tag be removed and the article be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.--BabsChikara (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little premature to close this AfD yet. The article still needs some work. All links, for example to Geekadelphia and Strathroy Age Dispatch, should be converted to references. All references should clearly state the publisher. This will help, not hurt, the article's chances of surviving. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the references are in this article and that they document that this topic is important enough to have an article about it is what is important. - Turtlepump (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to debate that it needs work and your suggestions will be included in an upcoming edit. However, I think it's been proven that this entry is noteworthy enough for Wikipedia through the use of valid third party sources and the deletion tag should be removed and replaced with the appropriate editing tags.--BabsChikara (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the sources only go to show that Chikara as a promotion is notable. But again, this is not about deleting the main Chikara (professional wrestling) article. I think the Chikara superfans taking part in this discussion have a difficulty making this distinction. This article is the definition of WP:FANCRUFT and just an indiscriminate collection of information, something Wikipedia specifically claims it is not. Taking only the important parts of ALL seasons and putting them together into a bit at Chikara (professional wrestling)#History is something that should be considered.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, please assume good faith and do not assume that "Chikara superfans" are not making a distinction accurately, as nobody has addressed you as a "Chikara anti-fan." Secondly, the assertion that people are misinterpreting this deletion proposal as relating to the deletion of the main CHIKARA article is not accurate, and the distinction is indeed being properly made. Even though BabsChikara accurately responded to your point, that point can also be responded to by the fact that the sources that are used in this article are used only to reference 2012 (season 11) events. For instance, the Press Herald news publication specifically mentions Green Ant as a focal point of CHIKARA, and that is why that news publication is used only as a reference for that. As a second example, the Strathroy Age Dispatch specifically speaks of the Young Lions Cup, and therefore it is only used as a reference for that. These references provide evidence for the importance of CHIKARA in 2012 as opposed to just its general importance, which has already been established. Thirdly, WP:FANCRUFT states that "articles labeled as fancruft" tend to be "unreferenced," and that is clearly not the case with this article. The assertion that this article "is the definition of" or even qualifies as fancruft is not accurate, and even if it is fancruft, which it is not, Wikipedia states that "If you come across fancruft, a kind approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved." As BabsChikara has stated, this article has been improved and it meets the Wikipedia standards for inclusion for an article. Fourthly, this article simply is not a indiscriminate collection or list of information and it does not resemble the examples that WP:DISCRIMINATE presents. - Turtlepump (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not about the notablity of CHIKARA, but rather Season 11. The sources provided discuss the actual events of the Season, not just CHIKARA in general. If Season 11's events weren't notable, then would not receive any type of media reception at all. The media sources are all third party as required by Wikipedia. I feel that the subject does fulfill requirements as noted here. The information contained is not indiscriminate, but rather chosen because it references events that have an impact on other Seasons and events. The decision to divide them into individual Seasons was to allow for shorter entries that would be easier to follow and use for Wikipedia readers. Wikipedia is meant to be comprehensive as per the noted page and this information enhances Wikipedia's readers' knowledge of this subject. It adds to readers understanding of the subject. New arguments for this entry's deletion are not being made at this point and the sources and edits more than sufficiently addressed all the current arguments for deletion. Honestly, I would say this if we were discussing a similar article about another wrestling company. --BabsChikara (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This topic was written about in many news publications that are located in not one, but at least eight, different markets (Philadelphia, PA, Lehigh Valley, PA, Berks County, PA, Portland, ME, Strathroy, Ontario, Canada, New York, Chicago, IL, and Lafayette, IN). Most wrestling federations are not even written about in news publications in their home region, and one criterion that Wikipedia uses to establish that a topic deserves an article is that the topic has received regional press. As WP:CORP states, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." This topic has received more than regional press, in that the news publications in this article are based in at least eight separate markets, including two countries (Canada and the United States). The news publications in this article are considered by Wikipedia to be "independent sources" and "reputable media sources" that are "independent of the topic," and they are writing about the topic "without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter," as WP:N states. These news publications have "no vested interest in" this topic, as WP:IS states. These facts show that this topic deserves to have an article about it. - Turtlepump (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Turtlepump (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Folgertat (talk · contribs) and has been indefinitely blocked.

Delete I agree with Ribbon that the reliable sources cover notability towards CHIKARA, not necessarily Season 11 in particular. That isn't to say that some of this stuff isn't noteworthy, but the more noteworthy material should be merged to the Chikara (professional wrestling) article. What we have here is an indiscriminate collection of stuff that this company did in one year. That sounds crufty to me.LM2000 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your first argument is that these sources only reference the general notability of CHIKARA. This argument has already been addressed and has already been debunked by both the editor who made this article and by myself. The sources that are used in this article are used only to reference 2012 (season 11) events. For instance, the Press Herald news publication specifically mentions Green Ant as a focal point of CHIKARA, and that is why that news publication is used only as a reference for that. As a second example, the Strathroy Age Dispatch specifically speaks of the Young Lions Cup, and therefore it is only used as a reference for that. These references provide evidence for the importance of CHIKARA in 2012 as opposed to just its general importance, which has already been established. Additionally, most or all of these sources don't even make reference to past seasons that were before season 11. They specifically make reference to season 11.

Your second argument is that the article is an indiscriminate list of information, as explained at WP:DISCRIMINATE. This argument has also already been addressed and been debunked. This article simply is not a indiscriminate collection or list of information and it does not resemble the examples that WP:DISCRIMINATE presents. - Turtlepump (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The sources that are used in this article are used only to reference 2012 (season 11) events" Again, that's sort of the problem. This article is simply a list of results in an in-universe perspective, which fails guidelines. Notability for the "season" clearly hasn't been established because only PWTorch calls it a "season". Beyond that, one news outlet covering one event that happened sometime in one year doesn't grant sufficient coverage for one year of a wrestling company to get an article. Using The Press Herald article as an example of significant coverage is baffling and an example of sad puffery from you folks. The Green Ant mention is nothing more than a caption! The article is to hype the "Great Escape" event, but goes further and details the Chikara company as a whole. This article could be used to argue notability for Chikara, and the "Great Escape", but just because it happened in the year in question doesn't mean it goes towards that notability.LM2000 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, please assume good faith and watch your tone. Do not accuse anyone of "sad puffery." Secondly, as already stated, the title of the article doesn't matter. What matters is the subject of the article, which is the history of CHIKARA in 2012, and the importance of that topic has been more than established. The person that created this article already addressed your point that the news publications don't show that the topic deserves an article by saying that they wouldn't have talked about the topic if the year wasn't important enough to have an article. She wrote, "If Season 11's events weren't notable, then would not receive any type of media reception at all." It doesn't matter if it is a caption because it is a part of the article. The fact is that it specifically mentions that particular wrestler. - Turtlepump (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Familiarize yourself with WP:SYN. None of the sources specifically focus on this topic in depth. Not one. They cover individual events, or they cover the company in general. Throwing a bunch of sources into a pile and stretching them to fit your agenda is against policy. Furthermore, tossing an endless list of sources into an article, whether they fit there or not, especially when trying to save the article from deletion is the very definition of puffery. If you and the rest of the suspected socks continue to respond to us, then please indent your responses correctly. It's making this discussion very difficult to read.LM2000 (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: It has two reliable sources, the company and PWTorch. It uses Youtube which idk who published the videos. PWinsider has always been considered a dirtsheet over the years through various discussions by now retired editors. Any information can be merged with the main articles and bios. Not notable for this company. To explain further though, this series is not notable enough for its own article. The company is notable on its own, but a season of events is just plain listcruft pretty much.--WillC 12:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are very mistaken. Please review this article before commenting and please also root your argument in Wikipedia policy rather than in opinion. This article has more than 10 reliable sources, including news publications, which is 10 more news publications than most pro wrestling articles cite. Those articles that cite no news publications have established that they deserve an article and this article has cited more than 10 news publications and it has also established that it more than deserves an article. As has been stated and has not yet been addressed, this topic was written about in many news publications that are located in not one, but at least eight, different markets (Philadelphia, PA, Lehigh Valley, PA, Berks County, PA, Portland, ME, Strathroy, Ontario, Canada, New York, Chicago, IL, and Lafayette, IN). Most wrestling federations are not even written about in news publications in their home region, and one criterion that Wikipedia uses to establish that a topic deserves an article is that the topic has received regional press. As WP:CORP states, "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." This topic has received more than regional press, in that the news publications in this article are based in at least eight separate markets, including two countries (Canada and the United States). The news publications in this article are considered by Wikipedia to be "independent sources" and "reputable media sources" that are "independent of the topic," and they are writing about the topic "without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter," as WP:N states. These news publications have "no vested interest in" this topic, as WP:IS states. These facts show that this topic deserves to have an article about it. - Turtlepump (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - Please advise exactly how this is listcruft? It's not a list. --BabsChikara (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't have to be a list to be listcruft. It is a list of results that is pretty much it, in a in universe perspective. It fails numerous guidelines as is and does not establish notability for this series. It establishes notability for the company, not the season.--WillC 03:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is not accurate. The results were mostly removed. The point that the article only establishes notability for CHIKARA in general has already been addressed. As starship.paint stated, addressing why the sources do not refer to "Season 11" would assist in establishing notability for the season itself, and that has been done. That notability has been established already. It passes numerous guidelines. It establishes notability for the season. Your argument should be rooted in Wikipedia policies rather than in opinion. - Turtlepump (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Wait a minute - it just occurred to me... notability for the company, not the season... if this is not a television show, then why would it have seasons? Anyway, there are apparently so many reliable sources in the article right? How many mention the term "Chikara Season 11"? Or just "Season 11"? Would the editors who have added the sources reply on this, as you are more familiar with them. This will help to establish notability for the season itself. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if the title of this article should have something to do with the history of CHIKARA in 2012 as opposed to Season 11, the fact is that the importance of this topic has been established. - Turtlepump (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This article has more than enough reliable references that are independent of CHIKARA Season 11 and that discuss it in a significant manner. and it has verifiable material. That is what it needs in order to warrant its own article and it has them.Whitescorp34 (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Whitescorp34 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Folgertat (talk · contribs) and has been indefinitely blocked.

Comment A number of editors who voted keep in this AfD are involved in a sockpuppet investigation.LM2000 (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

facepalm... sigh... starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I generally don't get involved in these types of discussions at all. RaveBlack (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, you have never gotten involved in a discussion before this.LM2000 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'd have known that there would be some kind of witch hunt involved, I would've stayed away from this one too. I believed the article had merit, therefore I commented. I have given my reasons why I am not a frequent Wikipedia contributor elsewhere. RaveBlack (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a witch hunt. I haven't voted yet, and I find it suspicious. Let's wait for the results. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the results are in. Fortunately RaveBlack was innocent all along. The others were indeed sockpuppets though.LM2000 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 21:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, imo the entire article needs Blowing up and redoing, I'm also clueless as to why User:MrScorch6200 has relisted a debate in which consensus is to delete? .... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I'm sorry, I'm still extremely new. I've read the Blow it up and start over page and it's not exactly clear. Could you explain to me why and how it applies to this entry? Thanks!--BabsChikara (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance the votes look even. Most of the keep votes are still extant because the sockpuppet case involving those voters is still ongoing. I'm sure this is why MrScorch6200 relisted.LM2000 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the article is relatively new, and BabsChikara might have needed some tips on editing TV articles, this and the others listed here should be merged into a more succinct List article. — Wylie pedia 16:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll endorse Wyliepedia's opinion. I'd prefer for all the seasons to be merged into perhaps a "History of Chikara" article, with the subsections being each year. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - yes, there are sources out there, which are included in the article. But even so, does Chikara need to have an individual article on each season (each yerar?) It is really debatable whether the availability of sources point towards the notability of Chikara itself or does it point notability to Chikara Season 11? If it's the latter, then how many of those non-primary sources even mention "Chikara Season 11"? I believe this article and the rest of the season articles (Chikara Season One etc) should be blown up. Then, we can start over by having a new article called "History of Chikara", which would be a condensed version of all the season articles. The new article can exist due to the notability of Chikara itself. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:12, 23 February 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 / 08:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shep Houghton[edit]

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

I'd like to nominate Shep Houghton for two reasons. First, there's little evidence of him being alive at the age of 99. Secondly, there are literally no sources that indicate that he was notable in any way. Looking at his IMDb page, I see that he was uncredited in almost every film/television show listed there. Also, the source that was used as basis for the Wikipedia page doesn't work anymore. Comments? OscarLake (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Sole source (IMDB) is not considered a reliable source for biographical information, without any other source would fail WP:BIO and WP:V. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: oldest surviving actor from Gone With the Wind, and one of the few remaining silent film actors (albeit as a child actor). IMDb is not reliable in some ways for biodata, but the filmography is reliable. Houghton also has this reflink, albeit with the apparent wrong age. Also, "First, there's little evidence of him being alive at the age of 99", is not a ground for deletion in and of itself; that can be verified with SAG/AFTRA. Quis separabit? 17:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I retract my first argument about him being alive or not. But the rest remains, which is that he was non-notable throughout his career. Even if the IMDb filmography is accurate, he was almost never credited in any of them. He was mostly used as a background dancer, soldier, etc. Should we keep him just because he's one of the last surviving silent film actors and Gone With the Wind? If so, then longevity is his only claim to fame. Think about it this way, if he had died in 1995, would anyone have heard of him? Also, the link you showed is a Wordpress blog that I can't take seriously. Just look at what the guy wrote about Baby Peggy. Lol. OscarLake (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Baby Peggy thing is vandalism, obviously. Look, I won't lose any sleep over the article being deleted; I just don't see the need for it. My vote stands. But I understand your point about non-notability; I am the one who AFDed Clarice Sherry, for the same reason, although the cases are not identical and there was some apocrypha there and a fairly tiny filmography, unlike Houghton, whose career spans from 1927 to 1975. Quis separabit? 19:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR states that to be notable the person should meet one of the following:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Clearly he fails 2 and 3, and there is no evidence that he had "significant roles" in any films (being largely uncredited) thereby failing 1 as well. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:22, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but sometimes you just gotta go with IAR. Quis separabit? 22:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Again, if he makes it to 4 June he will be a centenarian (actor by profession), and one of the few remaining living people connected to both silent films and Gone With the Wind, which I think just narrowly qualifies him. Again, I didn't create the article nor will I lose sleep if it's deleted, but... Quis separabit? 15:12, 10 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He appeared in both Gone with the Wind and the Wizard of Oz and there seem to be enough book sources which confirm these facts. Andrew (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing about the claims (even whether he's still alive) can be sourced. I'm assuming Andrew is referring to this mention in Victor Fleming: An American Movie Master in reference to The Wizard of Oz; that doesn't state he was in the picture (IMDb doesn't list it as one of his "uncredits"), only that he had encounters with the Munchkins at the studio. Those couple of sentences and IMDb's 99% uncredited roles are all we've got. Not even close to enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend: "IMDb doesn't list it as one of his "uncredits"? Yes it does (i.e. Gone with the Wind (1939), "Southern Dandy (uncredited)") Quis separabit? 03:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there Southern Munchkins now? I thought they all got blown away by the severe flow of gasses. Oz-some. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." The subject seems to have been like a top session musician and has been so prolific as an extra and bit-part player that they appear in this list of The Most Powerful People In Hollywood. Andrew (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, I think that says more about the authors' competence than it does about Shep's notability. One of the most powerful in Hollywood? Haha...First they acknowledge that he was uncredited in most of his roles, but then they deem his contributions as "essential"? It doesn't make sense. OscarLake (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well they have to put somebody in at 99. Beggars can't be choosers. (At least we know he's still upright.) Sic 'em, Eli! Clarityfiend (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uncredited or " extra" roles do not confer notability per WP:NACTOR. None of his film roles was minimally significant. No chance this individual passes GNG. Cavarrone 10:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While he was in multiple notable films, he did not have a significant role in any film, he is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 21 February 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. The book source Stuartyeates does address the GNG concern cited by the delete side. I am also dismissing the argument of Johnpacklambert as it is irrelevant to the notability of this subject and instead makes an unfounded accusation of the article dehumanizing people. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Lovell[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Article and given source give no clue about her notability. The Banner talk 12:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on my part, but I can't understand how a generic colonist is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Besides which, I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources, though I'll grant that I probably missed a few potential hits by aggressively screening out false positives. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm undecided on this one. She does have an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. An entry in a national dictionary of biography would usually confer automatic notability, but there doesn't seem to be much reason why she is, except as an early settler in a particular area. My instincts are to trust the editors and call for a keep though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. As per this discussion some entries in the DNZB were included as representative of groups of people (e.g. "colonists") not for any individual notability. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the link, she's in the current version, she's not one of the many people listed in the 1940 work are not included in the current DNZB. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could we please hold on for 72 hours? I have access to a library with a hardcopy of the work that the DNZB cites as it's source, so I can see what the depth of coverage is. I have asked for it to be bought out from closed stack. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC) See below. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she and her family were the first European settlers in Golden Bay. The families relationship to local Maori is also significant as the period was punctuated with conflict between the settlers and Maori. It is this that gives her notability. I have added some additional information and references to the article. NealeFamily (talk) 02:41, 11 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 20:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per DerbyCountyinNZ, appears to be rep entry rather than notable herself - SimonLyall (talk) 09:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simon does being the first settler in Golden Bay make it a rep entry? NealeFamily (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rep entry or not, it still does not make her notable. The Banner talk 02:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree as her coverage does make her notable in the context of historical New Zealand european settlement history. Newspaper coverage from the time also indicates a biais towards the so called upper class, but that is a whole different topic in itsself NealeFamily (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And how notable is she from the viewpoint of the non-European inhabitants of the area? The Banner talk 15:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One would need to ask the locals - from my reading of the history she would have had mixed reviews. European settlement was a pandora's box - some benefits, but a lot of negatives as well NealeFamily (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've had a look at the book Millar, J. H. Beyond the marble mountain. Nelson, [1949] and it contains in-depth coverage of Ann. The book is a reworking of a series of 23 stories originally published in the Nelson Mail, which amounts to a serialised biography of her husband. Most of the pieces have Ann acting as an independent actor and her actions are covered in-depth. The forward talks about 'scores of interviews' and the body is full of exact dates and amounts of payments (they were primarily traders) which suggest access to archival sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I;m the original article creator and that the Nelson Mail of tthe appropiate vintage has not yet been digitised by PapersPast. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article perpetuates a Western-centric focus on the expansion of European settlement in a way that marginzalizes and at times dehumanizes the native peoples of New Zealand and other places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...what now, exactly? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you under-estimate the ability of the local Maori - they were capable, enterprising, and adaptable. The Chief of the neighbouring pa had Lovell build a boat and used it to export coal to neighbouring European settlements. Certainly there were issues with european settlement. The relationship between the Lovell's and the local Maori does lack detail at the moment, but that is all there is in the reliable sources I have seen to date. At present there appears to be nothing but mutual respect for each another. I acknowledge there is always a danger of being patronising and having a race-centric bias when dealing across the racial divides, so I am sure you'll keep us honest. NealeFamily (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this person is the subject of multiple, substantial, and independent works (including entries in the DNZB and coverage in Millar's work as described by User:Stuartyeates. Passes WP:GNG easily. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 25 February 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 -- It is not clear whether this is a separate sect; there do seem to be some acceptable sources. At least, that's the best I can make of the discussion. (Were it not for the delete opinions from Lankviel and Mezzo Mezzo, two respected editors who clearly have no personal conflict of interest, I would have closed as keep on the basis of my dissatisfied with the motivation for the nomination, which seems to be based on a religious disagreement with the group) DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qutbi Bohra[edit]

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

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

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

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

Reason Ftutocdg (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hate Page
- No official statement of the existence of such a sect
- false allegations
- defamatory article
- Imagination of the author
- No neutrality
- No link between Khuzaima Qutbuddin and the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra
- Incorrect information. Succession dispute but no official group called Qutbi is in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.217.114.115 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This group has no official existense, Its only a mischief of few people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.184.19.140 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding shia succession

The Intricacies of Succession: Two Claimants Emerge for Dawoodi Bohra Leadership

Official Khuzaima Qutbuddin web site

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep or possibly Merge Despite Ftutocdg's claims to the contrary, everything I've read seems to suggest that this is the same group as that described in Progressive Dawoodi Bohra‎. Certainly there seems to be enough information in reliable sources to verify the group's existence, although both of the current articles are in a pretty poor state. The "official" status of the group is irrelevant; what counts is whether they have been written about in appropriate sources. It might also be possible to merge the information from both existing pages into a new article titled Dawoodi Bohra‎ succession controversy or something similar. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The description seems to correspond to the PDB group. The author has done an amalgam between supporters of Khuzaima Qutbuddin (so-called Qutbi Bohra) and PDB in a defamatory purpose. The comunity Bohra is headed by a "Dai". Since the death of the 52nd Dai (Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin), there is a conflict between Mufaddal Saifuddin and Khuzaima Qutbuddin for the office of 53rd Dai. Khuzaima Qutbuddin was the second-in-command of the 52nd Dai. And all the supposed link between him and the PDB group seems to be fake. The article may be written to tarnish his image? Please read the link I posted above (especially Qutbuddin's web site where there is no mention of the PDB group). Thank you. Ftutocdg (talk) 08:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 13:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify your position. Do you read the link I've posted above? The article about this so-called Qutbi Bohra is completely non sense. --Ftutocdg (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Ftutocdg (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

reasons are posted above.

Support deletion. There seems to be no proof of connection between PDB and Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Due to dispute in succession between Mufaddal Saifuddin & Khuzaima Qutbuddin, majority group (Saifuddin) is attempting to defame the other (Qutbuddin) via the means of linking it to a 3rd group (PDB) but there is no references for this. PDB has had different ideologies for years and there is no verifiable sources showing any communication or collaboration between PDB and Qutbiddin.mustafazr (talk) 18:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support deletion too. Qutbi Bohras dont exist officially.90.84.144.8 (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Upon looking at the sources, it seems they are much less than presented because many of them are cited multiple times but without the proper WP:REFNAME tag. Then, looking past that, it is clear that the all but a few of them are unreliable. Wikipedia itself is cited in there, as well as other online community encyclopedias. The official website of a Dawudi Bohra community as well as several Muslim-themed discussion forums also don't make the cut. What we're left with is a few sources from legitimate news organizations about succession in the Dawudi Bohra community; those individual sources can easliy be moved to the relevant article. The rest of what's here is a combination of OR and POV pushing. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:18, 12 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished an extensive clean up of the article's Talk page. It was a mess of unsigned edits made inside existing comments and I couldn't tell who had written what, or when. Meters (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clean up. But again, I repeat myself :

1) There is NO link between PDB and Khuzaima Qutbuddin.

2) This so-called "Qutbi bohra" sect don't exist.

3) There is a dispute on Syedna Muhammad Burhanuddin succession between his son Mufaddal Saifuddin and his half-brother Khuzaima Qutbuddin for the leardership of the orthodox DAWOODI BOHRA, no mention of Qutbi Bohra on Khuzaima Qutbuddin web site ( http://www.fatemidawat.com).

The article is completely non sense : khuzaima Qutbuddin was second-in-command of the late Syedna Muhammad Burhanuddin and PDB has split themselves from orthodox Dawoodi Bohra since 1980. The article was originaly written by user Araz5120 to probably tarnish Khuzaima Qutbuddin image with many false alegation and amalgam. The whole article is biaised and mainly based on rumors/gossip from a public forum ( http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/ ) . According to Wikipedia standard, such reference can't be used to write an article. I maintain my request for deletion. Thank you Ftutocdg (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate that Qutbi Bohra is a sect formed by Khuzaima Qutbuddin and i have provided the references for the same and mentioned about them in detail on talk. All arguments regarding non exsistance and repeated vandalisaton of the article suggests that efforts are being put in to hide it. Otherwise why would anyone even try to vandalise an article so many times risking being blocked. I would request that this article be looked at in an informative point of view and not make it a war zone of any person's perspective. Nobody can change what has been done in the past. Closing one's eyes to the truth or claiming falsely that an event that has taken place in the past has not taken place for whatever reasons, maybe for some personal gain, will not change the past. Just as Qutbi Bohra was mentioned in the newspapers and prominent websites and newsletter, every action or act done leaves some or the other kind of marks behind. Claiming ignorance to all these evidence and only mentioning discussion forums is like closing one's eyes to the facts, to the truth. Furthermore claiming Qutbi Bohra to be related to succession issue is another story made up to cover facts. Qutbi Bohra was born well before the succession issue even started as can be seen from newspsper references. And Qutbi Bohra's exsistance has remained since then can be seen from its reference in the current newspaper articles. Again the false claim that Progressive Dawoodi Bohra is not connected to Qutbi Bohra can be clearly seen by the support given by the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra members or its factions to Khuzaima Qutbuddin in various current articles of succession issue. Why would members of the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect support a person who is claiming to be the successor of Dawoodi Bohra sect, from which Progressive Dawoodi Bohra had seperated from in 1977? All these point to an effort to hide the truth and this article has become a place to show it. By vandalising it, nominating it for deletion, making false claims against it, putting up a link on the same discussion forum, whose link is given by Ftutocdg above under 'relist', to support this article for deletion and what not must have been done. I don't know the intracities of Wikipedia, yet, as i am very new here. I like to write articles on various topics. I love it here in Wikipedia. I have updated some articles to the best of my knowledge about them. Coming back to Qutbi Bohra article i would request the editors, administrators to guide me as to how to save this article. Thank you. (By mistake i have placed the article above the discussion, can someone please rectify the same. Thank you.) Araz5152 (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you write here and all your argumentation is based on rumor. "Qutbi Bohra" name arose in one newspaper (Times of India) when the nass ( successor appointment ) issue become openly discussed in public forum. So I don't know when and where you have imagined all this fiction about members of PDB and Khuzaima Qutbuddin ( the mazoon ie second highest spiritual rank in Dawoodi bohra hierarchy, which there is NO mention in your article ) leading a new sect... So, request deletion because NO RELIABLE SOURCE and purely fictional article. That's why I've done many deletion in your article, it was not vandalism, just a basic respect of Wikipedia standards. Ftutocdg (talk) 11:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are claiming all this to be a rumor dispite all the references mentioned in the article. And the article you have mentioned in the Times of India newspaper, i have not put it as reference. That would be another evidence for this article. I will look it up and give reference to the same in the article, Thank you. Your claim that Qutbi Bohra sect was mentioned for the first time after the seccession issue is not true as it has been mentioned clearly in The Hindustan Times in March 2013, when there was no succession issue. Furthermore if in the succession issue when Khuzaima Qutbuddin is claiming to be successor of Dawoodi Bohra sect why did he mention about Qutbi Bohra, unless he wanted to promote it. Furthermore the reference to Khuzaima Qutbuddin's position is mentioned twice in the article. If you read carefully you will see it is mentioned under Qutbi Bohra schisms... and under Inter Bohra Schisms. I have not mentioned the post as he had been removed from the post when this article was written. Again if you see carefully in the whole article i have referred to Khuzaima Qutbuddin as 'the then Syedi', 'Syedi, was the word which was used before his name when he was on that post and when he had founded the Qutbi Bohra sect. Finally your claim that you were vandalising the article for the sake of Wikipedia; but Wikipedia says that if you have a issue write about it on talk page, discuss about it not vandalise the article. Again you are trying to impose your point of view on somebody else, in this case, Wikipedia. Just as you have been doing for this article all along. Just because you think, you have been vandalising this article and now you are putting the blame on Wikipedia; just because you think, you are claiming this article to be rumor dispite evidence to the contrary; just because you think, you have been continuously supporting Khuzaima Qutbuddin and claiming that the article is baised; just because you think what is mentioned in the article is against what you may believe, you have been doing everything possible to get this article deleted. You have done all this and so much more, which i dont know, with regard to the article. Now i request you to just stop and look at this article from an informative point of view, without any bais, without any feelings, without any perspective or point of view. What do you see? An informative article that gives one a clear picture of an incident in the history of mankind that had been hidden but was brought out by the very people who wanted to hide it. Araz5152 (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between Progressive Dawoodi Bohra (PDB) and Khuzaima Qutbuddin is specified in the earlier discussion mentioned above. Araz5152 (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is difficult to argue with you, Araz5152,

Your so-called logorrheic argument is nothing more than a proof of lack of evidence. I see here your pure interpretation of the different rumors about "Qutbi Bohra" and the involvement of Khuzaima Qutbuddin and the supposed link with the PDB.

An encyclopedia must be objective and must not leave room for interpretation and speculation. If I support Khuzaima Qutbuddin or Mufaddal Saifuddin it's not your business. I'm even not Bohra but studied Ismaili tradition. Most of your aricle has no basis if not the obscure and baised sources you quoted.

Exemple of reference quoted by Araz5152 to justify this fictional matter :

* http://en.cyclopaedia.net/wiki/Qutbi (this article has no report with Bohras)

* http://peeepl.co.uk/details/bohra-kutbi/

* https://in.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DawoodiBohraIzzy/conversations/topics/1978

* and other different threads on http://http://www.dawoodi-bohras.com/forum

Let Wikipedia administrators decide. Ftutocdg (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing with you but just replying to your claims. And i have already mentioned about the evidence in the above discussion. Regarding interpretation, it is you who is interpreting and assuming that this article is linked to the succession issue without any proof. As regards to relationship between the leader and founder of Qutbi Bohra and Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, i have already mentioned in succession issue and also mentioned in the Qutbi Bohra article and also explained it in the above discussions and in talk pages. And again in the mention of sources you forgot the references to newspapers, newsletter and prominent websites. Now see this fresh news http://www.punemirror.in/article/2/20140219201402190948025314ccd41f7/Bohras-who-refuse-to-denounce-Qutbuddin-face-boycott-threats.html?pageno=1. This will be printed in tomorrow's newspapers in India. See how the name Qutbi Bohra is mentioned here. A phone call just when the reporter was there. What are the chances of such a thing happening? Let it be. The main thing is Qutbi Bohra again got publicity. And what do you see at the end of the article, the mention of reformist group and the leader of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect Asghar Ali Engineer. What a coincidence. In the article there are 8 heart rendering stories. 8 families so called protected by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, without mentioning his name, he is the one staying in Thane. That is why Thane is mentioned as a protected place for these families. Another story of people called from outside Mumbai. Reporter seems to meet one of them but he turns out to be a victim. Strange story put together by a reporter, i doubt. Too many stories cramped together, stories conflicting amongst themselves. Imagination running wild. Children of other caste are against them but principal is with them. Why are people eating out of plastic bags when they are sheltered by the richest man in the Dawoodi Bohra sect, Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Cant he even feed 8 families properly. This newspaper article is just a instrument to gather sympathy of the public and also to publicise about Qutbi Bohra and Progressive Dawoodi Bohra written by the media person of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. For at a time when elections are due in the country and so much is going on, which reporter of which news paper will have time to cover such a pointless issue and write a baseless and badly written report on the same, unless it is paid for. And names are changed because there are nobody like the people mentioned there. Furthermore the photograph in the newspaper article is a file photograph of the Dawoodi Bohra community in an event that had taken many days earlier. What are they trying to prove they forgot to take the photographer along and just added any photograph that was available even if it is not connected to the article. Lastly i just want to mention that the way they are publicising Qutbi Bohra, is because they dont want to hide it any more nor do they want to hide Qutbi Bohra's relationship with Progress Dawoodi Bohra sect; then what is Ftutocdg trying so hard to cover up? You see now everything is an open book and you are reading it in the Qutbi Bohra article.

Araz5152 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again your are going round in circles with misinterpretation and trynin to put your POV without objective arguments.

1) RECENTLY, ie after the issue arose, "Qutbi Bohra" was a name using by newspapers for easily point out Khuzaima Qutbuddin followers, as "Mufaddali Bohra" for the followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin. But there is no question about PDB, Khuzaima Quatbuddin, etc, ... and a conspiracy theory !

2) You have prooved by yourself that you write this article to defame and to "show the truth because someone want to hide it".

3) NONE OF YOUR REPLY is objective.

4) THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC FORUM WHERE YOU CAN WRITE WHAT YOU WANT BASELESS.

I beg you to give us RELIABLE SOURCE (and not Yahoo groups or public forum) to proove your claim, especially on this points :

* Link between PDB and Khuzaima Qutbuddin

* The so-called sect was formed in 2004 in Udaipur

* The agressivity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin, toward Muhammad Burhanuddin

* The secret activities of the Mazoon, ie Second-in-command of Dawoodi Bohra hiererchy, in Udaipur.

Thank you.

PS : please stop saying I'm trying to hide something, you may be a paranoid person but there is no conspiracy here. It's ridiculous. I'm just seeking objective facts.

Ftutocdg (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is asking me the same questions again and again and you are claiming that i am going round in circles. You are misinterpreting this article to be linked with the succession issue when i have made it clear again and again. I have just written an article but it is just because of your wrong pount of view that i have to write an explanation that now seems to be longer than the article itself. Let us come back to the points: 1)ans. Qutbi Bohra was not made after the succession issue started but much before that. Ref. The Hindustan Times 15th April 2013 when there was no succession issue. 2)ans. The words are 'they dont want to hide it anymore' you have again twisted the facts and given your point of view. 3)ans: All the references given in the article are objective. If there are any subjective reference it is only given to support the objective references. And here in the talk page my discussion is subjective to the questions asked by you but then we are here to discuss the Qutbi Bohra article and not the talk page. 4) ans: Again you forgot to mention the newspapers, newsletter and prominent websites and mentioned only forums as per your point of view. Other points:

Link between Progressive Dawoodi Bohra and Khuzaima Qutbuddin is clearly mentioned in the article, explained in talk pages and in AFD.
for explaining 2004 formation i will have to explain in detail the events that had happened in 2003 related to Khuzaima Qutbuddin, but that will tarnsh his image badly and also would terminate his claim to succession issue. Wikipedia is not a place to stain the image of any person.
Aggression of Khuzaima Qutbuddin towards Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin can be clarified once i update the letter of apology written by Khuzaima Qutbuddin for his untoward acts towards Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, but that will have the same effect as above and Wikipedia is not a place to spoil the reputation of any person.
Secret activities of Khuzaima Qutbuddin in Udaipur again will have the same effect of smudging his image and spoiling his prospects and in this case it will also hurt the sentiments of Dawoodi Bohra sect as he was holding the said second highest position at that time. In this whole discussion you have been asking me to malignate his image in public, on Wikipedia, you even spelt his name wrongly. What is exactly your intention?Araz5152 (talk) 12:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because your reference are misleading and tendentious. Give us trusty and reliable source instead of writing a long and redundant answer. Ftutocdg (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article do not match Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability guideline. Ftutocdg (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate that Qutbi Bohra is a sect formed by Khuzaima Qutbuddin and i have provided the references for the same and mentioned about them in detail on talk. All arguments regarding non exsistance and repeated vandalisaton of the article suggests that efforts are being put in to hide it. Otherwise why would anyone even try to vandalise an article so many times risking being blocked. I would request that this article be looked at in an informative point of view and not make it a war zone of any person's perspective. Nobody can change what has been done in the past. Closing one's eyes to the truth or claiming falsely that an event that has taken place in the past has not taken place for whatever reasons, maybe for some personal gain, will not change the past. Just as Qutbi Bohra was mentioned in the newspapers and prominent websites and newsletter, every action or act done leaves some or the other kind of marks behind. Claiming ignorance to all these evidence and only mentioning discussion forums is like closing one's eyes to the facts, to the truth. Furthermore claiming Qutbi Bohra to be related to succession issue is another story made up to cover facts. Qutbi Bohra was born well before the succession issue even started as can be seen from newspsper references. And Qutbi Bohra's exsistance has remained since then can be seen from its reference in the current newspaper articles. Again the false claim that Progressive Dawoodi Bohra is not connected to Qutbi Bohra can be clearly seen by the support given by the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra members or its factions to Khuzaima Qutbuddin in various current articles of succession issue. Why would members of the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect support a person who is claiming to be the successor of Dawoodi Bohra sect, from which Progressive Dawoodi Bohra had seperated from in 1977? All these point to an effort to hide the truth and this article has become a place to show it. By vandalising it, nominating it for deletion, making false claims against it, putting up a link on the same discussion forum, whose link is given by Ftutocdg above under 'relist', to support this article for deletion and what not must have been done. I don't know the intracities of Wikipedia, yet, as i am very new here. I like to write articles on various topics. I love it here in Wikipedia. I have updated some articles to the best of my knowledge about them. Coming back to Qutbi Bohra article i would request the editors, administrators to guide me as to how to save this article. Thank you. Araz5152 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are claiming all this to be a rumor dispite all the references mentioned in the article. And the article you have mentioned in the Times of India newspaper, i have not put it as reference. That would be another evidence for this article. I will look it up and give reference to the same in the article, Thank you. Your claim that Qutbi Bohra sect was mentioned for the first time after the seccession issue is not true as it has been mentioned clearly in The Hindustan Times in March 2013, when there was no succession issue. Furthermore if in the succession issue when Khuzaima Qutbuddin is claiming to be successor of Dawoodi Bohra sect why did he mention about Qutbi Bohra, unless he wanted to promote it. Furthermore the reference to Khuzaima Qutbuddin's position is mentioned twice in the article. If you read carefully you will see it is mentioned under Qutbi Bohra schisms... and under Inter Bohra Schisms. I have not mentioned the post as he had been removed from the post when this article was written. Again if you see carefully in the whole article i have referred to Khuzaima Qutbuddin as 'the then Syedi', 'Syedi, was the word which was used before his name when he was on that post and when he had founded the Qutbi Bohra sect. Finally your claim that you were vandalising the article for the sake of Wikipedia; but Wikipedia says that if you have a issue write about it on talk page, discuss about it not vandalise the article. Again you are trying to impose your point of view on somebody else, in this case, Wikipedia. Just as you have been doing for this article all along. Just because you think, you have been vandalising this article and now you are putting the blame on Wikipedia; just because you think, you are claiming this article to be rumor dispite evidence to the contrary; just because you think, you have been continuously supporting Khuzaima Qutbuddin and claiming that the article is baised; just because you think what is mentioned in the article is against what you may believe, you have been doing everything possible to get this article deleted. You have done all this and so much more, which i dont know, with regard to the article. Now i request you to just stop and look at this article from an informative point of view, without any bais, without any feelings, without any perspective or point of view. What do you see? An informative article that gives one a clear picture of an incident in the history of mankind that had been hidden but was brought out by the very people who wanted to hide it. Araz5152 (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between Progressive Dawoodi Bohra (PDB) and Khuzaima Qutbuddin is specified in the earlier discussion mentioned above. Araz5152 (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing with you but just replying to your claims. And i have already mentioned about the evidence in the above discussion. Regarding interpretation, it is you who is interpreting and assuming that this article is linked to the succession issue without any proof. As regards to relationship between the leader and founder of Qutbi Bohra and Progressive Dawoodi Bohra, i have already mentioned in succession issue and also mentioned in the Qutbi Bohra article and also explained it in the above discussions and in talk pages. And again in the mention of sources you forgot the references to newspapers, newsletter and prominent websites. Now see this fresh news http://www.punemirror.in/article/2/20140219201402190948025314ccd41f7/Bohras-who-refuse-to-denounce-Qutbuddin-face-boycott-threats.html?pageno=1. This will be printed in tomorrow's newspapers in India. See how the name Qutbi Bohra is mentioned here. A phone call just when the reporter was there. What are the chances of such a thing happening? Let it be. The main thing is Qutbi Bohra again got publicity. And what do you see at the end of the article, the mention of reformist group and the leader of Progressive Dawoodi Bohra sect Asghar Ali Engineer. What a coincidence. In the article there are 8 heart rendering stories. 8 families so called protected by Khuzaima Qutbuddin, without mentioning his name, he is the one staying in Thane. That is why Thane is mentioned as a protected place for these families. Another story of people called from outside Mumbai. Reporter seems to meet one of them but he turns out to be a victim. Strange story put together by a reporter, i doubt. Too many stories cramped together, stories conflicting amongst themselves. Imagination running wild. Children of other caste are against them but principal is with them. Why are people eating out of plastic bags when they are sheltered by the richest man in the Dawoodi Bohra sect, Khuzaima Qutbuddin. Cant he even feed 8 families properly. This newspaper article is just a instrument to gather sympathy of the public and also to publicise about Qutbi Bohra and Progressive Dawoodi Bohra written by the media person of Khuzaima Qutbuddin. For at a time when elections are due in the country and so much is going on, which reporter of which news paper will have time to cover such a pointless issue and write a baseless and badly written report on the same, unless it is paid for. And names are changed because there are nobody like the people mentioned there. Furthermore the photograph in the newspaper article is a file photograph of the Dawoodi Bohra community in an event that had taken many days earlier. What are they trying to prove they forgot to take the photographer along and just added any photograph that was available even if it is not connected to the article. Lastly i just want to mention that the way they are publicising Qutbi Bohra, is because they dont want to hide it any more nor do they want to hide Qutbi Bohra's relationship with Progress Dawoodi Bohra sect; then what is Ftutocdg trying so hard to cover up? You see now everything is an open book and you are reading it in the Qutbi Bohra article. Araz5152 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who is asking me the same questions again and again and you are claiming that i am going round in circles. You are misinterpreting this article to be linked with the succession issue when i have made it clear again and again. I have just written an article but it is just because of your wrong pount of view that i have to write an explanation that now seems to be longer than the article itself. Let us come back to the points: 1)ans. Qutbi Bohra was not made after the succession issue started but much before that. Ref. The Hindustan Times 15th April 2013 when there was no succession issue. 2)ans. The words are 'they dont want to hide it anymore' you have again twisted the facts and given your point of view. 3)ans: All the references given in the article are objective. If there are any subjective reference it is only given to support the objective references. And here in the talk page my discussion is subjective to the questions asked by you but then we are here to discuss the Qutbi Bohra article and not the talk page. 4) ans: Again you forgot to mention the newspapers, newsletter and prominent websites and mentioned only forums as per your point of view. Other points:

Link between Progressive Dawoodi Bohra and Khuzaima Qutbuddin is clearly mentioned in the article, explained in talk pages and in AFD.
for explaining 2004 formation i will have to explain in detail the events that had happened in 2003 related to Khuzaima Qutbuddin, but that will tarnsh his image badly and also would terminate his claim to succession issue. Wikipedia is not a place to stain the image of any person.
Aggression of Khuzaima Qutbuddin towards Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin can be clarified once i update the letter of apology written by Khuzaima Qutbuddin for his untoward acts towards Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin, but that will have the same effect as above and Wikipedia is not a place to spoil the reputation of any person.
Secret activities of Khuzaima Qutbuddin in Udaipur again will have the same effect of smudging his image and spoiling his prospects and in this case it will also hurt the sentiments of Dawoodi Bohra sect as he was holding the said second highest position at that time. In this whole discussion you have been asking me to malignate his image in public, on Wikipedia, you even spelt his name wrongly. What is exactly your intention?Araz5152 (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat myself because Araz is flooding this page with his personal interpretations of recent events within Dawoodi Bohra community and he is unable to provide a single reliable source for the content of the article, especially :

1 - Khuzaima Qutbuddin and his secret activities

2 - the link between Khuzaima Qutbuddin and the progressive Dawoodi Bohra

The rest of the artcile is completely defamatory (eg the Agressivity of Khuzaima Qutbuddin toward the late Dai, the misappropriation of funds, ...

The article has no informative role for Wikipedia if not some propaganda. User Araz5152 confused Wikipedia with a blog. Maintain DELETE, Qutbi Bohra sect has not been officialy claimed and all written here is fictional. Thanks Ftutocdg (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not going to pretend I understand the complex politics that underlies this, but looking at the sources I'm not convinced this group meets the WP:GNG. We have one article, seemingly originally from the Hindustan Times ([1]) that talks about "talk", and which has been republished by "The Indian Express" and "The Muslim News". We also have a link to [2] which is being used to support a claim that Qutbi Bohra is behind the group, but there's nothing to confirm that on the site, and it's not an independent source anyway. I've tried some Google-Fu with various spellings and come up with a lot of forum posts and blogs, but nothing reliable to validate what's written here. It's possible there is mountains of substantial reliable content in Indian languages on the topic, of course, but those are essentially invisible to us here until someone with knowledge of those languages presents them. Either way, I do not envy the task of the lucky admin that gets to close this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

There is evidences of local newspapers, testimonials, letters etc which i am at a loss as to how to upload to Wikipedia. then there proofs which Ftutocdg is asking, which would definitely prove the exsistance of Qutbi Bohra sect but would defame Khuzaima Qutbuddin to a great extent such that his claim regarding the succession issue will also be nullified. but i am at a loss to understand that reputed editors reading the article and expressing the view that they have not properly comprehended the issue and also provide suggestions for making it clear but vote to remove the article. i request everyone to understand the issue , if they have any doubts please use talk page but please dont give an outright vote to just remove the article. Just try to understand the situation. when would a person who creates a secret sect want to bring it into the open. exactly, when he thinks that hiding this fact is no longer useful but to reveal it and get it an identity. in 2013 why would Khuzaima Qutbuddin write an article about his sect and create a furore in the Dawoodi Bohra sect because he knew that by revealing it he stands to gain by the use of the succession issue. This is a well planned setup and all the details are mentioned in the succession issue. Ftutocdg vandalisation of the article, then his waiting for the AFD decision and editors putting votes for removal of the article without understanding it, is it just my imagination or is Ftutocdg planning in all ways to get this article removed. i request serious intervention on the part of Wikipedia to save the article. I have given answers to all the queries here and in talk, although both pages were edited by an editor i sincerely hope all is well with the content. I really dont know the politics of article removal on Wikipedia, but i can definitely see the politics being played by Ftutocdg, i really think he should devote atleast some time doing some constructive edit instead of imposing his viewpoint on the articles in Wikipedia and resorting to distructive editing. Araz5152 (talk) 21:26, 26 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baltia Air Lines[edit]

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

Not notable. Subject owns an airplane, perhaps two, and has plans - as yet unauthorized - to commence passenger service between NYC and St. Petersburg, Russia. Judging by the prior deletion discussion, found here, these unrealized plans have been in place for some time. Third party coverage is minimal and cursory. JohnInDC (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - buying an old 747 (one of those in the 2011 cite has since been scrapped), and applying for approvals does not make this potential venture notable. It needs to get from planned startup to real live start-up to become encyclopedic. Davidships (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This airline has been planned since 1989, and is about to start up in a few months. They have now hired pilots and flight attendants, and have a fully functioning website that shows all of the routes to begin soon. this is indeed a real live start-up, and will begin very shortly. There are several articles on Wikipedia about start-up airlines, and they are not removed. The scapped 747 can easily be removed from the page, but the article does not have to be deleted. Also, the plane has now been fully furnished, and is ready for use. They have even rented a jet bridge at JFK Airport's terminal 4, and have an office and lounge there now. --AirportExpert (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, for something that has been planned for decades and still not come to fruition, not notable. Canterbury Tail talk 13:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are not planned anymore! They have now leased terminal space at JFK Airport's Terminal 4, and even stated on their website that they will begin service later this year. If the problem is that they are still planned, they are not! They are now considered a start-up airline that is finishing up its FAA Certification to fly.--AirportExpert (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

They are still planned. No dates for flights, nothing for their inaugural event, no idea when they'll start flying (other than hoping 2014.) Until they fly a commercial passenger route and are given their certification they are not an airline, they are a paper exercise with some assets and therefore not notable. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to User:AirportExpert/Baltia Air Lines and republish when the airline has announced a start date/has begun operations. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Would not object to userification but believe it would be best to start from scratch when the time comes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 23 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Norman[edit]

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

Non-notable television editor. No references are provided that show any notability, the only one that actually mentions the subject is their own Twitter feed. Fails WP:BIO. Tassedethe (talk) 19:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - Subject's notability is not established in article. If there is a relevant article, for example one on ITV News West Country, then she could be mentioned there. Otherwise, I would agree that both the WP:GNG and WP:BIO do not appear to have been met. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. She is briefly mentioned at ITV, but not enough to merge her in, which would almost be weighty. — Wylie pedia 07:47, 20 February 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. The argument for keeping doesn't relate to any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coro (sport)[edit]

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

No verifiable evidence that this sport exists. The only reference is a Google Docs copy of the page itself. Fails WP:V. Tassedethe (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no evidence this exists. This is either a hoax or something invented by the author and his friends. --JamesMoose (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the fact that we cannot find official documentation that this sport exists, I don't think that means we should delete the page. Clearly this is a sport that isn't internationally recognized, but it is still a sport nonetheless. The guidelines and rules are clearly laid out, which means that anyone could play it if they had the means to. If we delete the page, the sport will have less of a chance to grow. The authors could have made the page with the hopes that more people would begin playing after reading it. If we take down the page because it is a sport that we haven't heard of, we are also taking away the opportunity for others to partake in the activity, because they won't have access to the guidelines. Adamh4 (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, actually, that's the exact reason the page should be deleted. Wikipedia is not here to "get the word out", and even if we were to WP:IAR the guideline regarding notability, it would still need to be deleted because of failing the policy WP:V. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, appears to even fail WP:V, absolutley fails WP:RS. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise the sport you made up one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:53, 23 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Yunzhong[edit]

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

This alleged pretention to the Chinese throne is way too speculative (the Ming Dynasty having been destroyed several centuries prior, and even if it were actually a "live" claim, the ancestral tracing is too distant to be reliable). There is no other claim to notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The full article to the only reference can be found here. Nowhere does it specifically call Zhu Yunzhong a descendant of Zhu Yuanzhang. Even if he were, that's clearly no basis of notability. Timmyshin (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 19:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 20 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resident Studios[edit]

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

Theroadislong (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article has existed for 5 years with poor references, notability has not been established. Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search gave me nothing to prove nobility under WP:GNG.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 7 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 19:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Article needs work if it is to survive the deletion process. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 19:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are three "Keep" votes here. Two assert that Rogrigues is notable because he was portrayed in a film. However, this argument is not supported by policy so I have discounted these votes. The remaining !vote asserts that the sources indicate notability, but there is no agreement from other participants for this point of view. On the other hand, I find User:TJRC's assertion that this is a WP:ONEEVENT case persuasive. Finally, there is an argument for a Merge, and if anyone wants to do it I'm happy to draft-ify this article to facilitate this happening. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Rodrigues (9/11 officer)[edit]

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

Non-notable police officer who died on 9/11. Only claim to significance is that he was portrayed in a side role in the movie World Trade Center (film). Fails WP:BIO. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are now cited in the article. Encyclopedic, verifiable and notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. I don't understand "Wikipedia is not a memorial" because nothing in the article is written like a "memorial". Bielazulov (Debate) 01:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Where are these sources? The only one that deals with him at length is the NYT article. WP:ONEEVENT also applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not notable for being killed or for being portrayed in films. They are notable for being notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete; this looks like WP:ONEEVENT to me. The primary claim to notability beyond that one event is that he was depicted in a film about that one event. One note, if the article is retained there are potential DAB issues with another barely- or non-notable individual at António Rodrigues. TJRC (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is depicted in a film. He was no matter what users here claims anyhow a part of an event which changed the world... I guess that is why he was part of this film. Basic WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from either the film or the event. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 15 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 19:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on the film. He is not notable enough to justify a stand-alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His depiction in the Oliver Stone film obviously shows real-world notability regardless of Wikipedia's quirky INHERIT essay - which was written without consensus and is a blunt instrument in cases like this. Plus the other sources. -- GreenC 03:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really saying that all historical characters depicted in films should have articles, no matter how minor their role in history (or the film) may have been? If you're not saying that, why exactly is Rodrigues a special case? If he was the central character in the film, then I might agree with you, but he isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:10, 24 February 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. As explained by the delete !votes below, this subject is not of the kind we normally keep per our gazetteer function without demonstrated notability. postdlf (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Bucket Cow Camp, Oregon[edit]

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

Valfontis (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Contested Prod on non-notable place. Per GNIS, this is a "locale", defined as: "Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places, mines, and dams (battlefield, crossroad, camp, farm, ghost town, landing, railroad siding, ranch, ruins, site, station, windmill)" (emphasis mine). I can find no evidence this was ever a populated place and there are no sources for it. Looks like this was created in in good faith as one of a series of quirky U.S. place names based on containers. Awesome place name, IMO, but no sources means no notability. Per my comments on the talk page, if a trip to the library yields up some reliable sources this article may recreated without prejudice. There are tens of thousands of "locales" on GNIS, not all of them are going to be notable. Valfontis (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I too wish this was a notable place because of its name, but there just don't seem to be any sources about it. It just appears to be a cow camp, and cow camps with no unusual characteristics aren't notable. (Besides, based on my interpretation of the talk page, the name isn't as interesting as it seems; Blue Bucket Creek, itself probably a notable geographic feature, appears to have had the name first.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Merriam-Webster, a "cow camp" is "a cowboy camp : a roundup headquarters". Oddly enough, Oxford goes one better with the definition "a seasonal camp apart from the main buildings of a ranch, used during a cattle roundup". Finally "Western words: a dictionary of the range, cow camp and trail" says: "Cowboy's headquarters on a roundup, a place where a group of cowmen have gathered to work cattle". So this means the place in the article is likely a site that is used seasonally, and certainly not a permanently populated place. There are probably hundreds of these in the American west. Note also that per GNIS Bluebucket Creek appears to be the preferred spelling. Valfontis (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer under the Five Pillars as a geographic location. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:21, 15 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 19:08, 15 February 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Stanford-Clark[edit]

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

Unconvinced as to whether this IBM employee can be classed as notable. References include one mention on BBC news, a passing mention here, one dead link and a mention on the IBM website. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - created a significant protocol, and heads a research group at IBM, an equivalent position to the seniority required in academic research by WP:SCHOLAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leondz (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he's been profiled in The Daily Telegraph [3]. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This person co-"invented" MQTT which may become a significant protocol for the Internet of Things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooobron (talk • contribs) 13:00, 22 February 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 / 07:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GTI specialist publishers[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to ~~GTI Group~~ Group GTI which would have enough RS refs to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now can you move without evidence it is the same.- Altenmann >t 05:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, excuse me? The links in the article are enough evidence. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:03, 6 February 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability. created by single-purpose account. must be vanity or ghostpedian. - Altenmann >t 05:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of GTI Media which is part of Group GTI which is a global corporation with divisions also in Asia, Germany, etc. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:31, 18 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable company. Article has a few references, but none meet our reliable sources standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:09, 24 February 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. Huon (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POTATO ON A STICK[edit]

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

lol, doesn't mean anything Junvfr ツ (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- Pure vandalism. Delete per G3. Hitro talk 18:52, 15 February 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 withdrawn. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olivetti M24[edit]

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

Old computer, but seems to fail WP:PRODUCT. I was able to find a couple of reviews for the AT&T 6300 Plus, which was basically a kind of 286 XT (the case was reused, but otherwise the innards differed substantially). I can't find something would satisfy WP:GNG for M24 or its rebadges. This wiki page also makes some fairly exceptional claims based on fan-written web-pages/sites. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually found a review of the Xerox 6060 in the September 1986 issue of BYTE, which also points to an earlier review of the (non-Plus) AT&T 6300. So the article is salvageable. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:00, 15 February 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 nomination withdrawn in favor of redirect. Speedy Keep #1 (WP:Non-admin closure).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Reporters[edit]

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

Contested prod, although no reason given when that happened. Fails WP:NBOOK. It fails criteria 2-5 prima facie. The only plausible contender, then, is criterion 1. However, this book seems to have been the subject of mere capsule reviews (the only two of which I could find I added to the article) and this, which is hardly even a review, but rather a summary of the contents. The author wrote a quite famous textbook on journalism, but this later work is not notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'- noteworthy book and author Mosfetfaser (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to author, the author bio is so short that even full incorporation of this article would still be just out of stub state. rather than two stubs, we have one article that may approach relevance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see your point, redirect to author Mosfetfaser (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. Nomination withdrawn as it is a plausible search term.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:12, 17 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 11:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mad issues (1952–59)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory and I don't see a reason to list every issue the magazine has ever put out. Along with this nomination:

List of Mad issues (1960–69)
List of Mad issues (1970–79)
List of Mad issues (1980–89)
List of Mad issues (1990–99)
List of Mad issues (2000–09)
List of Mad issues (2010–present) Gloss • talk 03:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A list of every feature of every issue of Mad? That really is mad. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN being covered in sources such as MAD: Cover to Cover : 48 Years, 6 Months & 3 Days of MAD and Completely MAD: A History of the Comic Book and Magazine. WP:DIRECTORY is irrelevant as that is directed at commercial directories rather than bibliographies and other types of reference list. Andrew (talk) 13:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the abstract given on "Amazon", it would appear both of the books that you mention are more interested in the covers and not the content of the magazines themselves. I do not see the justification for having a list of issues with contents based on these references (which do not appear to be used in the article in any case). WP:DIRECTORY may not be relevant, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE point 1 would appear to be relevant.

No, WP:INDISCRIMINATEis irrelevant too because this is a list which does not go into excessive detail about any of the particular contents. Andrew (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion it is not excessive, in mine it is. Op47 (talk) 21:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thankyou Gloss for letting me know, had you looked on the talk page of List of Mad issues, you would know what I really think. Unfortunately, if this lot is deleted (and I can see your point and clarityfiends even more succinct point) then List of Mad issues would need to be deleted as well (merging some content into the parent article if you really must). List of Mad issues was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mad Magazine issues and the result was keep. Personally, I would stuff a nuke under this insanity and get on with something worth doing. Not even Mad magazine is mad enough to list this lot. And if this article piqued someones curiosity then there is no way to obtain the relevant issue. Anyroad, I refrained from nominating it for deletion because it is bad form to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion and that is the only way I refrained from voting delete with a capital D. Per WP:BADIDEA, this is "some new bad idea that had not previously been anticipated". Op47 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, Delete Op47 (talk) 19:56, 26 February 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, --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all See no reason to delete. Calling it indiscriminate is a value judgement, a personal bias, not an objective fact. Calling it a Directory is also not supported, there is nothing there that defines it as a Directory. It's a List article, any list article could be accused of being a directory. It would help to have an introductory lead paragraph. -- GreenC 04:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What, me worry? Mad is a significant part of American pop culture. Of course we should keep this. Some day, I expect them to do, "Wikipedia Articles We'd Like to See". If you're all bent out of shape over this, please go grab the nearest copy and get an attitude adjustment. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not doubt that Mad is a significant part of American pop culture, and that is why we should have an article on Mad. I would like to grab a copy, especially of the issues in this article, but I cannot. This article is just making me aware of something I can't have and that is what is adjusting my attitude to delete this lot. Op47 (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position, I think that the material in these articles should be kept. I have no particular opinion on where it lives. Keeping one article per decade is fine. Merging them all into one big List of MAD issues is OK too, as is merging it all into Mad (magazine). Looking forward to Deletionist Spy vs. Inclusionist Spy -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The analogy is with our many series of articles on TV show episodes. The cultural importance is at least as great as almost any of them. and that's the reason we give for keeping the episode articles , and it applies here also. Indeed, to make it similar, we'd have individual articles on each issue. Op47's argument that "it just makes me aware of something I cannot have" is an unusual for of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT--on that argument, we should delete the articles about any number of wonderful historical things--or for that matter, on luxury goods. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largely in agreement with DGG's analogy. Now, I am not particularly a fan of large piles of Wikipedia content that aren't backed by secondary sources but instead rely on Wikipedia's enumeration of primary sources, but usually that concern arises from concerns about simply eroding notability and, as a result, neutrality about what to include or not. In this case, however, I think it's both obvious that the topic is notable (a lousy argument, I admit) and that there's other evidence for that notability (in particular, Andrew Davidson's sources). --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them all into List of MAD issues. There's no apparent reason for splitting them up by decade, it makes navigation and text-searching unnecessarily cumbersome, and the articles are all small enough that they can be combined into one without it being overlong.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure it would be too long. There is server overhead in displaying tables and combining all into a single page (even with multiple tables) would be considerable horsepower. One could test it with a sandbox page and see how long Preview and Saves take. -- GreenC 16:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick W. McGrath[edit]

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

The creator of the article offered only one reference that has almost no information and. Also I question weather this person is even notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. Newsjunky12 (talk) 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please withdraw this nomination. The subject was a member of Seanad Éireann (upper house of Irish parliament) from 1973 to 1977. As a member of a national legislature he is automatically notable per WP:NPOL: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." Snappy (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn nomination --Newsjunky12 (talk) 17:26, 15 February 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. Although the nominator has not explicitly withdrawn the nomination, they have said that the nomination has served its purpose by improving the article, which strongly implies that they no longer seek deletion. With no arguments in favor of deletion, there is no need to continue this discussion here, which has swerved to accusations of bad faith involving some other article. Take it elsewhere, guys. — Gwalla | Talk 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast Markup Language[edit]

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

Unsourced. Criteria for notability not established. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Deb (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC) Happy to change my vote to a keep now that someone has actually taken the trouble to verify the content. This is the great thing about nominating articles for deletion. It sorts the wheat from the chaff. Deb (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can read this WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP before you participate in any more of these discussions. They are a waste of everyone's time, and should not even be taking place.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - It's a computer language, for Pete's sake. If rock albums are notable, and they are, this is far more so. It's stubbed for expansion. That's plenty good enough... Cesium 133 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added five sources to a new "further reading" section in the article, which would be sufficient to expand and source it to some extent. There are plenty of others in the technical literature. This computer language meets the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and a giant trout. This is just one big toys-out-of-pram issue over BeerXML.

As to notability, this is an ARIB (and I think, ITU) published standard. If you watch TV in Japan, you're using it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "big in Japan" needs to be explicitly added to WP:N?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References to trouts in this context constitute a personal attack. It was a bad article. It gets XfD'd. You add WP:RS. It becomes a better article. Ergo the encyclopaedia is improved. That is how it works, and if you think otherwise or impugn other editors' motives, you probably shouldn't be here. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 12:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should quit while you're ahead, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. It's quite clear what's happening here. You, Deb, and PrivateWiddle were in some kind of tussle over the notability of BeerXML. PrivateWiddle mentioned this article and you replied Thanks for drawing that to my attention, appreciated and proceeded to bring this article to AfD, obviously without satisfying WP:BEFORE, which makes it look very, very much like a violation of WP:POINT. You notice that the only editor who agrees with your position here is your co-conspirator Deb, who seems to be guilty of WP:CANVAS of some sort and who took only 16 minutes to agree with you, time she or he obviously did not spend looking for sources. Add that to everyone's disgraceful behavior on the various talk pages involved and it seems to me that Andy Dingley's suggestion of a trout was mild compared to the suggestions that might have been made.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, there definitely has been some canvassing going on here. It was starting to look weird when User:Rocketman768 suddenly appeared with his first contribution in 18 months, and now this sudden personal attack. Of course it didn't take me long to notice the article - it was referred to by Mr Widdle who wanted it to be treated equally with his own article - and that's what he got. I make a point of following up any such suggestions by those who use the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument. Deb (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think it's rather unreasonable of you to expect people to vote on the basis of references that you added after I voted. I'm a lot of things, but not clairvoyant. Deb (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, everyone at Wikipedia is expected to evaluate sources before taking a position at an AfD. It not only prevents you from looking like a fool when someone adds a zillion sources that it took them all of thirty seconds to find, but it's good for the encyclopedia. You may not be clairvoyant, but I assume you know how to look for sources. If you don't have at least that minimum skill, you're not competent to participate in deletion arguments, both here at AfD and in whatever process it was that led you and Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi to pounce on that BeerXML thing like tigers. Also, I might just mention that it undermines your credibility to accuse people of canvassing with no evidence whatsoever, naming a user, Rocketman768, who hasn't even participated in this discussion. If you and your co-conspirator FIM want to do the decent thing here, you ought to admit you were wrong, you should withdraw your bad-faith delete position, and FIM should withdraw the nomination. That way we can have a non-admin closure and put this nonsense to rest.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually read the original article- and if you haven't then perhaps "you're not competent to participate in deletion arguments"?- you would know that there were no sources; hence the deletion nomination. If in the course of this discussion people have actually gone and found them, then that is an added bonus. May I suggest you desist from making foolish claims of conspiracy? It might "prevent you from looking like a fool". Sorry, but you're very quotable._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had actually read WP:BEFORE you would know that whether or not there were sources (I did and there weren't) you would know that that fact is completely irrelevant. I suggest a trout for you, maybe two trouts.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks go to Alf.laylah.wa.laylah for finding and adding sources describing this national broadcast standard in Japan and in the ITU (ITU-T J.201, used in the IPTV Multimedia Application Platform). I've not heard of Now Publishers, but the other 4 sources are from reputable publishers in the EE/computing field. The standard itself, as a compromise among and approved by independent organizations, counts in my book as a reliable source. Multiple reliable sources show this standard to be notable per WP:GNG The article itself could use improvement (e.g. inline citations), but any such problems are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable articles problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should add thanks to the nominator, without whom the article would still be in its original sorry state. Deb (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Respectfully, no. While I am generally very happy to see articles improved, as you well know AfD is not for cleanup, that is AfD should not be used as a prod to editors to clean up an article. That said, I believe Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi made the nomination in good faith. As a new editor, they were perhaps unaware that a search for sources is recommended before nomination, per WP:BEFORE. Such a search could have shown BML to be likely notable and saved them and the participants the efforts of nomination and response. As a new editor, they did not deserve a trout. But it will hopefully be a learning experience. --Mark viking (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mark has beaten me to it here, but I'd agree with him. You can't possibly claim that if an action intended to delete an article by an editor wishing to delete that article has a side effect of improving it instead, then we should be grateful to the disappointed editor who wanted it gone completely!

Also, per WP:IMPERFECT we emphatically do not take the line that articles must be "perfect or deleted". We have WP:N instead. If notability (and not quality) is achieved, then we keep it. We hope for quality too, but if we don't get that, we put up with or improve it, not delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should not fall victim to the ongoing nightmare at BeerXML. I've explained Wikipedia:GNG#Article_content_does_not_determine_notability twice over there, obviously in vain. There should have been an attempt to find sources before moving straight to AfD. It certainly looks like that attempt was not made. I'm sorry I referenced this article in my attempts to reason with the same two users who have started this. As mentioned above, its a big waste of everyone's time. Devils In Skirts! (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Querulous nomination, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BeerXML and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/PrivateWiddle - David Gerard (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly good deal of source coverage out there. And instead of trouts, why don't we talk about Atlantic salmon and Pink salmon, yummmmmy. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the improvements to the article after the nomination. Solomon 7968 10:26, 19 February 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) 22:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pitch Perfect 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM: independent reliable sources do not confirm that principle photography has begun. SummerPhD (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article got big media coverage during last months, so it should be kept. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 16:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Principal cast members from first film are returning; unless Universal fumbles up everything in an impossible manner, it's assured to come out'. Nate • (chatter) 19:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nate, above. Film has been confirmed and casting is slowly but surely coming out. Gloss • talk 19:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Pitch Perfect. Filming has not begun and has not had massive press coverage so does not meet WP:NFF. The pertinent information can be included in the original film art.icle. BOVINEBOY2008 00:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge the film is notable, but it might be a little too soon for its own article. JDDJS (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: The film will be notable, if/when independent sources confirm that principle photography has begun. At present, we're batting around who might be in it.[4][5] Per our consensus guidelines, the article was started too soon. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 February 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. No clear consensus as to whether the sources are sufficient to indicate the notability of this fictional character. Noting also that the discussion was likely started by a banned user, but I'm overlooking that as other users in good standing and in good faith opined for a Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Oliver[edit]

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

Article about a fictional character from TV show. Lacks notability. AS92813 (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AS92813 has since been blocked for sockpuppetry. He is still suspected of being a sockpuppet of the banned user(s) known variably as BuickCenturyDriver or Don't Feed the Zords.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close: Discussion has been opened by a sleeper sockpuppet in the whole affair that happened yesterday documented at WT:AFD#User trying to delete nomination and in the Survivor AFDs from last year, usually identified as Don't Feed the Zords or BuickCenturyDriver.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. As yet it is only you that has claimed this is a sock... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because yet again it is obvious and he's been blocked for evasion. Stop assuming I'm wrong because I'm trying to find a different solution to dealing with this page. It's sockpuppetry and block evasion through and through and I've had to deal with this for years now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that but the article has multiple references to support notability, accompanied by the fact that the character was on a television series for 5 consecutive seasons, appeared in two theatrical releases, and was brought back for a 6th season on the TV series. Notability is established. Whether or not the article is particularly good is different.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Lets see:
Two links to dvdtalk.com - a website selling Power Rangers DVDs. Not "independent of the subject." [6][7]

Two links to websites (voices.washingtonpost.com/dcsportsbog [8] & bleacherreport.com [9]) discussing the actor who played the character, not the character himself.

A piece from the Baltimore Sun. Mentions Tommy in passing. [10]

A short NYT piece about the Power Rangers franchise. Mentions Tommy Oliver in passing. [11]

Another NYT piece, from 1985. A bit more relevant, and at a pinch this might just pass as "significant coverage" - of Power Rangers. [12]
As far as I can see, we have one source just possibly providing 'significant coverage' sufficient to say anything meaningful about Tommy Oliver - not the multiple sources required. And no source which does anything to establish that Tommy Oliver has any significance except as a Power Rangers character - one that, if we eliminate the repetitive and totally unencyclopaedic fancruft plot summaries, can be adequately described in an encyclopaedic article on Power Rangers itself. Cut out the cruft, and merge anything salvageable to Power Rangers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing and article is bad but the subject is notable (Google results in the millions). And merging to Power Rangers would be fruitless, as that article is on the 20+ years of the program rather than just the parts this fictional character appeared in. What there needs to be is a centralized character list for the first six seasons of Power Rangers that is not just the lists of names at List of Power Rangers or List of Power Rangers characters and that would be a better place to stick this information that is not excessive plot summary. But this AFD which was created by someone obviously evading the block on those IPs from yesterday and is obviously a sockpuppet of some long standing banned sockpuppeteer (currently under investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dragonron) which means this should be closed and some better discussion be had regarding a way to deal with this article and the dozen others that are probably in just as shit shape that does not involve AFD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on your talk page, regardless of whether this has been started by a sock, I can see the merit of an AfD. Would you prefer to have this closed just so I can start another one? And no, stating that a subject is notable in bold doesn't make it so. It needs to be demonstrated that this subject is independently notable, via multiple independent sources providing significant coverage. Provide the sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I demonstrated it. There are sources in the artcle. There are millions of results on Google. There's these pieces about the character's reprisal in this year's season, a look back here, and the actor's desire to reprise the character in a new film. I'd rather try to fix this mess with all of the individual character articles for this TV franchise without AFD because it's only going to make trying to produce a proper list article more difficult. Yes, most of the page is plot summary and no one's discussed this character or any Power Rangers characters with the same critical commentary that you get from things that aren't 800 thinly veiled 22-minute-long toy commercials.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"no one's discussed this character or any Power Rangers characters with the same critical commentary that you get from things that aren't thinly veiled 800 22-minute-long toy commercials"? I'd say that was as good grounds for deletion as any. As for Google, see [13] "Google result counts are a meaningless metric." AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's grounds for cleanup and merging to somewhere else and not deletion. And don't link to offsite essays. If anything, prevalence in Google Books means something more than normal google search according to our local WP:GHITS.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't link to offsite essays"? If you are going to start coming up with meaningless bollocks about Google hits, I'll link to anything I damn well like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And before you link WP:GHITS again, I suggest you read it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Offsite essays clearly do not have the acceptance of the community. I was wrong to cite raw google hit numbers, and we have our own page on that here that you could have used. But that same page points out the utility of Google Books, which shows that there are several books in their archives that discuss Power Rangers, and the presence of the character Tommy Oliver within them. There may not be an entire subset of academia dedicated to this like you can find for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but I'd rather not have to keep arguing this on an AFD when more energy can be put forward into figuring out the best way to deal with this and articles on similar subjects and similar subpar quality.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've been editing this article since 2006.[14] How much longer will you need to deal with it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been recently that the standards on fictional characters have changed such that something should be done.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. --Nug (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does meet GNG, more sources added.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. More articles discussing the actor who plays the character. Not even remotely significant coverage of the character himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is the fact the actor is reprising the character and wants to have the character star in his own film not "significant coverage of the character"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is information about the actor, and about the Power Rangers franchise. Please provide a brief summary of what each of the three sources you have just added actually provides us in terms of useful encyclopaedic content concerning the 'Tommy Oliver' character. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The character will be appearing in the new season that is out this year and there are plans for the character to appear in his own film.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Utterly irrelevant in terms of establishing independent notability. And see WP:CRYSTALBALL. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how WP:CRYSTAL forbids mentioning the verifiable fact that someone has expressed a desire to create a film about this fictional character.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how someone expressing such a desire would be an independent source, as required to establish notability? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say its independent if someone felt it was important to publish as part of an interview that was had.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sure you would say that. Doesn't make it true. Not even remotely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's my argument. And I'm tired of repeating it. I found reliable sources. I'd rather this debate be closed because of the sockpuppetry because if memory serves, this is only going to act as a honeypot for more of this guy's sockpuppets to pile on and it's going to be closed as no consensus and only going to cause an even bigger shit storm. We should have closed this hours ago per WP:DENY and WP:DNFTT because now we're only feeding into this idiot's ego. I really envy you and other users who do not have to remember that they or their preferred topic areas are the target of multiple banned users some of which go back farther than they have been members of this site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources don't do much to establish notability for the character itself. This is more appropriate for Wikia, where in-depth plot details and extended fictional biographies are encouraged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think complete deletion is warranted here, nor is sending this to a Wikia which has probably already copied everything we have here verbatim (I know a few "mirrors"). This content could be merged into an appropriate article (barring all of the excessive plot summary) but said article does not exist yet. I have been planning on merging this and several related articles together into a unified character list, but as I say higher up on the page the logistics have been troubling me. As I said in my first statement, this discussion should be closed per WP:BAN and WP:DENY and I will gladly get rid of the article through merging somewhere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - After edits, appears notable. May not have previously been notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What we have here is an WP:ALLPLOT which uses sources about the actor to try and establish notability for this character. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm sure that my brother would have loved to comment on this topic, but he hasn't been editing Wikipedia lately and so I've decided to give commenting on this a shot. There are enough WP:Reliable sources out there about this character that can establish this topic's WP:Notability and build a much better Wikipedia article about him; for example, when Googling "Tommy Power Rangers" or Tommy Oliver Power Rangers" on Google Books...once getting past all of the WP:Mirror text. And one should not stop there when looking for such sources, but should also look through old entertainment magazines, such as TV Guide and Entertainment Weekly, that likely covered the Power Rangers phenomenon at the height of its popularity. Libraries can be a good source for such material. This character (if not Jason Lee Scott as the alternative) is the most famous Power Ranger (certainly the most popular) and was featured in much mainstream press; in fact, all of the original six power rangers featured in a lot of mainstream press. There are soap opera characters, such as Victor Newman (or more so his son, Nicholas Newman), who have gotten less mainstream exposure than Tommy Oliver and yet are WP:Notable, and I'm certain that Tommy Oliver is WP:Notable as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The current content has no real merit for merging, and a new redirect can go to a character list or main article afterward. Unlike the characters mentioned above, this series isn't one to have received such detailed coverage in relation to the plot and cast details, especially for a single character. You'll likely find small bits and pieces that could "establish" notability in a vague sense, but it would likely be unnecessarily weighted just for the sake of giving the character an article. Anything related to casting can likely fit into the first series in which he appeared, and anything related to reception is likely to be so minor that it is not worth mentioning. That leaves a brief entry for a character list, which is all this seems to need. TTN (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If notability can be established, then that means this article can be cleaned up to fix the problems. And deletion is only going to cause problems when a character list can be made. Besides, this thing needs a procedural close due to being opened by a banned user's sockpuppets on multiple occasions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is well-established by precedent that once an AfD has attracted significant input from legitimate contributors, the fact that it was started illegitimately isn't sufficient grounds to close it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's still problematic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps - but problematic in a "Fodder for discussion at DRV" way and not a "Procedural close, now re-nominate and waste another week of time" way. Enough good faith comments have been made here, and an admin can judge them on the merits. Relax. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there are sufficient sources to show some weak notability. The sources that discuss the actor discussing the character are tricky, but turn that around - who would care what he had to say unless the topic (the character) was one of interest? It's thin, but I think there's enough to justify the article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article could certainly be improved, I believe that the character being the most prolific character in Power Rangers (being in more episodes than any other character and in both theatrical movies), makes him notable on Wikipedia. Also several changes have been made to the article since then to make it more notable. -Thunderforge (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources about the actor do not prove notability of the character. KonveyorBelt 03:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even when they exclusively deal with his portrayal of this character?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:25, 24 February 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. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zaha Talhouni[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG, a topic must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This person here is not the subject of any secondary sources, per WP:BIO. MikeMan67 (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like she has received some pretty major awards and competed in significant athletic events. I think that meets WP:ATHLETE. Sources are a problem though. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Athlete who received national honors of her country of birth and has coverage in newspaper sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find her in the list of thousands of taekwondo competitors under Zaha Talhouni, but I did find a Dirc Richard Talhouni who competed in the same events so I assume they're the same person. None of the events she competed in are significant according to the WTF except for the 2 junior world championships and 1 senior world championship. Junior events do not show notability and she lost her only match at her one senior championship. Simply appearing is not sufficient under WP:MANOTE--there were over 700 competitors at that one event and I don't believe they're all notable. She's not ranked in the top 5000 for her career. No significant coverage in independent sources. Of the article's 4 sources--she's not mentioned in one, a passing mention in one, one was about a group of young women watching soccer (hardly notable), and one was about her passing her belt test. Nothing significant and it's long been accepted that rank doesn't show notability. Searching under both Zaha and Dirc Richard turned up nothing significant--just the usual dojo and social media hits.Mdtemp (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched taekwondodata.com, which is what I assume Mdtemp did, and found what he stated above. I agree with the conclusions he reached--both about her notability in taekwondo and the article's sources. My google search gave me nothing significant. I have no idea how important or unusual the "badge of honor" mentioned in the article is and there's no sources to show it's notable or that she even received it. Undocumented claims of unknown significance do not show notability to me. Papaursa (talk) 00:19, 14 February 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^(talk) 15:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I'm going to go with the excellent work by User:Mdtemp and User:Papaursa above. There may be additional sources in Arabic which would push her above the WP:GNG, but I don't read Arabic well so I can't definitively say whether they exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:27, 25 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Shadow Books[edit]

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

advertisement for a publishing company, the publisher of mainly non-notable artists. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search turned up nothing of consequence and the sources are primary and or trivial. Looks like just another WP:SPAM article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 February 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^(talk) 15:28, 15 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edgeworth Economics[edit]

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

promotional article for firm with very minor awards. What might look like the one reliable source is just the announcement of a "readers choice" award. Such awards are not reason for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 7 February 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^(talk) 15:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are 149 hits on Newsbank. Once the press releases are eliminated, we are left with only passing mentions, e.g. quotes from someone who works there and they mention that they work there. The one exception has to do with a study the company did for the NFL in Summer 2013 which got a ton of coverage, but again, the company is not discussed in these articles. The articles mention that the company did the study, but the articles are only about the study, not the company. No mentions in the scholarly literature or gbooks. Thus it fails not only the GNG but WP:ORG as well.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete complete lack of third party sources. LibStar (talk) 12:47, 22 February 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. slakr^\ talk / 08:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mastercoin[edit]

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

Non-notable cryptocurrency, would've been tagged for speedy deletion of recreated deleted material, but I'm assuming in good-faith that the material was modified to the minimum point of not qualifying for CSD. This article fails WP:GNG and only reliable sources barely mention Mastercoin at all. Citation Needed | Talk 12:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've removed all citations to sources where Mastercoin is only mentioned in passing. Citations 1-8 are sufficient to establish notability. Each covers Mastercoin directly and in detail. I encourage anybody who thinks differently to give them a second look. I've cut and paste some article highlights on Talk:Mastercoin. There is still some unverifiable content in the article that will need to be removed, and citations will need to get better dispersed in-line, but the topic is notable and most of the content verifiable.Chris Arnesen 17:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines (WP:GNG or WP:CORP). I would have suggested merging summary info to Bitcoin, but the article as it stands is not clearly written and is poorly referenced. Of the eight independent sources cited, I judged four to have trivial or minor coverage, and three of the remaining articles are from CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine. I consider them reliable sources for factual information, but rather weak reliable sources compared to established publications, and I weigh them more lightly in my overall notability assessment. The Forbes article stands alone as a strong indicator of notability. I do think Mastercoin could rapidly rise in notability, and should be reconsidered if it garners significant new coverage from multiple sources. Since questions of commercial promotion sometimes arise in these discussions, this is a cryptocurrency with profit-motivated investors, and Forbes mentions the primary developer holds 28% of all the Mastercoin currency, of which no more will ever be issued. The related Mastercoin Foundation is a startup company, and while it was incorporated as a non-profit corporation, its fundraising of several million dollars has occurred solely in Bitcoins, which falls into some regulatory gray areas. As noted in the Forbes article, the project is viewed by some as “an elaborate scam”. Here is my quick summmary of the eight cited sources:

Business Insider Australia 30 December 2013 Trivial two-sentence mention citing its valuation on coinmarketcap.com.
CNNMoney 21 January 2014 Trivial mention; two sentences describing the non-profit foundation, and some quotes from the foundation's spokesperson on peer-to-peer financial technology in general.
CoinDesk 24 December 2013 Minor mention; one sentence description, and quote from Mastercoin Foundation director Ron Gross.
Wall Street Journal 22 January 2014 Minor; article not about Mastercoin, but discusses it in four paragraphs in the context of Bitcoin funding of open source software.
CoinDesk 25 August 2013 Article about MasterCoin.
Bitcoin Magazine 4 November 2013 Very detailed article about Mastercoin.
Forbes 30 November 2013 Article about Mastercoin
CoinDesk 6 December 2013 Article about MasterCoin.

––Agyle (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references look perfectly fine to me . Let the article stay for now , Mastercoin is one of the hottest things in the bitcoin world and will likely grow in notability over time. I'm an inclusionist. I realize some of the crypto-currency naysayers are going to want to delete this. The article is very useful and definitely notable enough. It does not really fall under WP:CORP. Danski14^(talk) 17:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danski14, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Mastercoin or the publications CoinDesk and Bitcoin Magazine, but the reason I consider them weak is that they lack “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” (WP:RS) that many established publications have. I am not speaking hypothetically because the publications are new; in working to replace the Willet's (Mastercoin's founder) citations in this article using the above references, Bitcoin Magazine alone makes the dubious and legally very significant claim that Mastercoin investors were buying currencies from a nonprofit organization, while the organization itself in this Wikipedia article (Mastercoin Foundation wrote the Wikipedia article) claimed that it was formed after the sale (no citation, so it was removed). Bitcoin Magazine is a legit business that publishes a print version as well, but as it notes, its editor and two reporters had no prior journalism education or experience, and in my opinion does a poor job of fact-checking. Because there is so little coverage of Mastercoin overall, particularly by truly reliable sources, claims like Bitcoin Magazine's become “facts” for Wikipedia's purposes. That sort of issue is one of the reasons behind GNG wanting significant coverage from multiple sources with reputations for fact-checking and accuracy. Forbes' article on Mastercoin gave a fair amount of coverage to Internet critics saying the company is a scam, and was explicit about the conflict of interest that should be considered in weighing what Willet said. If there were multiple sources that investigated and reported on Mastercoin seriously, a Wikipedia article could be produced with genuine facts, or at least balanced with multiple perspectives. With the existing references, I think the article will inevitably be vulnerable to distortions. As the Forbes article emphasizes, it's a controversial subject that should be treated skeptically. ––Agyle (talk) 21:01, 14 February 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^(talk) 15:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not fulfill WP:GNG, the article sources haven't improved since it was last deleted. The Forbes.com article does not meet the GNG source requirements, Forbes disowns the content in the sidebar: "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." Coindesk and Bitcoin magazine can not be considered reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. The WSJ blog has no apparent news analysis or fact checking, it simply repeats verbatim what the BitAngels spokesperson told the reporter (practically every paragraph is qualified with "Mr. Johnston said"), and thus cannot be considered an independent, reliable source. Smite-Meister (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think Bitcoin Magazine is a reliable source (referenced in Bitcoin, Silk Road (marketplace), Mt.Gox, One Foundation, BTC-E, Primecoin, 2013 Lushan earthquake, Social news, Proof-of-stake, I may have missed some, but clearly the editors of all these articles thought that Bitcoin Magazine was reliable enough to reference and I agree with them). The WSJ article does quote the BitAngels spokesperson quite a bit with little else, not very independent. The Forbes article though seems much better. Two other sources:

Reuters Jan 24, 2014, about BitAngles and their investment in Mastercoin.
Cryptocoins News January 31) an article from a less established but independent source about the upcoming MasterCoin launch date.

Obsidi (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Magazine may be an OK source for uncontroversial facts about cryptocurrencies, but not for establishing general notability, which is the issue here. Same holds for CoinDesk, Cryptocoins News etc. The Reuters article (actually from Entrepreneur.com) is about BitAngels and Bitcoin, the Mastercoin reference is a passing mention. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem like there is significant enough coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Citations 1-8 are sufficient to establish notability. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, citations 1-8 are quite feeble and do not establish clearly notability. Most are trivial mentions or from sources of somewhat dubious reliability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The Forbes article is sufficient to establish notability . Multiple references are not necessary when there is one very strong reference , like that comprehensive article. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 27 February 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) 18:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piper family[edit]

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

A list article that would be more appropriate as a navbox or some other sort of navigation aid between related articles. As it stands at the moment, this list article seems to be a cunning ruse for non-notables, such as Prue Piper and Sebastian Piper, to be profiled on Wikipedia. Apart from the Messums gallery catalogue, there seems to be nothing that talks about the dynasty as a whole (though I don't doubt biographies of John Piper will mention his immediate family members). The Piper family is a non-notable subject. Sionk (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Piper family includes a significant number of notable people apart from John Piper, including Myfanwy Piper, Edward Piper, and Luke Piper. Other family members are less well-known individually, but continue the artistic tradition. The family is known as an artistic family within the United Kingdom at least. The joint biography on John Piper and Myfanwy Piper by the art historian Frances Spalding (John Piper, Myfanwy Piper: Lives in art, Oxford University Press, 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-956761-4) covers the family as well. This page is a way of recording the family's artistic achievements as a whole. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of them so their relationship to each other is a notable topic. Szzuk (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It's simply a list of people related to John Piper. The notable ones already have a Wikipedia article. Once the non-notable ones are deleted, it will serve no purpose. Sionk (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes really! See also the memoir of the potter Geoffrey Eastop, a family friend, on the Piper family: Easton, Geoffrey (2011). The Piper Years: A memoir. Zingaro Books. ISBN 978-0-9566848-2-0. I have added this to the entry. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a book about John Piper. Listing books about John Piper is hardly a development of the article. Be mindful the Henry Piper article was deleted at AfD, so adding it back somewhere else is circumventing the notability process. Sionk (talk) 17:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the book? I don't believe so from your comment since it covers the Piper family as well as John Piper. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That book is clearly about John and Myfanwy though I've no doubt it also mentions their son (who already has a Wikipedia article). I stand by my argument that this list article simply serves the purpose of giving Piper's non-notable descendants an undeserving Wikipedia write-up. Sionk (talk) 22:38, 15 February 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^(talk) 15:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't believe that the proposer has read the key references from the comments above. The Piper family has three generations of notable artistic members with Wikipedia entries who are important as an artistic family as well, especially due to their way of life as a family, as covered in a number of referenced books, etc. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point. Every very well known person will have their family described in their biography. The question is whether that justifies an article split listing their extended family. And the younger non-notable members clearly don't feature in his biography. There are other, more appropriate and better ways of linking related people together on Wikipedia, without writing a full article. Sionk (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying something is "clear" without actually reading the relevant references is not academically credible, IMHO. All the people listed in the page are featured in the Spalding book, many extensively, as referenced. The family is linked by its artistic integrity in a similar way to many other families on Wikipedia involved in cultural activities, such as artists, musicians, writers, etc. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: To me the question of primary importance is whether an article enhances the value of Wikipedia to its users. In this case I think the answer is "yes".Tillander 14:01, 19 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pychecker[edit]

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

unmaintained (since 2011) and notability contested and not established since then. Pylint is vastly more capable and popular (see e.g. number followers on stackoverflow og google results). If we were to have an article for all products with this amount of PyPI downloads per month, we would have thousands... Ysangkok (talk) 18:11, 7 February 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^(talk) 15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Current refs are a blog and a project site, and do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. A search did not reveal any significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:42, 20 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChecKing[edit]

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

notability not established, initial contributor probably has COI Ysangkok (talk) 18:23, 7 February 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^(talk) 15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search complicated by the name, but nothing currently in the article to establish notability. --JamesMoose (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of stars in Ophiuchus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HD 160346[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Although there are some papers, all of them only mention the star tangentially, and don't actually do an in-depth study on it. Not visible to the naked eye. StringTheory11 (t • c) 18:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge/~~redirect - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 04:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean to List of stars in Ophiuchus as the target. StringTheory11(t • c) 18:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, yes. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:13, 23 February 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^(talk) 15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 18 February 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Sandis[edit]

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

No evidence of notability WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Sources fail WP:RS. PROD was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:37, 7 February 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^(talk) 15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sandis apparently is the one listed editor of a book series, and is author of what looks like a pretty big book/textbook that appears to affect the field and/or to reach outside the narrow area of the field. Here is an Amazon link. How can one get book sales information? I am not familiar with this kind of searching, and only did a little searching; other editors could add more pretty easily, i expect. --do ncr am 21:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- no single book clearly goes over the notability/influence bar, but 6 books with approximately 200 library holdings each are sufficient to me to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 with the UK Professorship at Oxford Brookes. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the library-holdings found by Mscuthbert. --Randykitty (talk) 21:34, 20 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noatun (media player)[edit]

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

I created this article. But now that Noatun is even discontinued and unused, and also considering the arguments from the last AfD, I think we should delete this. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC) Ysangkok (talk) 19:32, 7 February 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^(talk) 15:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Current refs do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. The last Afd (2009) mentioned an interview with a developer - http://dot.kde.org/2001/09/18/noatun-interview-kde-developer-charles-samuels - but alone this is not sufficient to establish notability, and a search didn't turn up additional RS significant coverage.Dialectric (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to KDE Software Compilation, which it appears the software was included in for its first three versions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:36, 23 February 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 Divine Insanity. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding (song)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSONG. Dwaipayan (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Divine Insanity, the album on which the song appears. Although the single reached number two in Finland, I am finding no significant coverage to turn this into a reasonably detailed article. Gong show 19:36, 11 February 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^(talk) 15:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:34, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LeafFilter Gutter Protection[edit]

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

promotional article for firm with numerous minor awards. some of the refs are to these awards, most are straight press releases DGG ( talk ) 20:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Smells like WP:SOAP to me. Levdr1lp / talk 18:52, 13 February 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^(talk) 15:20, 15 February 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. Nominator is given a {{trout}} for having advanced a deletion rationaile that should was WP:SK1 eligible. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois's 17th congressional district election, 2010[edit]

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

Why is there a page for one congressional race? Cmckain (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Illinois,_2010#District_17. I see no problem with an article about a single race, if it meets WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 11 February 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^(talk) 15:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy based reason for deleting the article has been advanced. The topic is notable and the referencing is fine. It is OK to have statewide articles on several Congressional races, or individual articles if editors are so motivated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:16, 15 February 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 / 07:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love and Pain (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. No explanation or assertion of notability. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While there appear to be a couple sentences here and there, I'm not finding enough material on this release to warrant an independent article. Gong show 19:27, 11 February 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^(talk) 15:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Super Heroines; redirects are very cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 23 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delilah Strong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying nonscene awards, just nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. Negligible reliably sourced biographical content Not PROD-eligible, previously speedied without discussion after 1st AFD nomination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the requirements of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk) (en-2) 18:37, 9 February 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^(talk) 15:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG as the nominator states. Only non-scene-related award win is not major. References for biographical content are unreliable. The AVN article about a contract signing appears to be a reprinted press release. No significant reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator & Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability requirements for porn biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 20 February 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. Fails WP:PORNBIO, and arguments to keep the article either directly contradict that guideline or ignore our policies on what Wikipedia is not (i.e., a place to keep things that might eventually become notable). slakr^\ talk / 05:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Leigh[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing for this BLP. No nontrivial reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement by IP with negligible edit history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the requirements of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man (talk) (en-2) 18:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does this actress pass PORNBIO? The scene-related award win does not count. PORNBIO was recently changed to exclude nominations. No obvious unique contributions to porn. I haven't found non-trivial reliable source coverage in searches. Do you see something there that I don't see? • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO without awards and fails GNG without non-trivial reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with User:Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's won an AVN Award. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what? You know perfectly well that PORNBIO expressly excludes scene-related awards from establishing notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although she does not meet requirements of WP:PORNBIO according to the current criteria, it's reasonable to assume that she'll soon pass it due to her young age (19) and as already mentioned an AVN award already under her belt. A ton of other articles on pornographic actresses exist that fail PORNBIO and have much less potential in ever passing that are not challenged for deletion which leads me to assume (I'm probably wrong) that there are other criteria in play when judging to keep/delete or that the process is selective according to who has the motivation to nominate an article. Hanswar32 (talk) 02:40, 15 February 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^(talk) 15:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The last above sounds also like Crystal Ball. Davidships (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Scalhotrod. Nymf (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As set out in the nomination, she fails the porn bio guidelines. Some of the above sound like "other stuff exists" or crystal ball. If there are other articles that fail our guidelines, they should also be deleted. If the person does not yet meet the criteria, we do not have an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is, I do agree with you in principle. My opinion is that we should first delete porn articles that exist (in abundance) which have no potential of ever being re-created then to focus on and delete an article which has a high probability of being re-created within a few months to a year. This logic doesn't require a person with a crystal ball (which is utter nonsense) to see. Hanswar32 (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "utter nonsense" - please read WP:CRYSTAL, which is what is being referred to (along with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She does not meet the current guideline. If she does something to establish notability, the article can easily be re-created.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Camilo Him. ... not sure if the AfD at the target will pass or not, but if it doesn't, this defaults to delete, as this would fail WP:EVENT and WP:NOT#NEWS if it stood alone. slakr^\ talk / 07:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big Shows[edit]

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

Non-notable photo show by non-notable photographer. Lacks Independent, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An exhibition for which there seems to be no independent, non-trivial sourcing. Perhaps not surprising if, as we are told, only celebs were admitted. Well, it depends. IFF AfD/Camilo Him doesn't end in deletion (which would surprise me), then redirect this to that; if the former does end in deletion, then delete this. -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camilo Him - there's no need to actually delete most of this. It's sourced. If the BLP is notable then this can be merged into it. Have left a message to User:Vlaich advising him to merge while the BLP AfD is still open. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after merge - the bio at AfD/Camilo Him now looks like a keep. This Big Shows page can now be redirected without an actual "delete" decision. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 9 February 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^(talk) 15:10, 15 February 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. Are the sources substantial enough? It is a very subjective question that this discussion hinges on, but there is clearly no strong consensus either way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Luxembourg relations[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Luxembourg is such a small country, it has hardly any significant relations outside of Europe, USA. the article is full of the usual we want to cooperate statements rather than evidence of actual relations. like significant trade, migration, embassies, agreements, or visits by leaders. no evidence of these at all. 2 of the 3 sources merely refer to the one announcement by 2012 by the Business Chamber of Commerce in Luxembourg LibStar (talk) 00:10, 7 February 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 February 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Relationships between nations, if there is anything there, is pretty notable. In this case though there doesn't look like enough for more than a blurb. Sources are everything in these cases and they don't seem to be there for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ad Orientem (talk • contribs)

Delete - AO is right; relationships between nations, if there is anything there, are pretty notable but there needs to be something there. In this case, there isn't. There are plenty of instances of notable relationships between countries but not every random combination of X-Y relations is notable. WP:GNG still applies. Stalwart111 12:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, there are three sources with indepth coverage.--Zayeem ^(talk) 19:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That "indepth coverage" all relates to a single one-day visit. All three cover the same diplomatic non-event. A single visit on a slow news day does not international relations make. Stalwart111 05:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and the meeting included no government officials from either country, so the article hinges on a one off meeting of business men promising to do more but not actually doing anything else.

LibStar (talk) 07:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I think articles on the relations between every set of two countries is vital and should be created as an article. Even if it is to say "there is essentially no relationship between these two countries". It is important information nonetheless. I hope to god no similar articles have already been swept through the AFD process because I firmly believe they all deserve a place on Wikipedia.--Coin945 (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how is this strong keep? This is just a WP:ITSNOTABLE argument with not one source or notability guideline cited. Over 100 bilateral articles have been deleted. There is no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing for a rule, not an example. I am saying that regardless of what the specifics of this relationship are, the fact that there are two countries, and the notion that bilateral relationships are exceedingly important and influential, (I'm not ashamed to say it) give this type of article automatic notability status. This, I firmly believe. I am not arguing for or against what happens to be in this particular article at the moment. That is a discussion for another time and place (the talk page). But as already stated, regardless of whether it is the most comprehensive relationship or the most insignificant, these two countries' existence and ability to have bilateral relationships makes them (or their absence) rather notable indeed. So I would say those 100 or so other deletions got it wrong.--Coin945 (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should then ask for a deletion review of those 100+ deleted. It seems WP:ILIKEIT rather than referring to any established consensus or notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 11:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silence equals vagueness and misinformation. I would rather be told a straight up "X and Y have little to no bilateral relationship to speak of" than be kept in the dark (and unable to locate any article with any information on the topic) due to not being able to find conclusive evidence to support wither side of the coin. So yes, if it came to it, I would fight for the right for this type of article to exist. But as it seems like a large battle, and quite frankly I neither have the time nor the energy to invest into this, I will humbly reject your offer for a deletion review. But it doesn't change my view. I would highly encourage the creators of those articles to do it though.--Coin945 (talk) 11:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All a closing admin is going to see of your !vote is a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSNOTABLE argument with zero attempt to find sources or point to a previous consensus establishing inherent notability. It would be like me going around and saying every police station is notable strong keep! despite no inherent notability established. LibStar (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability is also relevant. Where's the pass against WP:GNG? We don't just include something because people find it interesting. I've used it before but how is it any different to random combinations of animals? I like parrots and sharks and both have probably appeared in the same pirate movies. Why not create Shark-Parrot relations? Short answer; doesn't meet inclusion requirements. Stalwart111 11:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] I'm not sure you understand my point. To justify this article's existence in Wikipedia, I don't have to show how strong the Bangladesh-Luxumberg relation actually is. What I *would* need to do though is demonstrate that bilateral relationships are very important and influential. Then, as already explained, regardless of how strong or weak this particular relationship is, the notion of bilateral relationships between two countries is shown to be automatically notable.--Coin945 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it like this: List of ship decommissionings in 1996 is an article that includes only one entry. I'm sure there is an article of this nature that includes 0 entries. Why would such an insignificant article event exist? A list with only one entry...what? It's because of completeness. Because the very nature of a ship decommission is inherently notable, so whether 100 or 0 happened in a year, that fact should be known to a reader. It's the same with this. Whether or not the relationship is very significant or not very significant, the type of relationship itself is notable, so its presence or absence should be documented.--Coin945 (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And in response to the Shark-Parrot analogy, if you demonstrate that inter-special relationships are as important and influential as bilateral ones, then I would agree with you. I created Dog–cat relationship, so I certainly think there's merit to that discussion.--Coin945 (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coin 945, in the time spent arguing here you could have searched for sources that could establish notability instead of trying to make something automatically notable when it isn't. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about what I've said?--Coin945 (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does nothing to establish notability of thear bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, the Wikipedia articles on Bilateralism, Bilateral trade, and Bilateral treaty are pretty slim, so perhaps even Wikipedia does not yet demonstrate how important such relationships are...--Coin945 (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Most of these X-Y relations articles are very bad, and this is no exception. The choice of sources looks like desperate barrel-scraping to me. Much of the claimed notability comes from stuff about BBCCL, but I looked at the organization's website and it appears not even to be affiliated with the government of Bangladesh. Reyk _YO! 05:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be kept according to Wikipedia's General notability guideline since the references in the article are from reliable, secondary sources and have significant coverage about the topic. Nomian (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's been addressed above - the sources don't provide coverage of anything except an unofficial one-day visit. All three sources relate to the same non-notable event and don't provide any coverage at all (let alone significant coverage) of a "relationship" between these two countries. I'm not sure it would even qualify as significant coverage of a relationship between the individuals involved, or the individuals themselves, for that matter. Taking multiple instances of coverage of a single event and synthesising them together to suggest a notable long-term diplomatic relationship is dishonest and contrary to WP policy. Stalwart111 08:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The bottom scraping of references here didn't come up with much: a tiny amount of speculation about the possibility of relations in the future, so this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Relationships between nations are a core encyclopedic feature that is notable. The continuing campaign to eliminate these articles was, and still is, distressing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you are arguing for inherent notability when there is no consensus for this in bilateral articles. Have you actually examined the article, as it stands it is based on one non official meeting of businessmen. Is there actual significant coverage of ongoing relations? LibStar (talk) 02:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Votes that do not discuss the state of the article or the availability of sources are unlikely to influence the closer's decision. Your vote consists of nothing but a false assertion that bilateral relations articles are inherently notable, and and an equally false and completely unwarranted attack on the nominator. You have not mentioned this article at all. How, for instance, do you address my finding that most of the sources talk about the BBCCL, which actually has no affiliation with the government of Bangladesh? Reyk _YO! 02:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

very well said Reyk. WP:ADHOM attacks do nothing to add to a keep vote. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "adhom" here. There is just the observation that when a single editor consistently goes through articles in the same very narrow topic area and consistently sends them to AfD for the same consistent rationaile that goes against part of the Five Pillars (the part where Wikipedia is not just an encylopedia but also a gazzeteer), then there comes a time to start calling a spade a spade. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because some of these are not notable in fact over 100 have been deleted. A few editors have called for inherent notability of bilaterals yet there is no established guideline for this. If you want to argue keep, show some sources like other editors have done. It is still ADHOM because you single out me obviously want me to stop when I'm quite within my rights to nominate as not every bilateral s kept. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 23 February 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^(talk) 15:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added details about the recognition of Bangladesh in the backdrop of the 1971 war. I would invoke WP:PAPER here, there is no inherent value in deletion and this article has a scope for expansion. --Soman (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't everyone recognise them then? Luxembourg recognised them when the rest of Europe did, didn't they? How does that confer notability? There's some real clutching at straws here. Again, where is the basic coverage required to meet WP:GNG? Stalwart111 11:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all countries recognized Bangladesh at once. There was a lot of geopolitics around this, and US, USSR and China all had different takes on this. Notably the wave of Western European recognitions (which panned out over a few weeks) came several months after the declaration of independence. Luxembourg might be a small country, but is not irrelevant in diplomacy. Through having an article, an interested reader might be able to find this information more easily. Deletion should not be an end in itself. --Soman (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly what we have Foreign relations of Bangladesh for, and Foreign relations of Luxembourg for that matter. This is just a couple of diplomatic (not even) tid-bits synthesised together to form a whole. There's nothing specifically notable about the relationship between these two countries in particular and suggesting there is is just plain dishonest. Stalwart111 13:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this recognition occurred, I see no evidence of a notable ongoing relationship. As stalwart says, recognition can be mentioned in 1 line in the foreign relations article. And secondly WP:PAPER, doesn't give a free pass to article creation, my local fire station got mentioned a few times, does that deserve an article? LibStar (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, partly because your local fire station has no notability beyond the reach of your own community. But the real problem with starting an article on your local fire station is that you would end up in reproducing gossip about individuals that are not public figures. In the case of diplomacy, it is a relation between sovereign states. And the diplomacy of small states is also important. This article could also contain material on Bangladeshi diaspora in LUX, work of Luxembourg development agency and NGOs in Bangladesh (see for example, http://www.friendship.lu/a-propos ), etc.. This is not about counting google hits, but about whether the article subject has a scope for expansion. --Soman (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

scope for expansion? I think next to zero, you are the only keep !voter to actually provide any expansion. I found no evidence of visits by ministers even government officials, trade, agreements, migration, military or diplomatic co operation. There is no chance of expansion, that's why it is at AfD. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"You would end up in reproducing gossip about individuals that are not public figures" - you mean like details about private non-notable business-people from one country visiting another and suggesting those private visits are actually part of some formal relationship between two nation states? Like 75% of this article (100% of it before this AFD). I suppose it could be "expanded" to include more examples of non-notable private visits between the two. Hmm. Stalwart111 15:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you added the grand duchess' visit, this was in her capacity representing UNESCO and not the Luxembourg government. LibStar (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the visit was announced at a Bangladesh - Luxembourg diplomatic gig, so I think it counts as part of currying favour with one another: "This was disclosed when Syed Moudud Ali, Bangladesh Ambassador to Belgium concurrently accredited to Luxembourg, presented his credentials to the Grand Duke recently" (23 July 2003, United News of Bangladesh Limited). --99of9 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And during the visit, she and her ambassador met with the president and foreign minister (separate meetings), where they said "her visit would have a beneficial effect on the existing Bangladesh-Luxembourg relations". So they think it counts. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few new sources that confirm that the High Duchess' visit included meetings with the President and Foreign Minister, where they talked of their bilateral relations. I've also added a note that the only UCITS-compliant investment vehicle in Bangladesh stocks is based in Luxembourg. --99of9 (talk) 01:16, 21 February 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. Daniel (talk) 10:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Def Classic Mix[edit]

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

Declined PROD. Per WP:BEFORE, picks up almost nothing. Tried "Def Mix" and almost nothing comes up except their production company site. I don't feel there's anything here worth merging as it is uncited and I couldn't find independent sources to cite it, and a possible redirect to Frankie Knuckles seems kinda weak as even at that article there's no reliable sourcing associated with this particular term... Roberticus (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources; only mentions. Appears to fail WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 17 February 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. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 05:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian H. Cameron[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, as required by notability and the general notability guide. What this articles comes across as is a simple Curriculum vitae, and the fact that the subject's place of employment issued a press release trumpeting the creation of the Wikipedia bio an active movement to use the project for marketing purposes. Being the president of a professional organization is admirable, but it is not an inherently notable position. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : This is no high cited computer scientists, but his articles as listed at the DBLP Computer Science Bibliography have been cited in some (dozens) of independent reliable sources. This together with being founding president should give him (just) enough notability for inclusion. -- Mdd (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being cited by others is not in itself a measure of notability. WP:PROF covers some cases for notability for academic types, but it is not a literal substitute for the general notability guide. If a person is to have a Wikipedia article, we expect that reliable sources have written about the individual to some extent. If such sources do not exist, then they do not deserve a Wikipedia article. Tarc (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These source does exist (to some extent). For example the first source listed, describes some of the outcomes of Cameron's work in stating "... Importance of improving the curricula in schools of information systems in the business proposition of SOA as a strategy is discomfort of instructors in improving courses in information systems, so that they are current with industry methods and and practices of firms (Cameron, 2007)" (online) Based on this kind of (preliminary) observations I thought there was enough to start an article. -- Mdd (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 8 February 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 February 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:06, 9 February 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 February 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:33, 10 February 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 February 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE. For the reasons Tarc mentioned above, and because of a massive undeclared COI. Interestingly enough, User:Nickmalik (Avinash Nicklas Malik) who is a major contributor to this article is on the board of the Enterprise Architecture Body of Knowledge with Cameron,[15] and obviously acquainted through the Federation of Enterprise Architecture Professional Organizations, [16] and quite unbelievably Cameron was surprised when his friend (I mean, "an editor") called him up to say "hey, dude, I wrote that Wikipedia entry you told me to write".[17]. I wouldn't be surprised if a connection between Cameron and Mdd (who started the article and has other suspicious editing behavior that compels me to wonder about potential COIs) were eventually uncovered with a few quick google searches. Burn this vanity circle jerk with fire.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google search will reveal no connection between Cameron and me, because there isn't any. There is direct contact between me and Nick Malik here on Wikipedia, and Nick Malik is closely working together with Cameron. However, if you would make that Google search you would find another very peculiar 2013 press release, here where Cameron explains that "After publication, the paper will serve as the new entry for EA in Wikipedia." This indeed happened November 2013, and I opposed toward that step, see here with no furter response. Personally, I admit that this kind of press releases are strange, but I think that should not affect our policy. I try to write not just about the main events of this field, but also about its origin and about the state of the art, and for that reason this article was started. -- Mdd (talk) 13:44, 13 February 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article is a resume and there is a lack of good sources to turn it into anything else. He is not sufficiently notable to bother trying. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:02, 15 February 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. If merger is desired, that can be discussed through the usual methods. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pesticide research[edit]

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

The information on this page is duplicated in pesticide and various other pesticide related pages. In addition, it is not clear what the scope of this page should be. DivaNtrainin (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree No other article treats this topic in depth or covers all of the material that it does. E.g., the terms (S)-metolachlor, pinoxaden and indonane are not found elsewhere in WP. Also, the applications of techniques used in drug research for agrochemicals is explored. The initial form of the article draws from a reliable secondary source. Finally, the presence of articles such as pharmaceutical research indicates that this way of addressing the topic has been accepted. NB I am the originator of the article. Lfstevens (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per WP:Deletion policy, content disputes may be closed by any uninvolved editor. Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is entirely too spooky. It reads to me like part of a primer for some fresh-out-of-college (or maybe self-taught?) chemist about to start a new job with Dow or Monsanto.Paavo273 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with a distinct merge possibility. Much of the content in this article is not in the Pesticide article, and the topic is notable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can be developed further about overlying pesticide research. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 08:17, 16 February 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 Capital punishment in the United States. There is consensus that at this moment the notability of this person has not been established, and redirecting leaves the edit history intact.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Coburn (criminal)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources. Very small article. Surprised it lasted this long. The notable information (if verifiable) is already contained in Capital punishment in the United States. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 19:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added a couple of references, but still not totally sure it can meet WP:CRIMINAL / pass WP:BLP1E. I'll see what else I can dig up, if anything. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia avoids articles on people who just make lists. Not all executed people are notable, and this person clearly isn't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Capital punishment in the United States. There is a slight notability here - "last person excuted for a crime other than murder" - yet there is not enough notability for a stand-alone article. However, as he's mentioned in that article, a redirect there would be reasonable and logical. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:24, 23 February 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. Enough comments after the relist for a delete close - thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NexusBPM[edit]

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

Seems to be non-wp:notable software. Nothing in Google Books about it. The few web hits seem to be all blogs and stuff like that. Article created by a WP:SPA thus suggesting WP:VANISPAM. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that this jBPM extension achieved notability. (Also lacks updates in the past 5 years.) AllyD (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm only finding mentions on computing websites, rather than significant coverage in reliable sources. Zero Gbooks hits at this time. Appears to fail WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RetroGuide[edit]

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

WP:COI promotion of an academic (software, it seems) project. All sources are fairly recent wp:primary publications and their first author also wrote this Wikipedia page as well as healthcare workflow and made some edits to the SPA-written HealthFlow. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They wrote a lot of papers about this, but a Google Scholar search for the first author's name finds that all papers have less than 20 citations each, and most have single-digit citations, suggesting lack of wp:notability. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HealthFlow[edit]

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

WP:COI promotion of an academic (software, it seems) project. All sources are fairly recent wp:primary publications and one of their authors also wrote the Wikipedia page on healthcare workflow and made some edits to this page as well. The mostly WP:SPA user who wrote most of this page, probably has a COI too. Anyway, this doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. There are some hits in Google Books under this name, but they are mostly about Johnson & Johnson's Healthflow bottle and similar baby feeding products. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They wrote a lot of papers about this and especially about its part/predecessor RetroGuide, but a Google Scholar search for the first/main author's name finds that all papers have less than 20 citations each, and most have single-digit citations, further suggesting lack of wp:notability. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare workflow[edit]

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

The concept might be even notable, but the wiki article is definitely WP:TNT-worthy being essentially an (unsourced) advert for a blog. If someone wants to "save" this by rewriting it, be WP:BOLD. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this page was created as part of the promotion package for HealthFlow and RetroGuide. The author of this wiki page wrote the primary sources cited in those other wiki pages, and also wrote at least one of those articles (a more mysterious SPA wrote the other). Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Shova Shrestha[edit]

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

I am concerned that the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion. There is certainly zero evidence of notability provided by the article itself (but that doesn't mean it should be deleted) but on researching through the sources it relates to a lady in Nepal who has opened her home to about 85 less fortunate people in an act of admirable charity. She received some notoriety being interviewed on television at one point. The first link is a deadlink for me, the second is a blog written about the aforementioned tv interview, and the third is a news article on the television show. I myself am on the fence with this one, wondering if it will scrape through GNG, but I wanted to have it decided by the community. I'll message the creator on this point, because I don't want to appear bitey. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references to the article which may prove this is notable article. And the first link is working too. So, this article should not be deleted. Thanks. Ashishlohorung (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the very best she is notable for one event. She is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 20 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vertigo Games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: Does not make a very good case for WP:Notability, article also has had multiple issues such as relying on primary sources of information (Game Maker's Website) and WP:Spam for about 5 years now. Also appears highly WP:Promotional. BlitzGreg (talk) 11:53, 8 February 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 February 8. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:07, 8 February 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) 13:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Source searches in Gbooks and news source searches are only providing passing mentions, and many are about the concept of "vertigo games", rather than this company. Press about this company appears to be mostly based upon press releases that are published on blogs and games websites (e.g. [18], [19]). Appears to fail WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is also another issue, there are two Vertigo Games, one makes games in GameMaker, the other makes high definition educational games. So you may actually be mixing up the citations and they may actually be appearing more notable than they really are. BlitzGreg (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Environmental Networks[edit]

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

Defunct company (acquired by Climate Energy which does not have its own wikipage) which does not meet WP:CORP. No independent media coverage other than trivia or reporting the acquisition. Beagel (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's one source in the article that appears to be reliable (it's unlinked, so unable to assess it), but source searches are not providing additional sources that provide significant coverage (sigcov). Gbooks searches are only providing mentions (e.g. [20], [21], [22]), and news searches are likewise not providing the sigcov needed to pass WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:10, 15 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Kopplin[edit]

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

Not notable. No evidence from reliable sources of notability per WP:BIO.

Comment: completing nomination for User:98.164.84.78; I'm neutral. ₆an⁶sh₆ 05:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:19, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt No evidence of notability and fails WP:BIO. Local or if national, minor in nature. 98.164.127.81 (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Jeffrey Kruebbe[reply]
Delete: The two documented awards are minor and nothing amounts to notability. This individual is a government employee with no evidence from reliable sources of notability per WP:BIO. 107.211.18.193 (talk) 07:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Seth Harmon[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:17, 15 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K.A. Gilliland[edit]

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

Article's notability concerns were raised at WikiProject Women artists. Gilliland's claim to notability rests on her being producer on a 15 minute film that was shown at the Cannes Film Festival. I'm not sure myself whether this is enough to meet WP:GNG. The other coverage is brief mentions only. Sionk (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established. The subject clearly wrote the article herself, so this is a case of self-promotion and conflict of interest. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think local news coverage and a short film that doesn't pass Wikipedia:Notability (films) is enough. I looked for better sources but didn't find them. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:27, 21 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Bullock[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the sources to show he meets WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:KICK, WP:MANOTE, and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inka Fighting Championship[edit]

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

Non-notabale MMA promotion. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotion exists, but article's only sources are a list of fight cards and a list among MMA organizations--no significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:17, 17 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bossé[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter or hockey player Peter Rehse (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I especially like the unsourced claim that the subject became the "#1 enforcer" in the LNAH. Given that only once did he so much as lead his own team in penalty minutes in the infamously rough semi-pro league, that's a farcical claim, even if playing in LNAH qualified one under WP:NHOCKEY, which it doesn't. No evidence the subject passes the GNG or the WP:NMMA criteria. Ravenswing 11:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, WP:NHOCKEY, or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all. --Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:19, 21 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Oishi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Repost after a deletion discsussion resulting in delete. Non-notable MMA fighter. Managed two top tier fights in career but spread out , a while ago and both were losses. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's had a long career, but he still doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Record[edit]

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

Promo piece for local rapper built by sockpuppets. He has recieved a little bit of local interest coverage but nothing significant. Album is independently released. No charting or gold (claims he's sold ~4,000 copies). No major awards. May have toured UK but I found no mention of it in the UK press. PR claims of over a 1,000,000 views on youtube seem fake, 520 seems to be the real figure. Airplay is not national and not rotation. Nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC. Improve Wikipedia by getting rid of spam, stop rewarding bad faith editng. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all the reasons above. In addition the official web-site (refs now removed) had drive-by malicious code suggesting an even less attractive motive for the authors of this piece. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the official web site is still poison, please consider asking that it be WP:Blacklisted or globally blacklisted until the web site is cleaned up. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 February 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. Withdrawn with no outstanding calls for deletion. WP:NAC. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Haizlip[edit]

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

As tag already notes, article is in promotional tone. The major issue is that the three references listed have no information regarding the subject, which leads the article to be original research. – Recollected • 04:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Promotional tone isn't grounds for deletion. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Yes, the article needs better sources. Yes, it could stand to be written better. That doesn't warrant deletion. The subject is notable and that is the true standard. This in depth article alone [23] passes GNG. These just add to it: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]Niteshift36 (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If an admin could remove/close my listing, that would be great. Cleaned it up myself. No need to delete now. – Recollected • 05:14, 15 February 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. The arguments for keeping the article were passionate, but did not have much grounding in WP policies.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle of the Ottoman Empire[edit]

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

The article is a classic case of WP:FORK. All the content here can be conveniently placed in the Culture of the Ottoman Empire article. Besides that, much of its information doesn't appear to be even worth mentioning. The page looks like more of an image gallery than an encyclopedic article. "Lifestyle of the Ottoman Empire" is a very vague and indefinite title for an article, there are no equivalents of it in Wikipedia. More importantly, it hasn't been cited since 2009 and is poorly written with loads of WP:OR and poorly written statements such as "Turkish baths were unique" or "Socialization was a very important function in Turkish culture." I call for its deletion. Étienne Dolet (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is essentially "original research". It started out as a gallery of images proscribed by WP:NOTGALLERY, and it appears that text was added in an attempt to go around the proscription. It cannot be salvaged by adding sources because, in the form in which it is presented, without appropriate context, it doesn't make much sense or isn't true. The Ottoman Empire was huge, lasted several centuries, and combined many lifestyles. Most of its citizens had a rural lifestyle, while the text seems to be exclusively about the lifestyle of specifically the upper middle class in specifically Constantinople in the later periods of the Empire. The vague title is also not felicitous, to say the least: lifestyle of an Empire? --Lambiam 08:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is incomplete. It surely needs further development. But this does not call for deletion. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We're talking about whole western muslim world and half of the Europe for 600 years. Their lifestyle is a must. That's a huge part and wide period of time. The article is incomplete. Deletion is an ill will. You should stop harming Turkish related articles.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Following that logic it is even much more of a must to have an article "Lifestyle of the world", which will cover not only Europe and the Middle East for the last 600 years but also the Americas, Asia, Africa and Australia for the last 100,000 years. --Lambiam 00:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to "harm Turkish related articles". In fact, if this article gets deleted, it will divert Wikipedians to visit the Culture of Ottoman Empire page which has much more information and is an all around better article. That's better for WikiProject Turkey and of Wikipedia at large. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Étienne Dolet You always contribute anti-Turkish additions. That drew my attention. Lıfestyle of the world would be great. Definetly we need it.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merge into Culture of the Ottoman Empire - Like Étienne Dolet said, the Culture article is an excellent and IMO necessary alternative to this page. That being said, this page has a lot of unparalleled images that show the clothing of the Empire, especially in its last crucial decades. I say all images on this page be merged into the Culture of the Ottoman Empire article. Ithinkicahn (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lifestyle and culture are not the same thing. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having separate lifestyle and culture articles only serves to make it harder for the reader to find the information being sought, since the distinction between the two is not well defined. It is not common practice (either in wikipedia or in the world at large) to try to separate the two concepts. Wickedjacob (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Երևանցի ^talk 20:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The article is trying to be a fork of Culture of the Ottoman Empire. However apart from the pictures there is little content. I am therefore not suggesting merger, but if we were to merge, some aspects of this article would be better merged to other articles than Culture. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 23 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Coots[edit]

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

I do not think this is a notable career, but it certainly is a promotional article She claims a "lead role: on a very famous commercial, but there's no third party documentation of that. She's been CEO only of a small firm. She's written short sections of several books, but no book of her own. She's given talks--in fact, she goes to the trouble of saying who her agent is, which is pure promotionalism.

Bein g an advertising person, she's made sure she;s been interviewed. I consider none of the sources sufficiently independent or substantial for notability. The article came here from AfC DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm tempted to just go with DGG and say that we should nuke this article. It uses all the classic WP:PROMO tricks: she is friends with famous people, she is tangentially related to famous works, and she has primary sources to prove that she did something at famous events. However, the fact remains that she was able to engineer a certain degree a notability for herself (unsurprising for a marketing executive), and there are probably enough legitimate Google hits out there to satisfy the GNG. Maybe we should invoke WP:TNT and start over again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A delete close permits a new creation unless we specifically close to salt, which is relatively rare, and which i am not suggesting here, DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete - I reviewed this article shortly after I started participating at AfC. I should have waited until I had more experience, as, in retrospect, the article has a promotional tone and the references are lacking. However, while she wasn't the CEO of the TWBA/Chiat/Day, she was the COO, and it's not a small firm, as evidenced by 1 billion in billing in 2008. JSFarman (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional fluff article. We very rarely have articles on COOs, even at very large firms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:18, 20 February 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GameVox[edit]

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

This software does not appear to be notable. In particular, it fails the general notability guideline. Two of the article's four sources are published by the software company and hence not independent). The other two sources are not reliable: one is a forum post, and the other is a wiki. I can't find any sources online (and that's where they'd be) that are both independent and reliable. Lagrange 613 04:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Custom WP:VG/RS Google search turns up no results, and manual trawling through standard Google results turns up no obvious signs of notability. Article is no help, as it makes no real attempt to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider. I have added 2 Goverment sources. As well as a BBB Link. Nobleben 06:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated by reliable, independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There two distinct issues here. Does the subject meet WP:SCHOLAR and does she meet WP:NMODEL. Meeting either would be enough. There seems to be clean consensus that she does not meet WP:SCHOLAR. WP:NMODEL is murkier. The arguments boil down to Does participating in a beauty contest make you notable?. Although a majority of the participants feel the answer to that is yes, I don't see any policy-based supporting arguments for that. Obviously, either her modeling or academic career could develop to the point where she becomes notable in the future; if that happens, it's easy enough to recreate.

On a minor note, I agree with Michael Scott Cuthbert that it was a stretch to put this on PROD.

-- RoySmith (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Marie Cordeiro[edit]

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

Although this biography of a living person cites one independent source, the other sources are by Cordeiro or web pages of places she has worked. The article fails WP:PROF, as Cordeiro is a postgrad researcher with a handful of publications plus a blog. Note, though, that the independent source relates to a different possible basis for notability: she was a contestant in the Miss Universe beauty pageant.

I proposed the article for deletion on 7 February with essentially the same rationale. PROD was contested by an anonymous user who commented, "She was born on valentine's day. Deleting the article would generate dozens of red links." There is no birth date in the article. There are currently eight incoming links, plus a redirect from a misspelling. Cnilep (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the fact that she represented her country in Miss Universe 1999 which is sourced and notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider that fact, but it doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NMODEL (multiple significant roles, prolific contributions, or a cult following) or WP:ANYBIO (significant awards or honors, or a widely recognized contribution to some field). Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There appear to be no pages for most of the contestants listed at Miss Universe 1999. Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - apart from the participation in Miss Universe I think her total output as an academic (see [29]) ought to make her notable as well. /FredrikT (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand Wikipedia policy WP:Prof. Getting degrees and publishing stuff (although there is little here) does not conger notability. It is having the stuff recognized by others that does and there is none. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Strong delete - not at all notable under WP:SCHOLAR - an RF is not senior enough to be notable and there are no other qualifying notable research outputs from her career so far. We can't give a page to every postdoc. Not notable under WP:NMODEL either. Leondz (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this is a speedy delete criterion. delete is definitely possible (though I disagree, see below), but there is certainly an assertion of notability, which is the only thing necessary to avoid speedy deletion; what speedy deletion rationale is being invoked here? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should have been strong Leondz (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because we have not filled out a potential category does not mean it is not a notability requirement. Being a participant in a major, international beauty pageant, like Miss Universe, is generally accepted as making someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence for this claim. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep on participation in Miss Universe competition grounds (an international, notable, and verifiable accomplishment). Would not pass WP:PROF currently, but only one relevant guideline needs to be passed. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Failing to meet two sets of criteria is no better than failing to meet one (and this article is really quite far from any of the requirements WP:PROF) Leondz (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - However since she meets other requirments, the Prof issue does not apply. Prof rules do not mean we delete articles on non-notable professors who are notable for other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - She doesn't meet other requirements. Selection for entry to Miss Universe alone isn't enough (see Cnilep's example above) Leondz (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - She was Miss Singapore, that is what makes her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not enough on it's own. Which is why, for example, the Miss Singapore page has a "notable winners" section: for winners who have held this title and done otherwise notable things. Leondz (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear fail of WP:Prof. Taking part in a beauty contest is WP:BLP1E and does not satisfy WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 21 February 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) 08:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Federation of Sports Medicine[edit]

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

does not meet notability, no secondary sources found Tbennert (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a trade group founded last year. The two sources are not independent as they were written by the group's founder. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources found. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secondary coverage is zilch, and page appears to have been created by organization's founder. WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:12, 16 February 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) 08:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of database subscriptions provided by US public libraries[edit]

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

purpose of list not clear, does not appear useful Tbennert (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jakob (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Optakeover ^(Talk) 03:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Optakeover. List is useless as well, which serves no navigation aid to related articles. ///EuroCarGT 05:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM. This could theoretically become a valid article if third-party sources are provided qualifying the entries (per WP:CSC), but for many of the entries it does not seem that articles would be created in the near future. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY etc. BethNaught (talk) 12:08, 19 February 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.