Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 February	18 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. The article was speedily deleted by admin RHaworth (talk · contribs), who also salted the title. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgewars[edit]

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

Article does not cite any reliable sources to satisfy notability criteria. Could not find any reviews or whatnot from satisfactory sites. Was previously deleted through AfD, endorsed through deletion review, but then was recreated anyway. Marasmusine (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt. I've tagged the page as a repost. I'd really recommend that this get salted, as it's been deleted about 3-4 times now and is likely to get re-created. I have a feeling that much of the editing has been done by people who have been involved with the game at some level, so this would be necessary not only because someone might re-create it but also because there's a bit of a spammy feel to the article as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any admins coming in to check this: while the current article is longer, it addresses none of the issues brought up in the prior AfD or shows that it passes notability guidelines as a whole. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely has a spammy/promotional feel to it. It looks like the developers are using Wikipedia as their own personal wiki. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:18, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen North by-election, 1928[edit]

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

This event is probably not notable. Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close "probably not notable" is not a valid deletion rationale. It either is or isn't notable. I'll think you'll also find that all UK by-elections are notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is an election where only about 20,000 people participated notable? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The settled concensus seems to be that all by-elections to the UK Parliament (as a national legislature) are notable. It's not down to numbers. I think you will have to argue why they don't. JASpencer (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator would do well to read WP:BEFORE nominating AfD. Article talkpage reveals it is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and has been rated Stub-Class. The articles history reveals that it was only created on 29/12/2013. Lugnuts is correct. Graemp (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This by-election was a competitive election where the MP changed. I think that there is an arguable case when one, or particularly both of these conditions don't apply (such as uncontested ministerial by-elections), but this is not the case with this election. On this case it's quite a totemic by-election as the winning candidate, Wedgewood Benn, formerly a Liberal MP first stood as a Labour candidate personifying the interwar exodus of middle class reformers from the declining Liberal Party to the rising Labour Party and also the switch of the Benn politicial dynasty (Tony Benn and Hillary Benn) to Labour. JASpencer (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no argument for deletion, lack of WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really satisfy speedy keep as there is an argument, although it's validity seems to be disputed. JASpencer (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just how do you define argument? Nominator has yet to decide whether or not the topic is wp:notable. One of the key words in the nutshell at WP:N is "evidence". I see no evidence in the nomination. Then you will also see at WP:N that wp:notability is a test as to whether or not a topic should have a stand alone article. If this test fails, the remedy is a merge if possible. All of this requires analysis and research and we are not yet in the ballpark of a deletion argument. Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be getting a bit worked up about nothing. Option 1 of the Speedy Keep criterion is that "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." They did not fail to advance an argument, the argument was that it "probably was non-notable". I think this is a poor argument showing a frivolous attitude to the whole process in order not to justify a point that they knew to be weak, but it is clearly an argument. The use of speedy keeps should be where there is no doubt that the process was started wrongly and this would be the wrong use of that sanction. Any way, there will be no speedy applied here and when this closes it will close as a keep. It's best not to worry about this. JASpencer (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are finding attitude theories here, but it is not helpful. I can understand that you want to protect your keep !vote, because a speedy keep would be closed NPASR. But that is exactly the point, such a closure would allow the nominator the opportunity to study the issues, review WP:BEFORE, and create a nomination argument; one that would helpfully prepare the community should an actual need for a deletion discussion be found. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, all parliamentary elections are notable. --Soman (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think that this article is clearly notable, I think it would be a good idea if we were to examine this more thoroughly. There were a lot of uncontested by-elections with no election actually being held. Are these inherently notable? This is not the right article to explore this. JASpencer (talk) 21:57, 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 keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf[edit]

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

very highly promotional article on borderline notable company.As for notability , small chain, with references consisting only of press releases , or minor notices obviously based on press releases. As for promotionalism , list of all executives, list of all store locations, list of all coffee blends served, multiple photos of their shops, list of multiple local promotional events.

It's been here a while, but there's been recent active editing to keep up with the changes in executives, and add the promotional events. All of this is content for a web page, not an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a major chain: 900 stores in 25 countries. [1] An important player in the coffee business, and inventor of the "ice blended". Here are business discussions in The New York Times [2] and Forbes [3][4] and examples of other coverage [5][6][7][8]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is well-developed, has been here since 2005, has hundreds of edits, and 57 citations. With all the push that short articles need to be developed and expanded, the complaint seems to be that this article doesn't need as much content as it has. Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have performed some copy editing to reduce promotional tone in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:52, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources to easily meet WP:CORP. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:29, 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 keep - withdrawn (non-admin close). Stalwart111 06:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yarn Yoshi[edit]

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

this appers to be a fake video game Digifan23 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you kidding? Skip to 25:40, where Iwata presents the game. They talked a bit more about it during E3 2013: [9]--IDV^talk 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like withdraw this nomination i got confused with the an IP vandale's edits Digifan23 (talk) 23:06, 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 speedy delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario World 3[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Super Mario World 3" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

a fake artical Digifan23 (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page has no content (and nor do any previous revisions) except an infobox with a picture of a different game. Can't find any reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:22, 18 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) czar ♔ 14:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A3 as devoid of content. Also qualifies as G3 hoax. Alternatively, redirect to Super Mario (series)#Games. Even restoring the redirect to Yoshi's Island DS would have been fine too (even though the game doesn't even appear to go by that title). Redirects are cheap and the series article is the best target for a game that doesn't exist in any form. I'll add that the nom doesn't exactly have a deletion rationale and it would have been fine to just boldly revert the recent edits back to the redirect—it's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before coming to AfD. If against redirecting, page may qualify for A3 or G3 speedy. czar ♔ 14:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, it's an empty page. Redirects can be created later at editors' discretion, but I don't see any pressing need for one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:26, 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. WP:BIODEL / Presumably no prejudice against redirecting slakr^\ talk / 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scorzayzee[edit]

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

Marginally sourced WP:BLP, subject requests deletion (OTRS Ticket:2014021610011017). The request is reasonable since the article is not only largely WP:OR but also contains some things of less than stellar impact that would, in a more fully-sourced biography, be balanced out by more substantial material. Not an autobiography, almost certainly created in good faith by a sincere fan. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could redirect to Le Donk & Scor-zay-zee? Would that meet requirements of request? --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 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. As noted below, "serious discussion" about an article's content should occur on the talk page where there is not an actual argument for deletion of the whole page. postdlf (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of terrorist incidents in Europe[edit]

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

It pains me to nominate such a nice lists, but WP:OR concerns are significant. I came here through this list appearance on Poland-related new articles feed; the one listing for Poland is not described as terrorism in the source article, as far as I can tell this incident is so unnnotable it doesn't have a pl wiki entry and I cannot google much about it. It inclusion casts major doubts on the rest of the incidents there; sure, we have a few major ones (UK, Spain) but they are sprinkled on top of many dubious entries. For the record, Polish government states clearly that "Poland is not a country threatened by immediate terrorism" ([10]). Pl wiki has category for terrorist incidents in Poland (pl:Kategoria:Zamachy terrorystyczne w Polsce), but they date to WWII and earlier; nothing more recent (which also casts some doubts on the definition of terrorism...). All in all, I think this list needs some serious discussion regarding OR. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Proposer raises a concern about one entry in a long list. I had a look at some entries, and the vast majority looked fine. Of course there are debates about whether certain instances count as terrorism, but there's nothing here that can't be fixed by talk-page debate and editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The proposer's reason for deletion is nonsensical. If there is a problem with one entry, then edit it or go to the talk page. I see no reason to delete. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The incident is cited by the University of Maryland Global Terrorism Database for a start. And proposing the deletion of an article, with hundreds of sources, over one dubious entry is laughable. --Tyrionasaurus (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 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. slakr^\ talk / 08:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O-lay[edit]

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

Seems to be about a specific company's approach disguised as an article about a generic methodology. The company is O-lay Offshore Pipeline Installation Services BV, website http://www.o-lay.net/, as I think you can tell only from their press release at http://www.o-lay.net/press-release. Even if it isn't spam, a verbatim Google search turns up nothing helpful for establishing notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, clearly fails WP:GNG. I am not seeing any significant material in Google Books, but perhaps an expert can find more (if so, please WP:ECHO me and I'll reconsider the vote). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks LargoPlazo and Prokonsul Piotrus,

I have added two more independent websites as reference. Hope to have sufficient references now for acceptation of the article. Please, let me know your thoughts.Janfromholland (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Janfromholland:: can you explain how those new sources help the article meet WP:GNG? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:: Hello Piotrus,

Thanks for responding.

My idea is that by reverting to websites and articles that give the subject "O-lay" and the text within the subject sufficient backup, the references help to understand the subject better. By adding the page http://www.oasisinteractive.com.my/uat/saag/spiral_lay.html I am hoping to take away the idea that the subject is an advertisement in disguise because this was one of the first comments made on the subject(a specific company's approach disguised as an article). The page reverts to an independent company using the method and by adding the http://www.marin.nl/web/file?uuid=d08172fa-f2b3-43a7-9227-b1d30b2f1ce2&owner=eca1a513-2db9-44d6-b749-b924eb501dea I wanted to show that serious research (not mentioned in the article, but the research must have cost millions of dollars) has been done on the subject, furthermore with the http://folk.ntnu.no/zhiliang/Zhiliangs-Papers-in-PDF-format/ZZ-C063-2009-OMAE-Large%20Scale%20Tests%20of%20Strain%20Capacity%20of%20Pipe%20Sections%20With%20Circumferential%20Defects%20Subjected%20to%20Installation-Induced%20Plastic%20Strain%20History-Nyhus.pdf I was willing to give evidence on the phrase that strain hardening is a serious mechanism with reel-lay, which doesn't exist when applying the O-lay method.

Since I am a newby to the wikipedia community and not so familiar with the complete set of guidelines I might be wrong. However for the offshore industry the methodology described is very simple but advanced and I believe it should find its place in the encyclopedia. So, if the references are not sufficient for keeping the article alive I have to find more/ other references.

Now I need your advice. What type of references are required to keep the subject in the encyclopedia. Janfromholland (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ spa creator user:Janfromholland. Do you have any COI here? Are you being paid to edit? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 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 no consensus. There does not seem to be a strong consensus one way or the other. However, this discussion contains a lot of good advice on how to improve the article, remove content that is already present in other articles, and possibly avoid deletion in the future. It seems clear that more high-level discussion needs to take place to determine how to best document this period in Egyptian history (RoySmith's comments towards the bottom seem quite reasonable to me). This article is relatively young, and therefore I think it will benefit from a bit more time to work on it. I would encourage the active editors of this article to re-read this discussion and try to address some of the issues that were brought up. If, in a few weeks time, the article still suffers from intractable problems, then renominate it for deletion and see if a stronger consensus develops. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Revolution of 2013[edit]

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

Probable WP:FORK of article 2013 Egyptian coup d'état GreyShark (dibra) 19:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is not a WP:FORK. It discusses different events that preceded the coup d'état. It is also still under construction. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Events that preceded the coup d'état are thoroughly covered in the article 2012–13 Egyptian protests. --Tocino 05:04, 20　February 2013 (UTC)

@User:Tocino - The protests article is just a timeline of different events and this uprising is a milestone that concluded the seven months' protests, it's not something that used to occur on a regular basis during the events from November 2012 to June 2013 as the numbers, reactions, characteristics..etc. Please check back into the article and you will notice it is different and that it's also under development. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case work on makin the "timeline" article encylopaedic with prose.

Also if it is under construction that work on it in ones sandbox. Lihaas (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 80% of the article is completed now, so it might be too late for a sandbox. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Rename and Revise.~~,per the reason i have mentioned on the talk pages of the coup and the talkpage of this article.Alhanuty (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be deleted.Alhanuty (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this article is not necessary: it shows the events between the 2012-13 Egyptian protests and the 2013 Egyptian coup. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic organization, and it is where millions of users come every day to find information. If you want, you can send me a message on my talk page to edit the article, even from scratch if possible. Thanks, Babestress. --Babestress (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibrahim.ID (talk • contribs) [reply]

Rename the original name is June 2013 Egyptians events that is neutral name, the word of Revolution named by Egyptian media that controlled by the members of Coup d'état. Fitzcarmalan move the page individually without consensus Ibrahim.ID »» 20:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created over a redirect page called "Egyptian Revolution of 2013" and it was done by User:Amrtarek not me. However, it was agreed on by different users in Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état. So, like i stated below, take this discussion to the revolution talk page not here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is explaining well what happend but lacks the main thing namely the coup itself. It looks to me like the article is not finnished and I dont see the reasson why delete it now untill it is. Just writing about the coup without mentioning what happend before is no good. As I can see there is already prepared parts like coup, arrests and so on to finnish the article. I say keep for a bit more and give somebody a chance to finnish it.Stepojevac (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains alots of fork content,it needs to be renamed and revised to explain what happened,so I think it would be better to rename and revise,that keeping on it fork status as it is now.Alhanuty (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about renaming it is off-topic here. It is already being discussed in the article's talk page so there is no need to open this topic everywhere. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No there is a need to show that this article is a fork and either need reconstuction and name these event as demostrations and bloody event or,then the article is to be deleted,the editors need to know that they being asked for,because some editors might try to misfortune the other editor that the article is perfect.Alhanuty (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to 30 June 2013 Egyptian riots. NickSt (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a neutral wikipedia contributor in English and ps.wikipedia.org I recommend it to be deleted the sooner the possible. Qjahid (talk) 18 February 2014 (UTC) ← Qjahid was confirmed to be a sock puppet of Usaeedi and was blocked indefinitely from editing. (see here) Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move the page without consensus again. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will recommend the deletion of this article. User:Usaeedi (talk), 18 February 2014 (UTC)

'Keep and Rename to June 2013 Egyptians events or Merge with 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the article still needs to be revised.Alhanuty (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Alhanuty - Why don't you revise the article yourself and see if there is anything unneutral like you keep saying? You can let me know about the issues and we can discuss this and the naming dispute in the article's talk page instead of moving your arguments to different locations all the time because this behavior will never change what was said before. That way you will have the opportunity to make something constructive rather than denouncing every effort that has been done so far. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. No one denies that there were massive protests in favor of Morsi's removal, and this fact should be sufficiently covered in the background section of the coup d'état article. But having two articles about the same event, one dealing mostly with the days leading up to Sisi pulling the trigger and one about the days following, is a classic WP:FORK case. It's also been established that very few sources outside of Egyptian state media refer to the events of the summer as a "revolution", and the coup d'état article is currently in a much better state than this one, thus this article is the one that should be merged, not the other way around. At the very least it should be renamed, to remove the blatent WP:FORK aspects. --Tocino 03:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Tocino - This could not possibly be a WP:FORK as they are not the same event. I don't know what is it that you mean by "one about the days following" because this is the article dealing with the days that followed the coup. This is the article dealing with the coup (Sisi pulling the trigger). And this is the article dealing with the 4 days that directly preceded the coup (the days leading up to Sisi pulling the trigger) as this one differs from the coup article by dealing specifically with the protests that took place between June 30 and July 3. In addition, if Sisi was working behind the curtains while the events were ongoing or if he was preparing for the coup days or even months prior to the eventual move is a different case that should be described in detail in the coup article with a short notice about it in the revolution article (which is the case now in the revolution page, but not the case in the coup page). So i believe the coup d'état article is the one missing essential details about its subject in this case. This one is still under construction and there wouldn't be extra unnecessary info about events surrounding the coup.

Also, if this article is to be merged in the coup's background section, it would make the latter too long to navigate comfortably as there are many sections that would be opened up in this one (e.g. "Characteristics" section with possible sub-sections about sexual harassment or anti-American sentiment during the protests). And we might be eventually forced to split per WP:SIZE. In this case that happens, we will be left with one thing, the naming issue, which is being heavily discussed in Talk:Egyptian Revolution of 2013#Unneutral_Naming_and_content where many sources stated call the events "revolution". Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2012–13 Egyptian protests or Delete. I recently discovered that there's another article out there that deals with what took place leading up to the coup, it's at 2012–13 Egyptian protests.　This 2012-13 Egyptian protests article deals with the beginning of widespread opposition to Morsi, which occured after he signed his controversial decree in　November 2012, and goes all the way up to the events of July 3.　Why have two massive articles about essentially the same thing? Especially when one is much more encompassing and informative, and has a more neutral title (2012–13 Egyptian protests). --Tocino 06:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing → How come those 2 are also the same event? I agree that the protests article encompasses the revolution article, but does that mean they're the same? I don't think so. There were many notable events within the Bahraini uprising and Euromaidan among many others that had articles created specifically for them which is the same in this case. 2012–13 Egyptian protests is in a timeline format so i don't why should we get to merge a notable event like that with a different structure to a timeline article. Again, they are not the same thing since they differ in characteristics, numbers and domestic/international reactions. We can also add to this other points like the protests abroad in solidarity with the June 30–July 3 protests not with the 2012-13 events or the coup. I guess this leaves you with the most important decision, delete. But are there reasons for deletion you would like to point out and discuss apart from the article being incomplete? I also tried explaining that it is not a WP:FORK of either the coup or protests articles so i would like to hear your opinion on this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your determination to keep this article from being deleted, but by just adding every report of violence or protest in the few days leading up to the coup does not mean that this article is now more worthy of being kept on its own. There are now huge paragraphs in this article of excess detail. --Tocino 23:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Tocino - Trust me, there is no determination here as long as there is a good reason to delete or merge. But i personally don't think there is any reason to delete this from history or even merge an event as notable as this. I agree it might not be as notable or as notorious as the coup which made bigger headlines, but it is still widely seen as one of the biggest protests in Egypt's history, "even larger than those of 2011" and "bigger than anything seen since the Arab Spring uprising" [11] [12] [13] [14] and deserves an article of its own. I also believe it isn't fair to consider this a regular event in the 2012–13 Egyptian protests. I will probably stop arguing about this though, because i feel i will soon be accused by some of POV-pushing and WP:COI, which i assure you isn't the case at all. As for the article itself, i would be grateful if you point out at the issues then i'll be glad to discuss and solve them in the corresponding talk page, because there is a lot more than just reports of violence and i'm still working out to cover the number of protesters in each location. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORK. I get the distinct sense this article was created by editors who feel strongly that the ouster of Mohamed Morsi should be described as a "revolution" and not as a "coup", and after failed attempts to change the 2013 Egyptian coup d'état article name, it was created as some sort of "compromise". It's a superfluous page covering events already described in other articles, chiefly the coup article and 2012-13 Egyptian protests. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into 2012–13 Egyptian protests. Also, the title is controversial.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's imagine for a second that the article's name is July 2013 Egyptian demonstrations:

When the creation of this article was proposed here, it was not meant as a "compromise" but as a way of solving a would be never-ending dispute. And it was also not meant to satisfy anyone either, but it should be considered a good step for those who defended the coup article against users who kept irrelevantly calling for it to be named "revolution" for more than 6 months without even bothering to create an article that dealt with the events separate from the coup.
I myself did not object once to the coup d'état name, in fact i think it's the only appropriate name to describe what happened on the night of July 3. But i was certainly opposed to the editors who wanted the coup article be named "revolution" and i'm not responsible if some users had different motivations when the creation of "July 2013 Egyptian demonstrations" was proposed. I also believe it is unfair to denounce this article as a whole by certain users who want everything that happened since June 30 to be called a coup as if the mass protests that preceded Sisi's move were something regular like the events of 2012–13 Egyptian protests.
As for the title, i would be glad to discuss the controversy about it in its corresponding talk page so i will not defend it here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarmalan (talk); if that is your rational now, then based on what you mention above the article should be a sub-section inside "Coup d'etat" article and such sub-section could be named as "Events Timeline". You are heavily defending and arguing with everyone who propose deletion (I do not mean any personal thing here, i am just describing the behavior i see), I agree about the deletion of "Egyptian Revolution of 2013" article from the Wikipedia or creating a sub-section in "Coup d'etat" Article named "Events Timeline". what happened from 30 June to 3 July 2014 was not a revolution by all means and definitions. --Hans Franssen (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am defending it because the event is too notable to be deleted or merged with another article and i'm trying to prove that it's not a WP:FORK. The article's naming dispute does not concern me in this particular discussion to be honest. So please go to Talk:Egyptian Revolution of 2013 and define "revolution" for me, then i'll probably give you my argument for the 100th time. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:FutureTrillionaire - I would like to see your argument not just a vote. Because i recall inviting you to join the discussion where the creation of this article was being proposed a while before it was created, but you apparently showed disinterest. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's important to have article detailing the first days of the events, which is different from the coup. Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 11:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: please note that by deleting this page we will have to move the details mentioned here to the other page which will led to an endless discussion about how to divide the article in two, as well as endless discussions about whether happened was a coup or revolution. Amr Tarek^{Say Hello!}, 21:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But changing name. It's a majority. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, these were quite possibly the largest protests in history, they're certainly notable enough to have their own article. Charles Essie (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the Article is not credible nor trustful. its presence will affect the honesty and truthfulness of the Wikipedia --Hans Franssen (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge to 2012–13 Egyptian protests and/or 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is about entirely different events than the article from which it is supposedly forked; one article is about the events preceding the coup and other article is about the coup itself. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see 2012–13 Egyptian protests for the events preceding the coup. --Tocino 23:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But after rename. --Panam2014 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Panam2014 made a move request here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE as per GreyShark (dibra. the events starting from 30 June were part of the coup. Without such events, probably the coup would not happen. the article was created without consensus, this is a strange to happen on Wikipedia!!!!!!....... the creator was Egyptian, article created after 6 month of the events. the people who argue to keep it most of them are from Egypt, also sources are not reliable (Apologize if some will take it personal, i do not mean that, I just record my notices).... Thanks Heroasawhole (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge There was n o consensus on this creation adn it is a POVFORK. It also only partisan sources that call this a revolution. WP cannot create events out of thin air.Lihaas (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. Certainly 2012–13 Egyptian protests and Egyptian Revolution of 2013 have a lot of overlap, and one way or another should be merged. But to just say merge one into the other isn't really the answer either. What really should happen is go back to Timeline of the 2011–present Egyptian civil unrest, find the most significant watershed events, and use those events as bright-line demarcations between articles. Then write a series of articles, culling material from 2012–13 Egyptian protests, Egyptian Revolution of 2013, etc, which describe the events chronologically. I pity the poor admin who closes this one. What's the over/under on this getting dragged to wp:delrev no matter what gets decided? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Issues There are multiple issues that need to be solved for this to be kept. From my perspective this is considered a split of 2013 Egyptian coup d'état focusing on the June 30-July 2 protests, the naming of which is debatable but its existence is granted since having an article about the coup itself and how it was done is notable as well as having an article about the protests leading up to it:

A portion of this article was copied from 2013 Egyptian coup d'état which is fine but you need to add the template {{Copied}} in the talk page as well as remove the sections from the coup from there.
The coup article should be solely about the coup. How the military detained morsy, how the state institutions reacted and so on... its aftermath and background are in other articles already.

I think solving these issues should sustain having this article. The naming of the article is irrelevant to the issue of whether we keep it or not (IMHO).--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Diaa abdelmoneim - The only thing that was copied from the coup article was a few international reactions, which i intended to move as a whole but thought i should wait and see if this one survives deletion first. But you're right, i should have mentioned it was copied from the coup page (I did so but in a different way).

The article was requested to be moved by Panam2014 and you can give your opinion there if you want.

I agree that the coup d'état article is the one missing essential details about how the military was preparing for its move, the steps it had taken, allegations of fueling the protests, its intentions..etc. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:07, 28 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/speedy delete/snow close. It's pretty clear that this is a hoax article, as there are zero hits on any scholarly search outlet for a person by this name. I'll reopen this if anyone can show any proof of his existence, but I'll note that what is out there is pretty much a mirror or repeat of the information on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wanderfalke[edit]

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

This was recently tagged as a hoax as a result of comments made by an anonymous editor. The editor points out, correctly, that the few sources in this article which actually have anything to do with Mr. Wanderfalke do not appear to exist--for example, there were no Worldcat results for his "thesis" in either German or English, and there is likewise no record of his "most influential work" ever having existed. I agree with the IP and therefore think this article should be deleted--however it raises serious concerns about our AFC process that this article was ever accepted by it. Jinkinson talk to me 19:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Wanderfalke" is the German name for "Peregrine Falcon". Interestingly, the creator of the Wanderfalke article has also contributed to Peter N. Peregrine. --Randykitty (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the sources can be verified to exist. —Kusma (t·c) 21:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: interestingly here is a web page that shares its name with a source cited twice in the article. Note the full url, and cf. Randykitty's comment above הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax in poor taste. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 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 speedy delete under criterion G4; the page is effectively identical to the article discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar Resonator. —C.Fred (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar resonator (sustainer)[edit]

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

Advertisement Atlantictire (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fast Delete~~: This article is an advertisement that has been deleted at lease once before--Atlantictire (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Procedurally striking a duplicate vote. Safiel (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to~~ Vibrator (music) I would merge some of the content of this article, as it appears to be a proprietary device falling under the category of musical vibrators. The article is somewhat promotional, as all the sources are from the company that makes the item. However, it falls short of eligibility for CSD G11. Safiel (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: This is a recreation of Guitar Resonator. Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guitar Resonator, User talk:Xstring--Atlantictire (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pursuant to CSD G4 as a repost. Striking my previous comment. Safiel (talk) 17:59, 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 speedily deleted as copyvio. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alibaba Akporobome[edit]

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

WP:VANDCRUFTPROMOSPAM. Reads like an advert, and no real proof of notability. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:23, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Essex women's lacrosse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/University of Essex women's lacrosse

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

Non-notable university sports club Flaming Ferrari (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Essex Blades men's lacrosse I say keep for reassons of very few lacrosse clubs in Europe are notable on any kind of levels. I did do a search after this team and found very little but doing a search on the mens team gives some notability. We already have a mens team wiki page and sence this team is in the top of the second division and acording to themselfs are growing alot then why not keep it or possible merge with the mens team into Essex lacrosse team or Essex Blades as they are called.Stepojevac (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating the mens team for deletion too. Szzuk (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lacrosse-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacrosse teams aren't very notable in general, University lacrosse teams even less so, the single ref doesn't convey anything, its just a news aggregator. Szzuk (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in the UK compared with for example the US, university sports teams, with limited exceptions mainly some Oxbridge teams, attract little public interest or media coverage. This team is no exception and doesn't meet WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:32, 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. slakr^\ talk / 08:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Hill, Indianapolis[edit]

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

Can't find any sources to confirm significance as an independent neighborhood. A lot of sources come up for the Cemetery located in Crown Hill, but that's it. I'd just merge to Indianapolis but since this is unsourced, there's nothing of value to merge. Wizardman 18:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate The article needs sources, and incubation will get the article out of mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 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. slakr^\ talk / 08:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Essex Mountaineering Club[edit]

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

Non-notable university club Flaming Ferrari (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no evidence this club is notable. I don't find media coverage, and certainly nothing like multiple notable members, significant role in competitions or innovations in the field of mountaineering. One link in the article is about a university facility that isn't directly about the club. The other is supposedly the club's official website, but is actually a dead link. I found a live link here: http://www.essexstudent.com/activities/sport_clubs/sports_list/c_f/climbing/ which doesn't have anything that establishes notability. --JamesAM (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Fern (train)[edit]

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

I searched high and low trying to find anything to verify the information in the article and came up with nothing. Guess there's a reason this has been unsourced over 7 years. Wizardman 18:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - This article is about a temporary replacement train. There is little content here that is not or could not be covered by the addition of a few lines to existing articles including the Overlander, Silver Fern and other rollingstock articles. Some of the content could be suitable to be broken up and merged into these articles if suitable sources can be found, but a quick search just gives me links back to this Wikipedia entry, so I cannot see how it meets WP:GNG at least in its current form. Dfadden (talk) 07:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If no sources can be found this could be a hoax.--Charles (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no sources to verify its existence - may have been something locally known, but no edits from the author since 2006.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Southampton. (or wherever appropriate) slakr^\ talk / 08:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Sound and Vibration Research[edit]

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

Unremarkable university institute which lacks third party coverage Flaming Ferrari (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with University of Southampton; not notable enough on its own, lack of secondary sources Leondz (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree this is not notable enough on its own. No reliable sources to support notability. Merging as suggested by Leondz works well for Wikipedia. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:44, 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 merge to University of Southampton. (or wherever appropriate) slakr^\ talk / 08:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton Mustangs Baseball Club[edit]

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

With the exception of The Boat Race UK university sport has a very low profile, even within the local community. Furthermore baseball has a very low profile in itself so I propose this article about a student sports club should be deleted. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to University_of_Southampton#Sports. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 20:41, 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. Consensus is delete. There's quite clearly no proof of the sole claim to notability. I'm certain it's a positive org, but it still must be PROVEN to meet notability thresholds. D P 01:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edge on the Net[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An earlier AfD ended with no consensus, so I am bringing this back for a new round. This article is still burdened with problems: (1) it makes a thoroughly unsupported claim of being the world's largest LGBT digital network, (2) all but one of the sources are either self-serving press releases or are taken from obscure blogs that do not meet Wikipedia sourcing standards, and (3) the article, despite heavy editing, still looks like a promotional advertisement. I still have not seen any evidence to support the argument this subject comes close to WP:GNG requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the article is not developing as hoped and many details are outdated by now. Plus that many claims remain unsubstantiated. The website doesn't seem to have established a unique source of local content as it claims, and most pages are rehash of general materials found much better in other websites. Probably the site itself deserves to be in a listing containing major gay websites, but nothing more than that. I have no objection of deleting it or directing it to a more general page of online LGBT content sites. werldwayd (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure why the rush to delete this 3 weeks after the last attempt to remove the article, I guess we'll be back every month? There is a systematic bias against the subject. Firstly it's a media outlet so the few sources that are likely to exist, are the competition, who are reluctant to do anything but report on scandal of the competition. Secondly this is a LGBT media outlet, these media ventures, like many minority news organizations, exist in micro markets, and are also almost never reported on. No one has refuted any of the claims made, nor any evidence that they are exaggerated. I would go as far to say that this is likely one of the only LGBT media networks in the world, I've never heard of any others but they may exist. There is actually very few multistate LGBT-focussed companies. Unless there is evidence that the Edge Network is not an expert on themselves, I'm reluctant to keep their accomplishments out of the article as long as they are attributed to them. Essentially what few sources that are likely to even exist online, all support exactly what we are reporting. The rest remains simply ensuring we report NPOV. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]
- Just a brief comment on Sportfan5000 saying: "why the rush to delete this 3 weeks after the last attempt to remove the article, I guess we'll be back every month?". I completely sympathize with you on this. Articles should not be subjected to repeated deletion requests immediately after a decision has been taken either way. Perhaps this is not the forum, but I support and have always been in favour of setting a "courtesy period" which I suggest be set let's say at 6 months before engaging on a second request for deletion. Exceptions might be set on articles that contain contentious material that may be perceived as harmful to the individual concerned, in which case earlier deletion requests may be justified. But in all fairness, the earlier discussion on the previous AfD request did not generate enough discussion and was more like a points and counterpoints by colleagues And Adoil Descended and Sportfan5000 and no other editor did take part, except for a brief comment by colleague Cirt, who was in favour of keeping the article suggesting improving the article instead of deleting it. werldwayd (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 09:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate Werldwayd's consideration on having this subject brought back to AfD - the previous discussion ended inconclusively and with virtually no input from the wider Wikipedia community. And while subsequent attempts were made to strengthen the article, these efforts nonetheless exposed the core weaknesses in the subject's very obvious lack of notability. In regard to Sportsfan5000's arguments: (1) There is no systematic bias here. Other U.S. based LGBT-oriented media outlets (including Out, The Advocate, PlanetOut and LOGO TV) have been the subject of considerable independent coverage that confirms their notability, whereas Edge on the Net has not received any level of attention that its competition received. (2) The notion that the very grand claims in this article must be true because no one refuted them is completely antithetical to the core editorial principles of Wikipedia, which are based on presenting encyclopedic facts supported by proper references. Just because no one challenges a whopper of a boast does not mean the boast is accurate - and this website has seen plenty of hoax articles because people were either unaware or indifferent to the nutty claims made in the articles. If something is factually correct, then there will be an independent source to verify it - that is not happening here. (3) As for the claim that this might be one of the only LGBT media networks in the world, I would recommend visiting the Wikipedia category "LGBT-related media by country." This category's contents refute any notion that Edge is doing something unique in terms of LGBT media. Ultimately, we need to adhere to WP:NOT guidelines, which state: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." This article fails to meet WP:INTERNET requirements, and we have to stop making weak excuses to absolve its very obvious deficiencies. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the comparisons are not on par. This network was formed after a media revolution that decimated many LGBT publications, and is one of the few, if not the only LGBT news/media networks I've even heard of. And their competition is both any LGBT website not in their network, as well as any other website that does news, so, everyone else. And comparisons to LGBT magazines, websites, and cable channels is also not helpful, although every one of them, including Edge, is a pioneer in their field. They're just different fields. As for related comparisons, please find in LGBT-related media by country categories, or anywhere else, an actual company that is doing this work in the LGBT field. I haven't found one yet. The closest i have seen was Rex Wockner's syndicated column which has gone defunct because … the mass media changes around a decade ago when Edge emerged. Similar to how the emergence of Amazon changed how books were sold, we've seen dramatic shifts in how news, and LGBT culture, is produced and shared. Also, i have just unearthed a current court case, BWP Media USA Inc. v. EDGE Publications, Inc. which will likely result in some of the scandal about the competition press coverage I mentioned. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

I am sorry, but this is a highly subjective rewriting of LGBT media history that overlooks the fact that the article does not meet Wikipedia's basic editorial standards. If Edge is a pioneer, then its groundbreaking efforts appear to have been made in total secrecy, because there is no independent verification of the website's importance. And Adoil Descended (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. And as any likely coverage would be by the competition, unlikely unless scandal breaks out, or by the very leading LGBT publications in the Edge network, thus considered at least somewhat compromised, this new media company likely needs to be seen through updated filters as traditional print media is just unlikely to give them free advertising. That's the rule in news journalism, not the exception. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Delete There's no independent coverage of this site by notable media outlets. "World's largest digital network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) news and entertainment portals" claim is patently ludicrious. --Atlantictire (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain, "'World's largest digital network of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) news and entertainment portals' claim is patently ludicrous." Have you any evidence that they are not? Do you have any information on other ones that we can compare? Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Comment If this statement about being the world's largest digital LGBT network was supported by fact, there would be independent verification to back it up and this AfD would never be happening. As it stands, there is nothing but an elaborate claim that sounds very fishy, at best. This is why Wikipedia requires that claims be backed up by facts. And Adoil Descended (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree for all the reasons already put forth. That's just false reasoning - that because it's only in primary sources, news sources by the way, it must be false. It's also worth noting the in each city the Edge partners with the leading LGBT publications, like the Dallas Voice in Dallas, and the Bay Area Reporter in San Francisco. Are you really suggesting these publications, the biggest and oldest LGBT news publications in the world, are a part of this network, and their collective effort is simply not notable because they don't write enough about themselves, and haven't gotten their competition to do so as well? This is a new development in LGBT news coverage, an industry that is only several decades old. You still haven't addressed my questions, did you find any other LGBT news network that we can compare this to? I think they may be the only one. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Keep. The prior AFD closed quite recently. I agree with Sportfan5000 that this 2nd AFD nomination seems way too early and premature. — Cirt (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As stated earlier, the previous AfD ended with no consensus and almost no participation. I see no harm in resuming the conversation and inviting more people to offer their opinions. In any event, there is no Wikipedia guideline on the amount of time between the closure of one AfD and the opening of a second AfD. And Adoil Descended (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's disruptive, and needless. There is nothing to suggest that anything we have in the article is not true, just that it's under sourced. Any basic searching would quickly show this is a nation-wide online network. Even if relying on many primary sources, the subject is inherently notable as likely being the only, and certainly largest LGBT news network in existence, in the entire world. This is unsurprising in an industry for a minority population that has only come into modern existence less than 50 years ago, and has only in the past few years gained footing for equal human rights in the past three years. I'm puzzled why you think other news publications would be giving them any coverage at all. That generally only happens when there are scandals, and awards won. Sportfan5000 (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

These arguments are phony and distracting, and they ignore Wikipedia guidelines. An article with wildly unsubstantiated claims that has no respectable sourcing with needs to go, period. And Adoil Descended (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Besides the one claim, which has yet to be refuted on any level, could you please explain the other "wildly unsubstantiated claims?" Sportfan5000 (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)~~ [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. I am surprised it remained online so long. Wefihe (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No one has suggested it meets CORP, but per WEB, it is notable and of historical significance, as the first and only of its kind in the LGBT publishing world. Sportfan5000 (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]
  - Says who? You're the only person who keeps insisting that. And the fact is fails CORP is, on its own terms, an excellent reason to give it the hook. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - My WP:Brain has made it clear to me. The unanswered question to you remains, what other LGBT news networks are you aware of that we can even compare? I have looked, and almost nothing compares. Rex Wockner has a syndicated column that delivered this news worldwide but that work is defunct now, largely thanks to the Internet. Other entities have owned several LGBT newspapers at once but they were not networks at all. It's hard to compare Edge against their competition when there doesn't seem to be any. They have created a new business model for a relatively young LGBT news industry. This has never been presented as a CORP, but likely we could churn up lots of blasé information on the corporation papers and such. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]
Comment. I'm still looking through through (thousands) of possible sources as the Edge name is so generic it pulls in many false positives. The businesses each operate under their own names but there does not seem to be a uniformity except to direct users to each of their main pages. The company has been known and reported under at least 4 names, Edge being about the most common. I will also look into searching under sources for just the app, but that is an unknown area to me so will take a bit longer. Sportfan5000 (talk) 13:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator hit it square on the head. Failure of WP:WEB and WP:CORP. 68.9.121.226 (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 68.9.121.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant. Someone might have neglected to sign in, or didn't want to be identified with seeking the article's deletion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

That's for the closing admin to decide. As someone who has closed more AfDs than you have edits, I can assure you that such information is both useful, and not by any means decisive. It simply provides indications of where to probe more deeply. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: The LGBTJA article is a decent enough reference, but there's nothing else that's been presented in either AfD, nor was I able to find via Gweb, Gnews, Gbooks, or Highbeam, an additional reliable independent source that would evidence notability under WP:GNG. I'm not happy about such a quick repetition of AfDs, nor am I impressed by impassioned pleas to WP:AN, something smells here even if I can't put my finger on it. But I do think the evidence points toward deletion. Additional sources welcomed, as always.--j⚛e decker ^talk 19:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I can't comment on what is in Joe's nasal passages, I can state that a request for closure (singular, not plural, and not "impassioned" by any degree) was done strictly because it appeared the discussion was being overly dominated by two personalities and input might be discouraged because of that. Nothing more, nothing less. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, perhaps WP:IAR applies here, as my questions to the nominator has gone unanswered and unresolved. I have found zero evidence that this is not the only LGBT news network in the world, and unlikely to be reported on by its competition, that would undoubtably be reliable sources. In fact, nothing even close to an LGBT news network has been presented, and i see nothing to suggest any others even exist. The entire article is supported by sources, and no original research has been employed, the basis for concern with sourcing. If this conundrum isn't resolved in this conversation, what we have is a situation which then violates NPOV, by not reporting on something that is, in fact, a notable entity. We would be purposefully creating a gap in the history of LGBT news publications. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Comment to comment This is why I requested closure, because we are going in circles. Again: (1) there is no evidence that this is the only LGBT news network in the world. If this was the case, surely there must be at least one independent source to verify that claim? Wouldn't the New York Times or another major newspaper have mentioned this in an article about LGBT media? (2) The sources in the article (with one exception) are either press releases issued by Edge or they come from blogs that are not considered acceptable for Wikipedia sources. This is one of the worst sourced articles I've come across here. (3) Deleting this would not leave a gap in reporting the history of LGBT news publications - Edge began in 2004, according to the article, which means that it wasn't the first online LGBT media source, nor was it the first national U.S. LGBT media source. And, again, there is no evidence to support the claim that it is the largest of its kind. I have seen no proof of historical value here. And (4), as someone already pointed out, the article is nowhere near WP:CORP requirements, so this focus on a company running a business can't work. Maybe, in fairness, the article can be redirected to another Wikipedia article on LGBT media history, with a properly referenced paragraph or two to mention Edge. But as a standalone article, it just doesn't stand up. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reading things into my statements that aren't there or are not intended. I never suggested they were the first LGBT news group or national news organization. They are the only LGBT news network, none other seems to exist. So removing this chapter does create a needless gap of information. There have been websites, and national LGBT news magazines but they no longer exist, and they were not networks. This is the first of its kind. And why would NYT or anyone write about the competition? In general they do so when there is scandal. Edge has been generally successful and boring. They are also IMHO, poorly named as many entitle use "edge publications," and "edge media" in their titles. I think the article meets GNG, and have never suggested they meet CORP, so that is another false argument. And to your last point there is no other articles on LGBT media, and that's a tough subject to write on, like a lot of LGBT history, as sources on the subject, are generally rare and sparse. It's just not a well researched subject, even though LGBT news publications have mirrored LGBT communities. More have gone under than have existed as far as I can tell. And there is only one organization, National Gay and Lesbian Journalists Association, for professionals in the field. They didn't start a hall of fame until 2005. Wikipedia has a huge gap in reporting in this subject area and removing this content would be adding to that deficit. Wikipedia:Systemic bias says it better than i. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC) [WP:Ban, 20:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)][reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to George Green#Final years and posthumous fame. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The George Green Institute for Electromagnetics Research[edit]

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

Extremely & inappropriately detailed article about one particular research group within a single department of a university. By our usual practices, not even the department would be separately notable, much less the individual research groups in it.

Those faculty who are notable should have articles. Otherwise, this belongs only on their web site 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 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, Mz7 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Green#Final years and posthumous fame. The lead paragraph looks like a copyvio, or at least close paraphrasing, of the GGIEMR About page. I was unable to find in-depth, independent reliable sources discussing the institute itself. There are notable members of the Institute and George Green himself is notable, but the Institute appears not to be so. Failing notability, per WP:GNG, the Institute is verifiable and a plausible search term, so a redirect to the section George Green#Final years and posthumous fame, where the Institute is mentioned, is reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with the nom, but I see no harm in leaving the redirect. SmartSE (talk) 21:52, 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 no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 08:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Bošković[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. Roger Joseph Boscovich's ethnicity dispute has many arguments along various grounds (religion, ethnic, his statements etc.), so there is no special reason why his father should have his own article. Ivan Štambuk (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nikola Bošković is not only the father of Roger Joseph Boscovich but also the person upon whom the book Relazione della Provincia della Rassia is wroten. It is one of the most important books of the history of Regusa of that time. He himself is notable becouse of that book but also was, becouse of his wealth an important factor in the country. There are several books wroten about him and alot known about his life. Unfortunatelly this article centers alot about the origin question which is in my opinion stupid if I can say so. It can be mentioned but I dont see any reasson not to expand more about his life. His contribution should be the center of the article. Keep and rewrite is my opinion.Stepojevac (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only google sources for the name of that book are Wikipedia and its clones. All of the instances of his name on Google Books are in the context of him being mentioned as a father of Ruđer. You are free to rewrite the article to introduce sufficient notability per your claims above - but according to the article in its current form this person is not notable at all. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bracewell, Wendy; Drace-Francis, Alex (2008). Under Eastern Eyes: A Comparative Introduction to East European Travel Writing on Europe. Central European University Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-963-9776-11-1. ...the account by Ruggiero's father, Nikola Boskovic, 'Relazione della Provincia della Rassia',--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only hit on Google Books. So the work itself doesn't appear notable at all. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, we had a lot of issues with the Ruđer Bošković origin debate in that article, where it was a glaring WP:UNDUE violation - the origin debate is a fairly trivial side story in the actual biography of that person. With the existence of the father's article, this particular aspect of it was largely shifted over there, where it's much less of a problem - unlike the son, the father actually derives some notability from a) having been the father b) having been involved in the origin debate that seems to have been going on for quite a while. There is also some merit in saying he was notable in and of himself as a source for Illyricum Sacrum, which seems easily notable on the face of it (14K/247 gbooks hits for the phrase, but we sadly don't have an article for it yet on en:). So weak keep. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bošković family. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Illyricum sacrum was compiled on the basis of Riggeputti's work (and many others), and neither him or his work appear to be sufficiently notable. Both fatherhood and oral source are transitive notabilities, and there is nothing inherently notable in Nikola Bošković himself as a person. The ethnicity dispute is blown out of proportions by petty Balkanic identity feuds - it is not that notable by itself and is a result of nationalist editors trying to settle the issue by digging too deep into arguments. It is sufficient to say who claims him as Croatian/Serbian/Italian along which line and that's all. That section should've been deleted and not offloaded on [[Nikola Bošković]] because it has nothing to do there. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it wasn't for the Petronijević/Varićak feud a hundred years ago, I might have agreed with you, but all of these old and new tidbits contribute to a general notability of the issue and the person. Yes, it's possible to upmerge it into Ruđer, but again, that's the slippery slope back into the WP:UNDUE violation. I suppose a possible upmerge location would be some generic article about the various intricate disputes about the Dubrovnik region (I'm necessarily reminded of the latest gem - Skaramuca), but that in turn sounds like a seriously difficult article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute was two obscure papers. The dispute itself is not notable at all, except in the minds of nationalist wiki editors who give undue prominence to bloodcell counting. Biographies of Ruđer Bošković ignore it completely. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No need to elaborate on the matter. My position is very similar to that already presented by Joy in the above section. Shokatz (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm torn between the natural desire to upmerge based on dubious standalone notability, and the awareness that this is bound to hurt the main article, as I don't think it needs to harp on about JRB's ethnic background any more than it does. In that latter respect I agree fully with Joy. However, while NB apparently meets WP:GNG, is there evidence that he does so on his own merit, outside of attempts to make a point about his son's ethnicity? I suspect the answer is "no". GregorB (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What this basically means is that this is a "X" vs. "Story of X" article title/scope issue... The only other similar case that comes to mind is Origin theories of Christopher Columbus, which is in a whole different league. Perhaps the bar should indeed be too high even for this kind of a NB article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A very good point. As already noted, the problem partly lies in the fact that this article is not really about NB - in its present form is a WP:COATRACK. So, something along the lines of "Origin theories of..." would at least be a more fitting title. GregorB (talk) 22:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But seek for sources that will more clearly illustrate that he was a leading figure in Ragusa of his time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 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. slakr^\ talk / 08:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surgical neurology international[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. There are currently three references in the article. The first one is to an editorial published in the journal and archived in PubMed Central. PMC is not very selective in the sense of WP:NJournals and almost any new OA journal will get indexed (rather like DOAJ). The second reference is to Reuters, with the byline "Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." The third one is a press release from a university about one of their faculty, mentioning this journal in-passing. In sum, the journal is not indexed in any selective database and there are no independent third party references other than one in-passing mention. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR NOTABLE-JOURNAL REFERENCES ADDED I hope the new four notable-journal references just added provide sufficient support to the notability of the journal and revert WP:AfD Neuralia (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order for one single researcher to be notable, hundreds of citations are needed. Just four (4) citations to a complete journal are basically, if that is possible at all, proof of lacking notability. --Randykitty (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak keep nobtablity was inserterted however the article still needs some major improvements Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 22:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure whether you meant "inserted" or "asserted". If the former, see my comment above. If the latter, assertion of notability is ground for rejecting speedy deletion, but does not mean anything in an AFD unless it can be supported by reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Researcher notability is not under discussion but rather Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). Criteria clearly state "If a journal meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through independent reliable sources (NO NUMBER OF REFERENCES MENTIONED), it probably qualifies for a stand-alone article" AND ALSO "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area". The fact that only four notable-journal references were added doesn't mean these are the only ones existing, but it does mean that the rules are being met.

Neuralia (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment Whatever you may think, the analogy is correct. We are not talking here about in-depth discussion of this journal in the references that you provided, but simple "citations" to single articles published in the journal. If you check GScholar, you will see that hardly any article published in this journal gets cited even once. None of the "notable journal references" that you added claim or confirm that this journal is considered to be notable. If a single one of my articles gets only 4 citations, I'm rather disappointed. But here we're not talking about a single researcher or a single article, but a whole journal and you would expect that to generate citation rates that are significantly higher. The three journals that according to the Journal Citation Reports got the lowest impact factors (out of 199 journals) got 133, 44, and 162 citations over 2012 alone, so this one doesn't come even near the lowest ranked journals. So even if there would be 100 citations to this journal instead of 4, that would still be dismal. NJournals does not mention any numbers, because citation rates depend on the field so no fixed number can be given. In humanities, articles/journals/researchers get cited much less than in high-citation fields like surgery and neurology. A humanities researcher might be found notable with an h-index of 10 and a couple of hundred citations, a neurologist or surgeon would need an h around 20 and over thousand citations at least. Single-digit citation rates? Whatever the field, discussing that further is a waste of time and breath. --Randykitty (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing how many SNI articles have been referred by notable journals would probably require a bot to examine every article case. Howeve this is not required by the rules, they only demand proof that the journal articles have influenced the subject areas

Neuralia (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You don't need a bot for that: Google Scholar and the Science Citation Index give all that information. --Randykitty (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back comment Google scholar results give an average of about 10 citations per SNI article, quite a few of them showing >10 to 39 citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuralia (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't see that at all. Just click the link at the top of the page. --Randykitty (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar search link including citations (....//is.gd/wzZgpP)

Neuralia (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article still needs some major improvements like which? Why not be specific about it, thanks !

Neuralia (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for all of the commentary and claims there still seems to be a lack of basic understanding as to how Wikipedia works, including the citation of user essays like Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) as if it were a policy or guideline. The reality is that the only "official" standard that should be applied here is the same one as for every other subject - WP:GNG. That means we require significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The coverage included thus far (like press releases) is not sufficient in my view. I don't personally think a citation count (for a publication that generates them) is really relevant anyway. Produce significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and we'll talk. Until then, claims like, "thereby influencing subject-areas such as", should be removed until they can be properly verified. Stalwart111 06:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claims verification, in-depth analysis, PART 1

FACTS, reference 4 (Cho YD et al PMID 23660292)

-Reference comes from a technically "notable" journal indexed in SCI

-Authors adscribed to Seoul National University Hospital,Korea

-study was supported by grant A111101 of Korea Ministry for Health, Republic of Korea

-Reference to SNI paper cited refers to "anatomic variations in parent arteries...displayed by the aneurysms" citing a technical assessment of the level of difficulty of a surgical procedure alternatives, which is critical information to the research performed and reported in such reference 4

-Main and corresponding author (Cho YD) bears no validable relationship to the journal unded discussion (SNI). Conversely Cho YD (of Seoul, Korea) appears as MAIN AUTHOR of at least 20-30 papers in notable academic journals ON SUBJECT-AREA claimed to have been influenced by the SNI-refered article.

Neuralia (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but citation of a paper in one journal by a paper in another (no matter how credible the authors) is not verification that the first journal "influenced" the second. As it stands, a claim like that is pure original research. We would need a reliable source actually saying, "SNI has influenced subject areas like...". In fact, a quote like that in a reliable source would probably go a long way toward substantiating notability. And that's kind of the point - you still haven't addressed the wider issue of notability, in my view, which is far more important than the inclusion of a promotional line or two. Their inclusion (or not) will be resolved by the deletion of the article if you can't substantiate notability so that is very much a secondary concern. Stalwart111 23:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journals influencing journals? Gush!

-Nobody is saying that the first journal influenced the second..! What it influenced was the development of the SUBJECT area, as explicitly requires the criteria written in Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). If in the introduction of the citing research article Dr Cho YD cited SNI article PMID 21206898 as a basis for the planning of his research, this is definitive proof that by publishing PMID 21206898 SNI influenced the development of the subjet-area (not another journal for gush-sake!).

-Similar arguments can be ellaborated for the cases of references 8 (PMID 23262565) and 9 (PMID 23041408). I am afraid one has to read the referred articles and understand the subjects and the the contexts to assess the significance of the citation. I will develop further tha cases for these 2 references ( 8 and 9 ) in separate comments. By the way the discussion seems to be developing beautifully to favor notability (and it hasn't finished!).

- The fact that we are bringing research contents to discuss the justification of notable citations of SNI articles does not infringe Wikipedia policy not to serve as a means of publishing original research, let's not confuse words and concepts my dear Stalwart..!!

- Let's make clear that the notable-journal references included ( 8 and beyond) are by no means the only existing proof of SNI articles influencing subject areas. They are just examples, which suffice the purpose.!! Neuralia (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be serious. Cho et al. cite one article from this journal once in their introduction. That is by no means proof that this article influenced Cho, let alone the whole field. If you have any idea how scientific publishing works, you'll know that a single citation doesn't mean zilch. In addition, as pointed out above by others, drawing such a conclusion from this citation constitutes WP:SYNTH. What you need is a reliable source that says "the journal SNI has significantly influenced the field of foo", or hundreds if not thousands of citations showing that many authors have been reading a lot of the articles published in this journal. At this point, there is absolutely zero indications of notability. I think this point has been made sufficiently, so I will not comment again here unless someone manages to come up with clear evidence of notability, in which (unlikely) case I'll withdraw my nomination. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sensible. If you place the following internet search: "the journal Science has significantly influenced the field of" or "the journal Nature has significantly influenced the field of" YOU GET ZERO (00) results. According to your criterion neither of these two top academic journals (Science/Nature) have ever influenced any subjet area whatsoever, and that would be an absurd conclusion. Nobody (except yourself) has ever stated anywhere anything of that type.

Neuralia (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Quoting other people's work imply recognition of its influence

For exmaple, if in a verifiable source President Obama quoted a phrase by Whitman or Thoreau (shall we say) one does not need an explicit statement by Obama saying that his own thought has been influenced by either one of those two writers. The influence is IMPLICITLY evident..!!! Neuralia (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per user:Stalwart111 as well as user:randykitty Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 18:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe that edits added by user:71.28.60.176 17:34, 18 February 2014‎ (+3,113)‎ weakened considerably the case for the survival of the article strictly for reasons of wide UNVERIFIABILITY and lack of appropriate sourcing of the contents added at that opportunity.

For that specific reason (not for lack of notability of the journal) I join the Delete stand taken by other participating editors.

Delete

Neuralia (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Exception: The Musical[edit]

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

Fails notability test as it admits it has only been performed twice as a school show. No reliable sources cited, and I can't find any. Main contributor appears to have close connection. BethNaught (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previously PRODed, vetoed by creator without reason. The very few (unreliable) Google hits seem to be mostly forks or mirrors of this page. BethNaught (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this musical. Gong show 19:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a nn event. I can't find anything to show that this is ultimately notable enough for an article. Better to just give it a quick end than to draw it out via an AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thatayaone Ramatlapeng[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason give. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a full-professional league or at senior international level). Giant Snowman 13:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While this kid does seem to be a rising talent in his country, the most I could find are sources saying that he has played in under-20 tournaments for his country and his club teams dont play in a fully-pro league so, for now, he is not notable. He also fails WP:GNG as most sources are just normal reports. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played senior international football, nor in an FPL. No indication of any wider achievements garnering significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per all of the above. Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:02, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Kaunda[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason give. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a full-professional league or at senior international level). Giant Snowman 13:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is the most exciting player in the Botswana premier league this season and not just because he is the top goal scorer but also because of his ability to take on defenders at ease. http://www.dailynews.gov.bw/news-details.php?nid=8092 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miruska (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 February 2014
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Has not played senior international football, nor in an FPL. No indication of any wider achievements garnering significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to this, as of October 2013, he has not been called-up by Zimbabwe and he currently does not play in a fully-pro league so he is not notable and he also fails WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per above. Not all soccer players are notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:21, 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. Sandstein 20:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galeazzo von Mörl[edit]

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

Reluctantly bringing this to Articles for Discussion - I have verified that a clearly talented artist called Galeazzo von Mörl does/did exist, but not that he is notable. Have wikified and tweaked the article for tone (which was non-encyclopaedic) and added a few tags, but after doing a Google search for '"Galeazzo von Morl" -wikipedia' I have only found a distinctly underwhelming 35 results - many of which are direct copy-pastes of the original article such as [15], non-reliable sources (blogs, etc) and auction records. The one and only decent(ish) source I saw was this - but that in itself isn't really enough for notability. No Books hits. So many of the biographical claims are unreferenced. So, please, show me how this artist could pass notability... maybe he has sources on him under alternative spellings of his name? Mabalu (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seem to be no sources in JSTOR, Newsbank, the NYT, gbooks, gscholar, or Gale. Thus fails the GNG as well as WP:ARTIST.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:23, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Jamshidi[edit]

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

Fails WP:V _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he has played for a major professional basketball team, meets WP:NBASKETBALL. --Jakob (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is a member of a national team, a team which won Asian cup and championship in 2012 and 2013.Soroush90gh (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Airlines ET702 hijacking[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. An isolated incident with no repercussions in Swiss, Italy or Ethiopia. And its not unique an hijacking to the airline itself.

Also note, needless redirects created as : Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 , Ethiopian Airlines flight ET702, Ethiopian Airlines ET702 hijacking ‎Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the WP:AIRCRASH requirements for a stand-alone article. I also removed the entry from Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents. I don't see why people is expecting for a notice like this one to show up to promptly start an article. WP:NOTNEWS applies here as well, as mentioned by the nominator.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Flight International says that the copilot hijacked the aircraft ("Ethiopian Airlines flight hijacked by co-pilot".). This is somewhat more serious. Not sure this warrants a stand-alone article, so I suggest a redirect to Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents. BTW, the entry there needs cleanup.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 10:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Hijacking and attempted hijackings are rear now. Unlike Pegasus Airlines Flight 751 the hijacker involved was the co-pilot and not a drunk man. User:151.224.31.29 User tallk:151.224.31.29 10:50 17 February 2014 (UTC)

- Note: the above IP (151*) has been blocked as a sock of a community banned user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regarding long-term notability, *pilots* have never (v rarely?) gone rogue and redirected major airline passenger flights, then abandoned the craft, in an attempt to seek asylum. Especially when their means of doing so is to lock other staff out of the cabin. This makes it an unusual incident alone. Further, hijackings are rare in modern airspace, especially on major airlines such as Ethiopian, and on flights that implement the post-9/11 security measures (which any flight entering European airspace does, I believe). Finally, although not notable on its own, significant police and ATC intervention resulted. Leondz (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Just a side note, I found at least two more cases which (co-)pilot was the hijacker. (China Airlines Flight 334, and one Air China aircraft in 1998) --Leeyc0 (Talk) 08:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable event citing reliable sources. More information is unfolding. 60.242.1.97 (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable with or without "repercussions" and I don't see how you can rule out repercussions considering the incident happened today.--Razionale (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable event really happen. --Wind of freedom (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incidents like this are a record for History and is a worthy candidate for encyclopedia.Quartzd (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A lot of rationalization going on in the above responses to justify an article that's easy to write because it's in the news. Nobody was hurt, I have some recollection that there have been other incidents of this ilk, and I don't buy the "all hijackings are notable" theory. Where's Patrick Smith when you need him? Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless someone is hurt or killed that would make it notable now? Not the fact that a pilot gone rouge which does not really happen that much in modern aviation. Way has it got to the stage on wiki that almost every event such as this are being put up for deletion when they are notable for reason as above but yet still end up being deleted which damages the entry of the encyclopedia. Because some events are notable in some aspects of wiki guidelines but most incidents like this are not notable in some eyes but they are to others. Have the guidelines been changed to help because lets face it aviation accidents may still occur but not like every week a passengers jet gets hijacked or blown up or runway off the end of the runway. Because lessons are learned but in some parts of aviation say like Russia not so much yes they are trying there bast to improve safety but they are long way off. A crash last year was put up for deletion but that still meet wiki rules. This hijacking may have cause some Security concerns and what is the airline or Boeing or any other government body's going to do so if one of there planes gets hijacked again and it's not used as a weapon. The hijacker himself would be facing 20 years in jail for hijacking the aircraft. The wiki guidelines on incidents and others need to be changed or addressed to stop deleting articles that are notable and what really is not in today's terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.36.118 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  - To digest the above, one important point is that the guidelines for airplane incidents are for what events should be _included_ if they match the criteria. They do not imply that events which do not fall within the guidelines are therefore not notable. That would pre-empt the range of possible interesting things, and we can't predict what will happen in the news and be noteworthy as a result. Leondz (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: the above IP (86*) has been blocked as a sock of a community banned user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has coverage in reliable third party sources, to the nominator: Per WP:BEFORE I feel that a discussion could have been carried out before an outright deletion here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. It even seems like a pretty good example of a speedy keep. Leondz (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Has major media coverage, caused many flights to divert/cancellations, and it is notable in the fact this is the first of such incidents where a pilot on a post 9/11 airliner landed in an entirely different country to seek asylum. To be notable, there doesn't have to be people dying/aircraft loss. Airplanegod (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia will be sending out the wrong signal if it deems that only hijackings involving deaths are worthy of notability. --Tovojolo (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where were you when we needed comments regarding the matter at WT:AIRLINE? The discussion was archived with no consensus. Inputs like this one support my thinking that this is getting attention because of news coverage only.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

** But news coverage is a reference beside other database websites like Aviation Safety Network or The Aviation Herald. How else now day's are you meat to get a good reference if not been in the news already. Is this discussion of airline accident still going if not keep making a fuss until there is a good and better way to determine the notable of some airline incidents or accident. I like to give and example please:

- It is all about the circumstances that can make an accident notable in people eyes and can have sometimes the same impacted as any other accident on wiki but the guiltiness that say yes or no on notability and not all fear enough to include other accidents in different circumstances and that is way because of this ongoing fight between what we think is right and what wiki say is wrong will keep going and no one will win and like I said before it damages the entry encyclopedic. So here is a thing that I have come up with, put up a tag on the talk page saying this has being flag for (AWICF) meaning A Waiting Investigation Circumstances and Aftermath, If the vote says yes to keep then this will be on the talk page it's about what happens afterwords if it has really hasten done long term affects on aviation safety or other. It will stay up for about say 5 years or less. If none of the has happened then when them years are are over it can be put up for deletion under wiki guidelines afterwords. Both sides win the article stay up for a few years and if nothing happens then you can get rid, If it comes up again then the presses will continue. But that is my opinion if it helps will I least I am trying to help and quit arguing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.36.118 (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:DEGRADE. Leondz (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: the above IP (86*) has been blocked as a sock of a community banned user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this incident has been receiving plenty of coverage - in fact, as of this writing, it is at the top of Google News as I access it. However, Rename as Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 in accordance with the title format of other similar articles (e.g. Aeromexico Flight 576, Japan Air Lines Flight 404, among others). TML (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to, and merge with Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents. The guidelines for notability of events state that an event is more likely to be notable if it has a lasting effect, have a wide geographic scope or impact and receive coverage beyond an immediate news cycle. The guidelines specifically state that an article can be both serious and widely, but that this is not in itself a reason for notability. In this case, the hijacking has been widely reported in the current news cycle, but follow-on reporting is relatively minimal and no lasting effect (in the sense of analysis or follow on discussion/action) is (as yet) apparent. The guidelines encourage patience before creating an article and, in this case, I believe that is wise counsel. Until the topic clearly becomes notable a redirect to the broader article about incidents at the airline seems appropriate. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – While it doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS, it does fall under WP:GNG and has several reliable sources. Epicgenius (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and speedy keep - Rename to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702. Wikipedia is well served in a post-9/11 era of paying close attention to aviation incidents, and this one where a pilot evidently went rogue is unusual enough to warrant keeping. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable event citing reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.229.65.209 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very notable event. It has enough media coverage worldwide. Chmarkine (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702. As others have noted, this has been widely reported. While there were no injuries or damage to the aircraft, this situation is unusual/remarkable due to the nature of the hijacking: the fact that the hijacker was the co-pilot. According to at least one news report I've come across, the last time this happened on a major airline was an Air China flight to Taiwan in the 1990s. There have probably been incidents (again, on a major airline) prior to that, but there's less information available about them (ie.before the internet made it easier to research details). It's too soon to judge the ramifications of this incident in the airline community: will this incident spark changes to policies of airlines leaving just one pilot in the cockpit? If deleted and this incident does lead to changes in the aviation community, there is a strong prejudice against re-creating an article after it has been deleted, unless an editor is dedicated enough to write a compelling case and start to the article, but less so for re-nominating for deletion after enough time has elapsed to recognize the impact of this incident. It will take some time (months) to realize the impact of this situation. There's too much information to shrink down to just a couple of sentences left in Ethiopian Airlines accidents and incidents . AHeneen (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 702 hijacking. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fifty years from now this will still be considered encyclopedia-worthy. And today, the Swiss are asking themselves, "What happens if somebody invades us during our long lunch breaks? Do we have to rely on Italy to defend us?" GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aircraft hijacking is already unusual itself, and it is even more unusual when (co-)pilot is the hijacker. (I can only find two more cases.) --Leeyc0 (Talk) 09:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am somewhat-but not completely-surprised to find this article is up for deletion. It had sufficient media coverage to have a stand alone article IMO. Antonio Too Sexy and you know it Martin (que pasa?) 11:42, February 18, 2014 (UTC)
Keep per Leeyc0 Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete"": Not notable. Might rate a para in Airline or aircraft article nothing more!!--Petebutt (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was a hard one to decide as many had strong opinions on this article. I would say keep as this article is cited by reliable sources and subject to featured media sources listed at WP:EVENT, this source shows in-depth coverage. --///EuroCarGT 02:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've struck the comments of a community banned editor. That editor has no right to participate anywhere on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As hijackings get rarer, it adds weight to the case for notability of such hijackings. WP:GNG is met, and WP:AIRCRASH is a guide, not the be all and end all as to the notability of aviation incidents. Mjroots (talk) 09:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm leaning towards keep, until the full impact of the incident is clearer once the media hype settles down. I believe it is notable and would stand up to WP:GNG in its current form far moreso than other uncontested articles such as 2014 748 Air Services HS 748 crash. Aside from the rarity of hijackings by crew, the incident involved authorities and a military escort from several nations as well as significant disruption to European air travel. The incident also highlights concerns raised by many within the aviation industry about the installation of locks on cockpit doors post September 11, 2001 intended as a safety measure which has quite possibly contributed to more accidents and incidents than it has prevented. Dfadden (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -This hijacking has recieved plenty of news coverage, plus it was the pilot that hijacked it. Sam.gov (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -This hijacking is significant, if only because it shows the Swiss airforce to be a 9 to 5 organisation.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Persona (2008 film)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM. From IMDB, the movie was reviewed by only one critic, and that's a blog. It's possible it was reviewed more widely in Japan, but honestly it just seems to be a non-notable minor movie. Wieno (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless someone can find Japanese reviews, it looks to fail WP:NFILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I managed to find the Japanese name and I found this review and interview. It seems straightforward with Google Translate, but I don't know if this counts as a RS or not. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked it to Japanese Wikipedia but the article there is also stubby and lacks any reliable secondary sources. I honestly have no way of telling whether the articles you've linked to are good enough. Wieno (talk) 06:06, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per WP:CSB and seek assistance from Project Japanese cinema. Looking at translations found through use of the Wayback Machine [16] and then Google translate, it appears that this film and its coverage meets WP:NF. We can let it be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:07, 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the total absence of in-depth coverage or reviews (both on this article and on the Japanese Wikipedia version), it's hard to see how the basic notability criteria at WP:MOVIE are satisfied here. --DAJF (talk) 13:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Eiga Geijutsu interview is an RS (it's one of the major film magazines), and it's likely their print edition had a review. A search of the Oya Soichi Bunko (good for mass market magazines) comes up with reviews or articles in Shukan Bunshun (2008/2/14), FLASH (2008/2/12), Scola (Feb 2008), Saizo (Feb 2008), CD Data (2008/11/20), etc. There are likely more. Kinenote does not mention a KineJun review, but it looks like it got sufficient, though not extensive coverage in the mass market press. There are also a few other pieces on the net, most focusing on the lead actress, but definitely selling the movie: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], etc. Several of these are major sites. Passes WP:GNG and WP:MOVIE. Michitaro (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough sources have been suggested that I've struck my vote on the assumption that notability has become too questionable for me to properly judge without better knowledge of the film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:45, 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. WP:SNOW. No prejudice to its recreation as the subject develops in reliable sources, but it would be wise to first have a discussion somewhere about whether the time is right yet . postdlf (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list of candidates for the United States presidential election, 2016[edit]

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

Unsourced list without any current notability, no official campaigs or announcements are being made. Two of the three candidates return very, very few internet search results anyway. WP:CRYSTAL (yes, the election will happen, but if any of these people will really try to run remains to be seen; way too early). Fram (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above and because of the gross false advertizing: this is really a list of speculations about who might run in 2016 which is obviously not our purview. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. There's also no references saying anything about it, and if there were, it still wouldn't be good enough for an article.Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 14:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to the Candidates and Potential Candidates sections of that article. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How would the claim to being complete be verifiable? Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the eventual creation of such a list, but this violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and WP:HAMMER. This is far too soon; primaries for 2014 have not even happened! So I'd delete. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 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 redirect to Canadian Soccer League. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSL Reserve Division[edit]

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

Not a fully professional league and so fails notability and certainly WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being fully professional is not a criteria for leagues (only players), but there is no evidence of significant coverage necessary to have an article on the topic. C 679 18:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canadian Soccer League. No reason there shouldn't be brief mention there, given that league is notable. Nfitz (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Canadian Soccer League. No evidence the league is notable independently, but certainly worth a mention in the CSL article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No evidence of independant notability and as a reserve league, hard to see how it could achieve notability separate to its parent league. A plausible search term however. Fenix down (talk) 11:26, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Work Experience Based Education[edit]

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

Referenced entirely by unreliable sources (other wikipedia articles) or sources of unclear reliability, this reads like an essay on the subject rather than an encyclopedic article. Not clear how this might meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 03:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A classic example of NOT ESSAY. No real sources, and very little actual meaning. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. It's not just an essay, it's a bad essay. In a sane world this would be a speedy delete. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually all of the "references" are links to other Wikipedia articles. This is also unverifiable and original research, since, I found only six (6) soucres on Google, exactly one (1) of which actually concerns this topic. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 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. Snow keep (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hilmar High School[edit]

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

Does not pass the General Notability Guideline MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – This is a rediculous nomination. If this fails notability, then so do about a hundred more just like it. United States Man (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@United States Man: See WP:NHS: "High schools/secondary schools are generally considered to be notable, but they must be able to meet the relevant guidelines for notability" MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep per long standing consensus that we keep articles about public high schools; and even a quick look turns up sources, such as [23][24][25]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long-established consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Here is a newspaper article from the Turlock Journal about the school's history published on its 100th anniversary. Here is the school's listing with U.S. News and World Report. Here is a newspaper article from the Merced Sun-Star about the school's plans to develop floriculture and horticulture classes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, per consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES--Blood sliver (talk) 04:58, 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 both. JohnCD (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Menjívar[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Was originally nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Óscar Céren, but since Óscar Céren clearly meets WP:NSPORT, it was more convenient to start a new nomination. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for similar reasons, though it was not listed in the first afd. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - appear to fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Neither have played senior international football, nor in an FPL. No indication of any wider achievements garnering significant coverage. Fenix down (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Both clearly fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard number-one R&B albums[edit]

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

No actual content. Only holder for a navbox. Magioladitis (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:41, 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, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "The following is a list of number-one R&B albums in the United States by year, taken from the Billboard Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart." Thats the whole article and a link to Bilboard. I can understand if its a new article but its already more than half a year old and nothing more. It seems the writer just gave up the article and as it is today its not worth keeping.Stepojevac (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom. It does nothing more than serve as a holder of the navbox. Perhaps redirect to Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums but I don't see any need to keep this around. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:53, 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 nomination withdrawn. Speedy Keep #1 (WP:Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Black Buck[edit]

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

while i'm sure this is actually a slang term, i'm not so sure that it warrants an encyclopedia article, or that the article is even precise.

also, completely unsourced for seven years. El Chivo 2 (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator due to sourcing added. El Chivo 2 (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (a) Sources are easily found. I've added a number to the article straight from gbooks. People have written entire books on this one stereotype alone. How could it not possibly "warrant an encyclopedia article"? There are many, many more sources available. (b) Who cares if "the article is even precise"? If that were a reason for deletion we'd be down to a few thousand articles in no time. Fix it if it's not "precise." (c) Who cares how long it's been unsourced for? Notability is established by the existence of sources rather than their presence in the article. A few moments of checking would have saved everyone the time this AfD is going to suck up. AfD is not cleanup. Next time, do a little work before you push that twinkle button.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Wikietiquette El Chivo 2 (talk) 06:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE, not to mention WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:NOTCLEANUP.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:03, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly Online[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Firefly Online" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Our job is not to help hype the product for its release in the summer. Sure, fans are waiting for an online game version with bated breath, but the article itself is based almost exclusively on "announcements" . Well, one source has screen shots of the graphics, but these again all originate "exclusively", directly from the publisher. That means all the so-called reliable sources are writing directly from what the publishers are saying about the product. If what they say in the press release that everyone is basing their columns on is wrong, the whole thing falls apart. Understandably, the publishers are getting their publicity ducks all in a row. Let not Wikipedia become one of those ducks.

The product will be notable shortly, but my objection is that it is here prematurely. I would have no objection to it being either redirected to Firefly, or stubbed down until the product is available either as a "proven" product, or an advanced beta. The article needs third party critical commentary, but none of the "reviewers" has had any first-hand experience of the game, so technically these are not reviews; we won't get that until much nearer the release date when true reviewers have had the chance to play the game in its final version and give it a thorough test drive. Ohc ^¡digame! 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohconfucius! Thanks for taking the time to write up an explanation/opinion. What you're trying to say is that, because the game has not been released yet, there are not enough sources that would provide the article with an independent, well-rounded perspective? Thanks, --Bananasoldier (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in short. But it's not strictly about whether the product is on public release or not. It's about the availability of independently verifiable information. What I am saying is that, due to the current dearth of freely-available information about the product, whose launch is months away, even third party sources normally considered "reliable" seem to be wholly reliant on what the publishers say. We see magazines quoting (or even publishing verbatim) manufacturers' press releases all the time, but that does not make these necessarily objective. The only thing that is currently verifiable is that the production company has said certain things. In building an article around these news articles, we may be unwittingly falling for the media hype and not true information. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 03:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The game meets the GNG with significant coverage from a variety of independent, reliable sources currently included in the article. As mentioned in the DYK nom, I do not see the article as promotional (nevertheless overly promotional). As for the quality of the information in the sources, this type of sourcing is endemic to the genre and all prerelease video game articles start this way—the RS are reporting what the developer has to give (unless they're getting around the developer somehow?) and we have no reason to not use what the RS deemed worthy for publication. The only other argument I could see is for a redirect if the sourcing was too thin (which I judge to not be the case here), but even that would be a merge conversation and this topic would not qualify for a deletion discussion (AfD). czar ♔ 03:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC) Furthermore, what I see to be the nom's main contentions are issues with the way video game reporting is done. Referring to the reporting as hype, the "announcements" in ersatz quotes, and the RS as "so-called" all show disdain for sources determined at WP:VG/RS to be reliable. This aside, the article very clearly meets the GNG with its current and dedicated sourcing if we aren't calling the very nature of video games reporting into question. czar ♔ 03:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that I probably wouldn't be here if I hadn't seen the DYK nomination, which now even the proposer admits to being unintentionally promotional. I often read Hi-fi and computing mags, and do note that such articles are "endemic", because people are interested in what's in the development pipeline. And it's exactly because such practice is endemic that we need to discuss this perhaps in this AfD and certainly elsewhere in light of our policy on promotion, paid or otherwise (and, for the avoidance of any doubt, let me categorically state that I'm not accusing or implying any advocacy or paid editing taking place here). Of course, I'm likely to be opposed by fans of VG culture, but I did not intend on being adversarial here. I'm not challenging that these sources are less than reliable when reviewing the products. Different reliable sources are known to be more reliable and authoritative under different circumstances. And just because it's an established industry/publication that has always done things in a particular way, that does not make it non-promotional in nature. Such pre-releasing information of this type does not make it any more objective, any more than if it was Vaporware. I never disputed that the long-awaited product itself will fail WP:GNG, merely that it is premature and cannot be supported by reliable independent information. At present, the sources are reliably quoting what the production company is saying about the product. No more, no less. Summary information about this product already exists in Firefly (franchise), and that alone appears to be sufficient for the product at the current stage of development. And just because the VG industry has a certain modus operandi – away of leaking, sneaking or advance-publishing information, it's a policy that is questionable in Wikipedia terms in that it seems to violate WP:ADVERTISING. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at worst Merge + Redirect. Pre-release information that may come from the published but appropriately filtered and summarized or commented on by third party/independent reliable sources is not a promotional issue. I do agree that at this little detail so far, summarizing what is known at the franchise article is better, but there's no grounds to delete (hence the merge and redirect, and expanding when it comes out.) --MASEM (t) 06:27, 17 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) czar ♔ 14:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Masem. I understand where the nomination's argument is, but I don't think it warrants deletion as long as the article properly uses its sources to summarize what's given so far. Sourcing is indeed limited to what the publisher has released (which is normal with unreleased games), but the fact that media has been covering the game establishes notability. I don't see the article as promotional at all. Coverage is coverage, and any newly announced game of notable nature will receive this type of hype. Sure, our job is not to help promote products, but it is our job to cover subjects that are notable through media coverage, which I think this falls under. Deleting the article to avoid following the press bandwagon doesn't make sense to me - all of Wikipedia's articles are subject to how the press, media, and individuals cover various subjects. Whether or not a subject's notability is established from hype doesn't make much of a difference to me, as long as the subject remains notable and reliably covered. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:52, 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.

Cecil Jay Roberts[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Chilson[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom--fails WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 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 and broaden the scope of the article. (non-admin closure) United States Man (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Edinburgh based production companies[edit]

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

I'm not sure that this subject is really within the scope of an article. There isn't much here, and I really don't see the relevance of this article. United States Man (talk) 01:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are similar pages on wikipedia. Why is this one any different? FilmScotland (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the pages are this localized. Maybe if you had a list of the production companies in all of Scotland. United States Man (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that would be acceptable I would be willing to go with that. How would we go about changing the name of the article. I will add a box for city which would tie in with the present article — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmScotland (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would just change the title from "Edinburgh based" to "Scotland-based" to fix the problem with both the area and the left out dash. I will close this RfC. United States Man (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see an area where i can change the tile of the article FilmScotland (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Kelly (fighter)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights and a second tier title doesn't show notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for fighters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable and fails WP:ATHLETE. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One day second tier fight championship titles might meet our guidelines but at present they do not. Mkdw ^talk 21:34, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honorio Banario[edit]

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

MMA fighter that doesn't meet WP:NMMA because he has no top tier fights. Second tier titles do not confer notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Abelard School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Small, non notable, commercial high street cram school. WP:ADVERT. Tagged in 2008 and 2010 and not received any attention since. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 5 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) 02:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable high school with an unusual philosophic basis. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have trimmed out much of the promotional content but clearly the article still needs more work. However, there is no evidence to support the assertion that this is a cram school. This is an, albeit very small, high school with a notable educational method. What we need is more editing work rather than deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:12, 16 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) 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Perhaps Kudpung was confused by the slogan "Advanced University Preparation", but this is not a cram school. It is a full-time four year high school with a highly academic curriculum. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Verified secondary schools typically qualify for an article. See Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:06, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Research Group on Animal Law[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable secondary sources referring to this organization or its impact in the field. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Wieno (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martine Lachance. Wieno (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 5 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) 02:28, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor research unit belonging to a part of a University without any kind of notability I could find. I did google it in several languages and still ended up with very few pages who mostly writes thesame thing.Stepojevac (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. While UQAM is a large university, not all of its constituencies are also notable automatically. In fact, as of right now, there's not even a mention at the main article. I'd lean to redirect with a single sentence describing the group. I will even be so bold as to add a line. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 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. slakr^\ talk / 08:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garmsir incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:EVENT. also as per WP:LASTING, and WP:PERSISTENCE. all the sources in article from January 2010. since last AfD no new coverage comes to light that would change this. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 5 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) 02:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very notable event covered VERY substantially in reliable independent sources. of lasting significance. One of the key events in the conflict and discussed as such in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

where is the lasting significance? the article contains no new sources since Janurary 2010. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Covered in lots of books and article on the war and soldiers' experiences in the war. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please list them here rather than saying WP:MUSTBESOURCES. I'd be interested in seeing them thanks. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That essay was created with material that was removed from WP:ATA. Unscintillating (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

regardless, the onus on keep !voters is to demonstrate existence of sources, in this case Candleabracadabra has claimed existence of lots of sources. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Still waiting for these lots of sources. LibStar (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the numerous sources cited in the article a Google Books search for Garmsir turns up lots of substantial covreage. I have no objection to merging this incident into the Garmsir article as the area seems to have been a hotbed of conflict during the war. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

where are the sources after January 2010 to meet WP:LASTING. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do a Google News search for the past four years? Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you claim lots of ongoing coverage exists , so obviously you've seen these articles. I'm still waiting for these sources. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of lasting significance provided in the article or the above discussion. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 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 soft delete. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Webstream Awards[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. all the sources are not third party. nothing in major Australian news site, news.com.au , created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 5 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) 02:27, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hendricks[edit]

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

One line of text article about an MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above - non-notable MMA fighter.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 1 top tier fight doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Competing in mixed martial arts for only one season does not establish notability at all. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:23, 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 WP:Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuipi Mate[edit]

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

I can find no references to back up the existence of this village Derek Andrews (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND as a verifiable, populated place that is legally recognized. See [26] from the Indian Government 2011 census. See also: [27] and [28] (unsure about the overall reliability of this third source). Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. It is a verified population center which are always notable.--Oakshade (talk) 20:04, 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Abisch[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. The subject appears to fail WP:BIO, but I am having trouble telling if this is a complete hoax or just if there is a dearth of sources. The article is based on a copy/paste Phillip Frost, and the sources in-article have been renamed to appear to support statements in the article when they do not. I removed the faulty sources and they were restored by an IP; rather than edit war over a BLP PROD I think it would be preferable to take the same 7 days establishing notability so any recreations can be deleted as recreations if this person is indeed not notable. VQuakr (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 01:30, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's not utterly a hoax, as I was able to verify the there is a John Abisch who was president of Econocaribe Consolidators at some point. I'm not convinced that this is sufficient notability. Everything else in the article seems unsupported if not just plain wrong. At present even if the article were kept everything would have to be deleted except one sentence which isn't entirely correct even then. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an IP who is probably the article creator has repeatedly blanked the article. My interpretation of this is that they now understand that the subject does not meet our inclusion criteria. If an admin reviews this article, can you please consider closing it as delete based on the 2 !votes and the creator's requested G7? VQuakr (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Reiter[edit]

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

MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA. He hasn't even fought for a second tier MMA organization. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above This article was part of a walled garden exercise along with Inka Fighting Championship also in an AfD discussion. The charities he founded are also non-notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 18:53, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Zinoviev[edit]

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

Former MMA fighter that does not meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strictly speaking he does meet WP:NMMA since he fought for a top tier championship - but that was his only top tier fight and a loss at that. It really looks like a special arrangement as a previous opponent for the title against Frank Shamrock had equally few fights.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had a grand total of 7 fights and 4 wins (none in a top tier organization). I guess Shamrock got to choose his own opponents.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:05, 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. + WP:G11 slakr^\ talk / 08:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ClearView[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NCORP Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kush (word)[edit]

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

This was contested in a WP:PROD, but is clearly a dictionary definition of a persian word. Most of the definitions included in the article have their own articles, linked to in the disambiguation page. Should be deleted per WP:NAD and any useful content merged into the appropriate pages. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 00:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NAD. It's not simply a dictionary definition; it's a list of Persian, Urdu, and other words (and their definitions) containing the consonants ش and ک (/ʃ/ and /k/). That makes it less encyclopedic, not more so, in my opinion. I prodded it, as it had the {{disambiguation}} template but no ambiguous links. User:PamD removed the prod, noting that it was not actually a DAB page. Cnilep (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When Kush comes to shove, it falls afoul of NAD. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note There's a similar AfD for Hag (Persian), a similar article by the same user. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, per WP:NAD, and much of the content and sources fail WP:VERIFY. Also, I don't agree that most of the definitions have their own article. It appears to me that half the words and definitions are linked to a small number of the same articles. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a repository for a collections of indiscriminate information. This page probably needs to be written in prose, if that is possible; but that is only possible if this word was actually the subject of reliable sources. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:01, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Candelaria[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography of a student filmmaker with no sign of having WP:NOTABILITY under any of the applicable guidelines. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If more sources are found, and I mean reliable sources are found, then Ill vote keep. Dret h 00:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence found to indicate subject meets WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE at this time. Gong show 03:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-remarkable person that seems to fail all relevant sections of WP:BIO. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 07:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE. Despite the tone of the article, the "films" are really just YouTube kid stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete creators of fan films and the like are generally not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 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.