Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 February	26 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 delete. KTC (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalistick[edit]

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

notability not established. industry awards insignificant. companies like MS partners with anyone, this is not a proof of notability. article almost untouched since 2012. Ysangkok (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. The mag-securs.com source in the article is the only significant coverage from a reliable source, and on its own not sufficient for establishing notability. A search did not turn up any additional significant coverage. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dialectric (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ResourceMiner[edit]

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

notability not established, no significant media coverage, article almost untouched since 2011 Ysangkok (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability. Only ref provided is a brief article in Swedish, on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search shows a number of download sites, but no additional significant RS coverage. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am unable to find sufficient evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gong show 00:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of what language the source(s) are in, the article doesn't even seem to make a claim of significance such that the decision of non-notability (which does seem to be the case) becomes an essential part of the process. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar ♔ 22:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Valdez[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly was ranked in the top 10 so he meets WP:NBOX. I've added a source for his rankings in the article.Mdtemp (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:NBOX. Ring Magazine also ranked him among the top 10 heavyweights of the 1950s. Papaursa (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tentative delete~~ Keep (see comment below) - WP:NBOX doesn't say "if a magazine says a boxer is in the top 10 he/she is notable." It says Have fought for a national (or higher) professional title for [one of several organizations] or have been ranked in the top-ten of any weight class for either the; IBF, WBA, WBC, or WBO. Did he do either of those? Furthermore the one source added is to a wiki, and therefore not a reliable source. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Ring magazine rankings repeated on multiple sites. I trust the Ring magazine rankings more than the frequently corrupted rankings of some of the boxing organizations.Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A better source than a wiki would be good, but regardless of how corrupted the others are, there's nothing about Ring magazine in WP:NBOX. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are technically correct, but I don't know of any source that carries more weight concerning boxing than Ring magazine. Ring magazine was listed in the previous criteria and I would claim it's omission is more oversight than substance.Mdtemp (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reason you see them in other articles is that RING was part of the old WP:NBOX. RonSigPi (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research this is an easy keep. It took some digging because the sources are older, which is why I -- and the nominator, probably -- didn't see anything at first. It also appears that "Niño_Valdés" is his real name. There are 11 Sports Illustrated articles, some useful information on the German Wikipedia's article on him, some relatively impressive stats, he's on the cover of Boxing and Wrestling magazine, and plenty more. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep with the caliber of opposition he faced, such as Archie Moore (twice), Sonny Liston, and Ezzard Charles I think there is little doubt WP:GNG is met. As a reminder, the boxing guidelines are only for presuming notability, the actual test is always if GNG is met. RonSigPi (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly has encyclopedic relevance and WP:N is satisfied by either passing WP:GNG or WP:NBOX, and he passes both. --Michig (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 09:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Marshall[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Being Michigan pro state champion doesn't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced biography, except to a link for his fight record. Also doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep One of only 3 boxers to beat Sonny Liston as a pro. Antonio Low Blows Martin (aca) 03:57, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

At best that's WP:ONEEVENT. That fight was scheduled when Liston was a first year pro and Marshall had been a pro for 8 years. Two fights later Liston beat him by TKO and beat him again a year later. Marshall still meets no WP notability standards.Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toxey Hall[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer, was sparring partner to some notable boxers but that is not enough. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Being Marciano's sparring partner doesn't show notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Mdtemp (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet WP:NBOX and he doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fails WP:BOXING and WP:NBOX. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xoloz (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tariqul Islam (physician)[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet WP:PEOPLE Flat Out let's discuss it 22:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Flat Out let's discuss it 22:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by a WP:SPA contributor. The article provides reference links to evidence of graduation and to the subject's Amazon page, where he has several print on demand CreateSpace publications in recent months. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Claims of various activities do not indicate notability as there is no independent coverage. - -Whpq (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it currently exists. There is no assertion of notability, much less the good sources required of any BLP. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity article. he doesn't meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Murder, She Wrote. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cabot Cove[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. Filled with WP:OR and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Murder, She Wrote.

Plot details of any specifics related to fictional town already contained in parent article and List of Murder, She Wrote episodes AldezD (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References used as basis of keep decision from prior AFD are not featured within the article itself and do not meet WP:GNG #1. Simply mentioning the phrase "Cabot Cove" being a fictional character's hometown in a book with a topic of parks in California is not "significant coverage", nor is an anecdotal mention of the murder rate of the ficitious town in an illustrated book. AldezD (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mendocino, California, where some of the content already exists. Owen× ☎ 21:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I lvoted to Murder, She Wrote. It's mostly OR, with a sprinkling of trivia; nothing worth salvaging that isn't already present in other articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Murder, She Wrote. A sentence or two from the intro paragraph could be merged, but it seems the only aspect of the article that isn't original research or pointless trivia. Really, the best solution seems to be a redirect. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MSW, since sadly it doesn't even have a wikilink. — Wylie pedia 14:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ovilus[edit]

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

WP:FRINGE device that has no WP:FRINGE#Independent sources indicating its notability. The lack of serious sources means the article simply cannot be written under the rules of Wikipedia. jps (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the weak notability and fringey sources make it impossible to write a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Been used on several television episodes including Ghost Adventures, Ghost Hunters and Ghost Hunters Academy 66.67.22.4 (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listed by name in over 45 books on this list: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Ovilus%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.67.22.4 (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any book on that list that's not written from a fringe pseudoscience perspective. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For basically the same reasons as JPS and bobrayner - a device of only WP:FRINGE utility which is only mentioned in Fringe sources will be effectively impossible to have an article for it which meets wikipedia standards. Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic has not received serious, in depth coverage by sources independent of the fringe perspective. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no reliable sources that discuss the device. Goblin Face (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen a lot of Google Books mentions, but most that mention it appear to be self-published works. I didn't read all of them though. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note that all three of the sources are self-published books --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edmund Blackadder. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Blackadder[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Blackadder through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. The character is part of a series of similarly named characters played by the same actor throughout the series, and it is best limited to coverage in Edmund Blackadder. TTN (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Edmund Blackadder. I don't think there's a lot of information that really can be merged without creating undo weight, but "Captain Blackadder" is a fair search term. --MASEM (t) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wibble per Masem. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I have recently heard the "Blackadder view of history" referred to in relation to WWI, which is clearly a reference to this character. This one needs to be linked to Edmund Blackadder via a main template to the relevant section. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that they're referring to the series rather than the character given that WWI is the setting for the fourth part. Even if it were about the character and you added a source, it would be trivial enough that it could be ignored or just slapped onto the main article for the character. TTN (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. What I was referring to was Max Hastings' programme on BBC, considering the causes of WWI. That is not a trivial allusion. Perhaps the article should therefore be converted into an article on the WWI season of the series. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's Blackadder Goes Forth#Reception, which seems to include what you've mentioned. TTN (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edmund Blackadder seems to be the best course of action here. I'm not a big fan of character articles; if the simple reiteration of what happens in the episodes is taken out (much of it wrong, actually, that whole John Sergeant thing is definitely mis-remembered), there's really not much to merge to be honest. Where are the refs, etc? I almost wonder whether it's best to delete it first before redirecting so as not to leave it open to recreation in its current form. Bob talk 22:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dead End (seaQuest DSV)[edit]

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

This episode has nothing to establish notability. The only sources are original research and a very minor bit from a cast member not worth noting. TTN (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancrufted OR. — Wylie pedia 14:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Till Tantau[edit]

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

Non-notable CS professor. Judging from his own website (which includes a list of awards) and a search on Google, Tantau fails to meet the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. His LaTeX packages are well known, but the man himself is not. The only sort of third-party source for the article is a German government website that promotes the study of computer science. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record is clearly not enough for WP:PROF#C1. Both beamer and tikz are important latex packages but per WP:INHERITED I would want to see reliable sources with some nontrivial detail about his role in creating them (and not just what they are and how to use them) if we are to use their creation as the basis for notability; the primary sources we have now are certainly not good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per Eppstein. Too early. It is regrettable that the BLP creator did not do more research before creating this article. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. "His LaTeX packages are well known, but the man himself is not" confuses notability with celebrity. (Without waxing too much, we have numerous articles on significantly more obscure figures in the programming language community that have handily survived AfD, like Mark Jason Dominus or Audrey Tang.) As David said tikz, beamer, etal are important cogs in the LaTeX machinery and importance/impact of work implies notability of its creator. I think this should be a simple case of finding items in the published literature that attribute these packages to him and document their importance. The article could then at least be a legitimate stub. I'll have a go at it and I hope that the panelists here might then have another look at it. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe my wording was a bit unfortunate, but what I mean is that I couldn't find the third-party coverage that WP:BIO requires. I tried looking for interviews and the like, but even TUGboat didn't have one; only passing mention here. Re: the precedents, Mark Jason Dominus was an invited speaker at OOPSLA, a major conference; Audrey Tang has television coverage (and survived AfD debates with, if I may, pretty weak arguments like "delete, not notable" and "keep, notable"). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've found acceptable sources, as reported below. Sorry to digress, but being something like an invited speaker at "OOPSLA", much less any other conference, does not confer notability. The 2 other articles I named stand on very shaky notability grounds, but both were "keep" in their respective AfDs. Agricola44 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Tantau has >200 GS citations, which go toward notability, but may be borderline for CS. What I think clinches this case are the sources that have been added that attribute Beamer and PGF/TikZ to him by name and to him alone (even though others contributed to these) and give some documentation as to their importance (nevermind that both have WP pages of their own, which we know makes them important;) I wonder if the panelists here might have another look. Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Could you add quotations and page numbers? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

200 cites is not remotely enough for this very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I don't think such quotes are appropriate for the article (this would be very unconventional), but here are a few samples to get a better idea of what I claimed above: from the Green text (pp 4), "The diagrams in this book were produced using TikZ by Till Tantau.", and from the Gratzer text (pp 325), "In this chapter, we discuss Till Tantau's 'beamer' package to help you prepare...". The rest of these (and many others that I found, but did not add to the article) can be checked quickly on Google Books. Agricola44 (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I mean quotes in the references, using the quote= field. I use those all the time with offline sources. GBooks has a habit of restricting previews. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not getting what you're asking for. The quotes I furnished above are from 2 of the references. If you want to add those to the article itself, I suppose you can – but again, this seems like it's "trying too hard". We conventionally accept references at face value without dipping into them for specific text. Agricola44 (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You might take refs at face value; I want them to be verifiable, so I want page number for all books sources and always include these when editing. Why do you think Template:Full exists? (I added a few of the page numbers and one quote to the article myself.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a book specifically written on the subject of Pgf/Tikz and it has a quote "Till Tantau is the designer of these languages". While I appreciate the issue of verifiability, my own opinion is that there are much more pressing source problems, for example the gajillion BLPs that only have web ephemera. This article was once like that. I think I've done all I can here, so I'll close by once again inviting a re-assessment based on what I think are 7 good sources that have been added during this AfD. Cheers! Agricola44 (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep following recent article improvements that establish notability. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Leeds accommodation[edit]

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

Effectively an OR list of hotels and/or other accommodation near the University of Leeds which has no business anywhere near Wikipedia. Laun chba ller 18:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though I'd support refocusing to just university-owned dormitories or to covering all university buildings individually notable ones already listed on {{University of Leeds}} and also non-notable ones, with a section on residences. I've noticed a number of recent AFDs on university buildings articles or lists, but it has generally been accepted that a list of university buildings is acceptable, and is appropriately separate from the main university article. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of residence halls at the University of Notre Dame, closed as "Keep" recently. About including mere "hotels" not owned by the university, I rather agree those should be cut, if some formal association is not documented, but that is a criteria for inclusion that should be discussed at the Talk page, not at AFD. Some of the listed residences are individually notable and have their own articles, so a list of them is clearly fine. Also, lists complement categories. --do ncr am 03:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and rename to List of residences at the University of Leeds or some such. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to set precedents then it should be renamed to List of residence halls at the University of Leeds.--Laun chba ller 11:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, British universities actually use "halls of residence", not "residence halls" (see Category:Halls of residence in the United Kingdom), but the reason for my suggestion is that these aren't just halls of residence, which is why over half of them don't have "hall" in their title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to University of Leeds halls of residence. I would hope that the article will in due course become more than a mere list. I confirm that "halls of residence" is the usual UK term. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing new to add, obvious keep. Szzuk (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G3 by Yunshui (talk · contribs). Giant Snowman 13:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karan Singh Banga[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. Article was previously deleted by PROD. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (hasn't played in a fully-pro league or at senior international level). This reminds me of this AFD. Giant Snowman 18:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, coverage extends only to routine transfer comment. Fenix down (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant hoax. What coverage? What routine transfer comment? He only exists on twitter/youtube/facebook. He's not mentioned in the media at all, in connection with any of the clubs he's supposed to have been involved with or in any other connection. The only mention is on givemesport.com, a news recycling site of dubious quality, whose "writer" was either fooled into doing the piece by Karan and his mates, or (more likely) actually is one of his mates. The only other live link in the article, that purports to be a 2011 Sky Sports piece entitled New York Cosmos Pick Singh from Draft, actually points to the 2014 Seattle Times Sounders FC blog piece called Report: Whitecaps draft pick Andre Lewis signs with New York Cosmos of NASL. The other links are equally nonsense. Hoax. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Struway2: what's your opinion on this, the only thing I could find that isn't social media? Giant Snowman 12:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See now-italicised sentence above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A link to givemesport.com's "Join the Writing Academy" page :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks for clarifying. You might want to add a hoax CSD tag ({{db-hoax}}) to the article for an uninvolved admin to review. Giant Snowman 13:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. Also noticed that the infobox allocates him a QPR squad number. Impressive that someone could have got a squad number for the highest profile football team outside the Premier League without the media being aware of his existence. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:22, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleo Thomas[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:N (he is not even listed in the list of notable University of Alabama alumni). All references taken from a minor local magazine. Suggested merge to The Machine seems inappropriate (his connection with that organization is too incidental). P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student Government presidents are never notable for that, although they might do things while such that make them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge target not a suitable candidate for merged content. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 01:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B3344[edit]

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

~~An insignificant piece of tarmac; a non-notable minor road. Fails GNG and the article provides no suggestion of significance. Author blocked a PROD. BethNaught (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)~~ Change to redirect as below, I was not aware of the list either. BethNaught (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unremarkable minor road.TheLongTone (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Change to redirect, as below, would have done this rather than RRODing had I known the list existed.TheLongTone (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this were ruled a test article it would be much better to speedy delete it per WP:G2, but I'm not sure if it is. BethNaught (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure its not, its a serious attempt to create an article. Just unfortunate that there is no appropriate csd tag. There are times one just knows the PROD will be removed with no comment.TheLongTone (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to B roads in Zone 3 of the Great Britain numbering scheme. There are quite a few other specific B roads that redirect there. Qwfp (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to B roads in Zone 3 of the Great Britain numbering scheme per Qwfp. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 20:09, 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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Union of the Baltic Cities[edit]

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

Seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). I am not seeing any good sources outside some mentions on EU/gov websites, but I don't think they are sufficient for GNG. Pinging User:DGG who deprodded it - are you seeing any good sources here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple references found via searches at HighBeam, GBooks. I added a few. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many independent reliable sources although organisational information is from UBC itself. Little or no coverage in the National Enquirer or Daily Mail however. Thincat (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable references present. This may be a fairly minor organization, however I see no reason to exclude it. _noisy jinx ^huh? 23:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expedyte[edit]

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

Un-notable "company", operational for just over a year. Very little mention in independent reliable sources, with the only references in the article being product listings that are not indicators of notability. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). We are not Yellow Pages. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software developer article of unclear notability, lacking independent, reliable source refs. Links provided are developers' pages and download pages and do not establish notability. A search did not reveal any significant RS coverage. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:25, 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 redirect to Team Lakay Wushu. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sangiao[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Was founder of a MMA team of questionable notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Team Lakay Wushu Not notable as an MMA fighter. Redirect to the team he founded, where he's already mentioned.Mdtemp (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Team Lakay Wushu is a better option as the MMA camp is somewhat notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. Black Kite (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cameron[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Degrassi: The Next Generation through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is not in the best shape but the character is a notable one of the series. Gloss • talk 08:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its status within the series really doesn't matter very much. What does matter is the viability for real world content, and this doesn't seem to have any. The only thing that could potentially be used as a source is a series guidebook, but that only contains brief summaries of the characters and information about the daily lives of the actors, seemingly completely unrelated to the characters. There is nothing else to help it pass WP:N, so potential for improvement seems to be non-existent. TTN (talk)

Information on casting the role, reception of the character, etc wouldn't improve it? I believe it would, this just needs a lot of work. Gloss • talk 18:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have them and they're non-trivial, they would help, but I'm not seeing anything of the sort. Google isn't the end-all for sources, but it doesn't turn up one single relevant source from what I can see. TTN (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for a television character or episode has to be demonstrated through real world perspective on the topic. It's not enough, for example, to write an article that's effectively an in-universe biography of him and a summary of plots that he was involved in — nor is it enough to be able to source it only to fansites and episode summaries. If you actually have real news coverage (not press releases, but real coverage in real media writing about it) about the role's casting and/or reception of the character, then yes, that's the kind of perspective that could potentially justify a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Degrassi: The Next Generation characters. The redirect was legit. There's nothing here but plot details. The page can be recreate later if someone eventually does locate real-world information from reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Character list. The article's "sources" are public databases and not "real world". — Wylie pedia 14:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. KTC (talk) 09:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Eurocup Mégane Trophy season[edit]

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

There are still no sources that the series will take place this year. Source confirms only Formula Renault 3.5, Eurocup Formula Renault 2.0 and Eurocup Clio. Cybervoron (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two of the four sentences in the article are written in future tense. Note that a copy of one of the two sentences with future tense is present in 2013 Eurocup Mégane Trophy season. Wikipedia is not a bulletin board to post info about future events. Applicable policies are WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTPROMOTION, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A bit early but consensus seem clear. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Babb[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:BASKETBALL. Not all basketball players are notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And not all notable basketball players meet the SNG of WP:BASKETBALL. WP:GNG is sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Big 12 Defensive team honoree. Also the subject of multiple nontrivial sources, such as this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Barumba, meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - he just ~~signed with~~ played a game for the Boston Celtics. Can we just end this now? Rikster2 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, when will this be resolved? DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Giant Snowman 18:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Antoniuc[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted by PROD. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (hasn't played in a fully-pro league or at senior international level). Giant Snowman 13:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

*Delete not notable and unreferenced. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Keep at least there is one reference. --Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, standard non-notable footballer arguments. Fenix down (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC) Keep - Happy to withdraw per GS. Apologies also, assumed Moldova was not FPL. Will learn to check every time now! Fenix down (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mr Antoniuc has nearly 100 appearances in the Moldovan National Division, which last time I looked was listed as fully professional at WP:FPL and thus passes the football-specific notability guideline. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I didn't realise the league was FPL. Happy to withdraw should @Ashbeckjonathan: and @Fenix down: with to reconsider their !votes? Giant Snowman 13:51, 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 Professional foul#Association football. Black Kite (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last man (association football)[edit]

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

Only a single reference, and seems redundant to the more comprehensive Professional_foul#Association_football. LukeSurl^{t c} 11:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of association football terms. Giant Snowman 18:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a notable term that has come to the fore recently as a result of the 'triple punishment' debate. This is a valid stub and there are plenty of sources to meet WP:GNG available. I have added a couple already and will add more later. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has improved substantially since the nomination. --LukeSurl^{t c} 00:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to foul (association football) under a section detailing denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity (possibly incorporating text from professional foul). Hack (talk) 08:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Professional foul, seems like an unnecessary fork as "last man" is more of a colloquial term, whereas I believe "professional foul" is the technical term. Link Last Man at Glossary of association football terms to Professional foul. Fenix down (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content into Professional foul#Association football. Agree that plenty of sources for the term are available, but we don't need two articles that cover the same ground. Had the Professional foul article not already existed, I'd have suggested renaming Last man... to Professional foul. There's too much detail IMO just to merge into the general Foul... article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content of this article and Professional_foul#Association_football to new article called Professional foul (association football). (I originally nominated this deletion, but the article has substantially changed since the nomination). --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it seems to me like there is a wider Foul / Professional Foul / Last Man confusion here where there are a number of forks that appear to essentially duplicate content. Fenix down (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a "last man" foul could be a professional foul, a red for DOGSO or neither. Either way, there is really not enough unique content to justify a standalone article. Hack (talk) 16:17, 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Triplex Confinium[edit]

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

Non-notable research project. No claim of notability, no 3rd-party sources, independent coverage insufficient to meet WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of this content was probably taken from a website about the project and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the editors involved were also in the university project. While I think the subject matter is important, this article looks like advertisement of academic work, not an encyclopedic article on the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any secondary sources to establish notability. This seems to be a puff piece at best. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever those sources in the bibliography contain might help, but that would require someone who worked on the article in the first place to know, most likely. It'd still be one source, but could lead to a better reference. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commnet -- This seems to be a series academic research project, with multiple university participants that operated from the late 1990s to 2004. I can find nothing on the project website (even in Croatian - translated) much less than 10 years old. This suggests a project that was finished with a publication and was then wound up. If so, the article should be on the publication or its content. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 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. KTC (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leathes Prior[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable firm of lawyers. I have already removed the advertising links. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Most of the article is about the early history of the firm, which appears to have then been a two-man family firm, of which there were once 1000s. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has 3 offices, great, now every company with 3 or more offices is entitled to a page on wp. Szzuk (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Champappilly[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACADEMICS--has no significant claim in his field. In terms of WP:GNG, a few passing mentions in Google news and books. Currently, the page is unsourced and badly needs cleanup because of promotional content and external links. The article talk page suggests that it and a few other pages linked here, are maintained by an editor with a COI. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Subject appears to have done lots of worthy stuff but sources are weak. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I agree with Xxanthippe. In addition, the same article creator has created a bunch of articles that mainly seem to serve to promote the books written by this subject. --Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sadly Wikipedia is only too open to exploitation of this sort as its structure makes it easier to create articles than delete them. The changes in the nature of Wikipedia since it was formed give rise to a need to change its policies in these areas. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Worldcat shows only tiny library holdings of his books, and Google scholar shows only tiny citation numbers for them. No other evidence of notability per WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With regret Delete -- He appears to be an advocate who has written a number of books (probably only pamphlets). These could be the articles that appear as "see also" items. In India where each person has his own personal law according to his religion, his subjects are probably important, but those I checked have several tags on them. I am not whoilly convinced by the low number cited for Google scholar and Worldcat, both of which may have a western bias. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I initially came across this while reading about Christian personal laws in India for another related article which I'm working on. I first thought of doing a cleanup but soon found the subject's notability doubtful, that's why I brought it here for better scrutiny. Though there are some achievements mentioned which may warrant it, I think it's more of a below-borderline case and it being unsourced only makes it worse. After this, I'll attempt to clean up those Christian law-related pages--all these together seem to have grown into a obscure "walled garden" which no one has edited for ages. I'll see if it can be merged into a single "Christian Personal laws in India" page; individually they do not have that much notability or coverage and need content trimming. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atana (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Recently created, unnecessary dab page. Has only a single legitimate entry (Atana, a form of classical Indian music). Second entry is only a spurious misspelling of an obscure dialectal alternate of the name of the goddess Athena, never used in English, therefore not in need of a dab entry. (If anything, the dialectal Doric form was "Athana", not "Atana"). Note that this dab page was originally even created at the main title "Atana", with the Indian music entry being moved to Atana (music); this, at least, has been rectified in the meantime.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment There seems to be a village called Atana in Aksy_District, Kyrgystan, and also it seems to be an Armenian version of the name of Adana, Turkey. Siuenti (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, yeah, but neither of these are likely to have articles any time soon, are they? The Armenian name isn't even the standard form of the name in Armenian, and we don't routinely do dab entries for random foreign name forms anyway. Like, Rom doesn't have an entry saying "'Rom' is the German version of the name of Rome' or anything of that sort. If the Kyrgysian place ever gets an article, we could of course talk again. But we don't even have a reliable source saying as much as that it exists – it's not confirmed by the source on which the list in Aksy District ostensibly is based. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - (P.S. I note that Boleyn has found yet another potential entry, a king of some historic kingdom in Thailand. Trouble is just, that one appears just as unsourced as the village in Kyrgistan. No reference to it independent of Wikipedia anywhere that i can find. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks, User:Siuenti. It wasn't a valid page, but it needed a bit of work rather than deletion. 4 valid entries and valid see also. Boleyn (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not relevant if they have sources or articles - several meet MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 20:50, 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 Nomination withdrawn. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margarita Martirena[edit]

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

Margarita Martirena is a perfectly ordinary doctor, with no reason to regard her as notable as a doctor. The only possibility of notability is for her participation in athletics when she was younger.

This article has now been created three times, by the same editor. It has twice been speedily deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7 (no indication of significance). The present version of the article certainly does contain claims of significance: it states that she holds the Uruguayan record in the 4x100 meter relay and the 100 meter dash. However, it seems that in fact this refers to the fact that when she was a child she took records for her age group, which is not what the article says. I cannot tell whether omitting to mention that the record was not an adult one was a mistake, or a deliberate attempt to make her appear more notable than she is (perhaps in order to avoid a third speedy deletion). The article also states that she was "South American champion", but I can find no confirmation of this anywhere, not even at a youth level. A Google search for "South American champion" "Margarita Martirena" produces nothing except the Wikipedia article, while "Campeón sudamericano" "Margarita Martirena" produces four hits, none of which says that she was a South American champion: they merely mention "Campeón sudamericano" and "Margarita Martirena" separately, in different parts of the pages. The article says "she competed in the Pan American Games in Indianapolis in 1987". After much searching in both English and Spanish, I eventually found http://www.cou.org.uy/cou/home/home/index.php?Clipping=854&menu=sub1_2&t=secciones&secc=452&top=437, which includes her name in a list of participants, but that is all: I found no coverage beyond mention of her name. Clearly this is participation at a high level, but Wikipedia:Notability (sports) makes it quite clear that mere participation in an event at this level, rather than achieving a high position, is not enough. Evidently she achieved a high standard in athletics, but after a considerable time searching, I have been unable to find any sources in either English or Spanish that come anywhere remotely near to showing that she satisfies either the general notability guideline or the guideline for notability in sports. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to the nomination:

She was born in 1966. By the time of her asserted record in Seville in 1990 she was 23 or 24. By then she wasn't a child and the record wasn't for her age group.
In addition, the Confederación Atlética del Uruguay on its home page has a link, "Records Nacionales", leading to the list of all national record holders. She's on there, on page 2, on the list of absolute Uruguayan woman record holders, for the 1990 Seville event. This is corroborated by a page on the Defensor Sporting website.
This reprint of some earlier article is about the ODESUR Santiago games, and it affirms that "Margarita Martirena se llevó un Oro en el equipo de 4 x 100" ("Margarita Martirena took Gold with the 4 x 100 team"). Winning an event at the South American Games (ODESUR) = being a South American champion in the event.
The article doesn't say she got a medal at the Indianapolis event, so there is no reason to expect more than that the page you identified would reflect her participation.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying all that. I am now withdrawing the nomination. Perhaps you can add the documents you have mentioned to the sourcing of the article, becasue at present it si not clear in the article. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:28, 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. KTC (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motherland magazine[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sources provided are either press-release mouthpieces or blogs. Significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject has not yet been achieved. Though there is no specific guideline for magazines, WP:NBOOK, and specifically WP:BKCRIT provides a close analogue for notability criteria. Without the assertion of notability, the article appears entirely promotional. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of any notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 18:02, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spaghetti girl[edit]

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

Subject's significance is not established and is a clear neologism. Among the "significant coverage" are IMDb trivia, Someecards, An anonymous Yahoo!-style answer at Chachacha, Urban Dictionary, and a blog. The other references aren't indicated to address the subject, rather the broader concept of sexual marginalization and such. I would probably nominate for CSD but I couldn't find an appropriate category. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete sourcing is terrible on this one --- urban dictionary? Didn't find much else. Although, if we kept this article, it would serve as a RS for some lazy journalist, who would then write it up in a RS - and presto citogensis - actually this may be a reason to speedy this out of existence before that happens...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obiwankenobi I'm okay with speedy delete, but which crit? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear WP:NEO that fails WP:GNG. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty clearly fails WP:NEO. Google results are limited to user-generated content and blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism and dictionary definition (meaning plus etymology is a dictionary definition). Wikipedia articles are about concepts, not words. So if we can redirect it to an article about the alleged hostility of some lesbians to bisexuals/pansexuals, or about women dabbling in sex with other women, I guess there might be an argument for that, but that's not essential. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colapeninsula, we have many Wikipedia articles that are about words, and, WP:Dictionary allows it, but, like WP:Dictionary states in its When word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject section, "As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Lesbian, not very notable neologism. Slang terms are a dime a dozen (like clichés). Paul B (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not seeing a good merge target, or content worthy of that merge. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this article is merged, then the best candidates for merging it are the Situational sexual behavior and the Heteroflexibility articles. Like I indicated on my talk page, there are many WP:Reliable sources out there for the situational sexual behavior topic, though the Situational sexual behavior article needs a lot of work to get it in good shape. I also note the Bi-curious article, but bi-curiosity is more so about romantic and/or sexual curiosity than engaging in sexual activity with the same (or opposite) sex on an occasional basis. And, as noted on the Bi-curious talk page, the Bi-curious article should be merged with the Questioning (sexuality and gender) article. That stated, merging the spaghetti girl topic with any of the first three articles I named in this paragraph can be problematic...per the WP:Synthesis policy. If the sources for the spaghetti girl topic are not using the terms situational sexual behavior (or situational homosexuality), heteroflexibility (or heteroflexible) or b-icurious (or other variations of that term), it can be considered WP:Synthesis to include these concepts in those articles. On a side note, I mentioned here at WP:LGBT that I think this article is a part of a WP:Student assignment. Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are good redirection choices, but I don't think there's anything to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Situational sexual behavior with no merge. Kaimahi (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not merge/redirect) - this is clearly the domain of urbandictionary, which is cited. I pulled up the only two reliable sources in the list (the first two), and neither one of them even mentions this term. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Down Under the Big Top[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any notability standard. I found http://www.allmusic.com/album/down-under-the-big-top-mw0001077143 which doesn't discuss the video at all, and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1858600/ which at least lists the cast, but nothing else. Fails WP:NOTFILM, WP:GNG and while not an album, fails WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that there may be a review in Christian music media such as CCM Magazine from around the time of the release, but I do not have access to archives earlier than 2001 (see http://www.ccmmagazine.com/magazines/2001/). If such references could be found, then I would certainly change my mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Paviliolive (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The band is obviously and solidly notable; this project's separate notability seems to be marginal. Neither IMDb nor Rotten Tomatoes [1] have any external reviews for this project. I did find a brief review in the Sun-Sentinel [2], and a mention of the project, in an article about their big record "Shine", in a CCM book called "100 Greatest Songs in Christian Music" [3]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The band and the director are individually notable, but I don't recall a big splash related to this direct-to-VHS video. The video gets a single sentence in The Encyclopaedia of Contemporary Christian Music (2002) while the band gets two and a half pages covering the first 12 or 13 years of the band, who are now going on to 28 years (with three lead vocalists). Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This brings back memories. It was an hour long film marketed and distributed to be sold alongside music videos at christian bookstores (I don't have a source for that, just my recollection). It is possible that there exists print coverage from the time, but my own search came up with nothing more than what Arxiloxos has already mentioned. Christian music artists at the time were inching toward long-form video projects and this seems to be one of the most elaborate manifestations of that trend (other examples include the DC Talk movie and "Carman: The Champion.") However, this seems to have received even less press than those other projects and I suspect that even with unlimited resources it would be hard to prove lasting notability. The name of the work should remain in the Steve Taylor article. Wickedjacob (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources above, I found this from Billboard, which added to them should be enough to squeak past GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good find. The sources above do not support notability as they're empty of any content. This makes only one source which fails "multiple". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I wouldn't call this (the Sun-Sentinel review) "empty of any content". The movie also appears to be mentioned in the book 100 Greatest Songs in Christian Music, but the pages that actually mention it aren't in the gBooks copies alas, but there is clearly offline content from print sources from the time of release. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not "significant coverage" either. It's only a few paragraphs. If there was a lot of that then we'd have enough to meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 24 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, slakr^\ talk / 07:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep (mostly thanks to The Bushranger). The Billboard (magazine) article was definitely substantive and significant,[4] and while the Sun Sentinel article was brief, it was not trivial. [5] Being among the "100 Greatest Songs in Christian Music" puts it just over the top for me.[6] showing it has made it mark and become part of the enduring record. WP:NF is met. With respects to Walter Görlitz, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail..." and "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Not to offend, and while wonderful to have, the "substantial" coverage you appear to wish for is not per guideline nor definition. Indeed, even "only a few paragraphs" can be considered significant coverage. [7] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can a long-form video be one of the "100 Greatest Songs in Christian Music"? Just because a single song is in that list doesn't mean this video relates to it. That song was released two albums before this video was released. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not own the film so I cannot speak toward how its songtrack or how its music is listed in that book. However, other sourcable assertions of notability are made in the article in 1) this being the very first film of a notable group The Newsboys and 2) it being the first screenplay written by notable director Steve Taylor. As verifiable, both facts can be considered under WP:NF... IE: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." When verifiable, such important firsts usually meet that notability criteria even if there were a lack of SIGCOV. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then the source did not do its research as Taylor had done two previous screenplays. He did one as a film student and another for himself with along-form video. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And your own assertion that the reliable sources made an error is based upon what? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the information I just provided. The student project is discussed in the liner notes of Now the Truth Can Be Told (http://www.sockheaven.net/discography/taylor/nttcbt/ http://www.allmusic.com/album/now-the-truth-can-be-told-mw0000626026) and other locations. The long form video I would have to dig up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no way to determine how you reached that conclusion, but thank you. The non-RS WP:SPS SockHeven.net link while sharing Taylor's thoughts on development of an earlier video project, makes no mention of his writing a feature film screenplay as a student, nor does the non-RS "liner notes press release" blurb, and neither does the listing at the Allmusic.com link. Writing songs and putting them together for a long-form video music compilation is NOT screenwriting. Contrarily (and others will check for themselves), the authored article in reliable source Billboard (magazine) tells us "Although he had never written a screenplay, Taylor tackled the project with great enthusiasm." And continues by quoting Taylor himself speaking toward the steps he took to ensure his screenplay was done properly. Wow, certainly a lot of usable information found in a source you declare to User:The Bushranger way up above as "empty of content". Thanks though for sharing your thoughts. I will step away for now and allow others to comment, and look for other sources just as suitable as are Billboard and Sun-Sentinel for establishing this film's notability and further verifying the significant firsts under WP:OEN. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never tried to link to a source, I simply stated where I read the information and linked to the album. I'm sorry if you thought I was linking you to the liner notes. AGF and go purchase a copy of the disc to read the liner notes.

As for not being a RS, I'm sorry you don't know what you're talking about. It has the blessing of the subject, he has linked to it in several discussions, and is the authoritative source on Steve Taylor's music. See http://www.sockheaven.net/thanks.html. http://www.sockheaven.net/videography/ lists other video works that he had done. And that student film, his article describes it and lists his other early works at Steve Taylor#Filmography.

As for NOR, saying that a screenplay was done properly does not mean that it was his first.

Feel free to read the Steve Taylor article in The Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music which starts on page 928. We find an entry on p.932 that describes this project as a "an ambitious minimovie with The Newsboys". That's and the sentence on p.627 are the only mentions of it in the entire tome. However, it discusses Taylor's work on a film called St. Gimp which had been working on "for many years" at that point, which is the other source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An amateur's, school, short film is NOT a professional's first feature-film screenplay. Linking to an unsourced assertion in a Wikipedia BLP filmography is not exactly helpful. But thanks for proving my point. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a "mini-movie" isn't a feature-film.

I thought you were going to "step away for now and allow others to comment". Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would love for others knowledgeable in film to comment. Let other voices be heard. According to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, American Film Institute, and British Film Institute, a feature film runs for 40 minutes or longer. When you refer to a 60 minute film as a "mini-movie" you give the impression that Taylor's screenwriting work was the same as for some 5-minute student short film. That denigration still does not dismiss the significant coverage in published reliable sources of the film. They may not be multiple-page manifestos, but "substantial" coverage is not the guideline requirement. Non-trivial is.

Your second paragraph just after your nomination statement says "I should mention that there may be a review in Christian music media such as CCM Magazine from around the time of the release, but I do not have access to archives earlier than 2001 (see http://www.ccmmagazine.com/magazines/2001/). If such references could be found, then I would certainly change my mind. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)". Such would fall under WP:NTEMP and WP:OSO.

I apologize to all for digressing into arguments over guideline interpretation. A simple explanation of my vote is that this film meets applicable notability standards through having just enough coverage and because it features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliyur Mannar Srinivasa Chariar[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of (or, frankly, the existence of, although I'm sure he did exist) this non-living astrologer. Additional sources welcomed. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No sources at all, let alone reliable ones. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can not find any reliable references. Goblin Face (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BLP. And the same as earlier editors concern, No reliable source found. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, since the guy died last century, BLP rules do not apply. He is not living.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable references on the net. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we clear out all unsourced articles from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 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. The two points to consider here are notability and advertising. The company may well be notable, but none of the sources provided suggest that. Most of them are primary sources or press releases, and the two sources that aren't are either a trivial mention or a profile of a person, not the company. The article appears to exist for the purpose of publicity. If anyone wants to re-create it from scratch using significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it would probably be a keeper. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyday Loans[edit]

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

Pure advertising. A list of locations belongs on their website, not a WP article, and there is essentially no other content. The sourcesare either themselves, or press releases, or routine notices. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are an important part of the loan market in the UK. They have featured in The Independent and Daily Record (Scotland) I'm sure they will have featured elsewhere. I'm happy to remove the branches DGG and will do after posting this. My aim with that was to show that they aren't just an Internet based loan company that has popped up, they are actually an active retail company within the UK in a number of major cities. LessThanEvil (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you prepared to write the article based on the third source documentation in those articles? I'm concerned that the existing article omitted all the negative material.Doing that is the worst possible form of promotionalism and a violation of our core principle of NPOV DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- LessThanEvil has now been blocked as a sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32. January (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks the required depth of coverage. I can't find the feature in the Daily Record referred to above (I checked online and in NewsBank), but that's a tabloid so not a particularly good source anyway. The Independent article is quite good, but not enough on its own. Everything else available seems to be press releases or passing mentions. January (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but prune of location list. This is a retail lender charging high rates of interest, presumably only attractive to high risk borrowers. If I remember right, it has advertised on the TV, so that it is useful to have some kind of objective article on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

would you advocate that as a general rule, that we include articles for whatever is advertised on TV? DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supper (Spotify)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Laun chba ller 13:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After a web search, I am finding multiple articles on reliable sites that discuss the app, including on The Next Web and Makeusof. Article definitely could be improved, but I'm finding quite a bit of hits about it, which suggests that it meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. I think deleting it may be premature. mikeman67 (talk) 02:33, 25 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) 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mikeman67. Okay folks, say it with me: 1 for the money, 2 for the - the - okay, just let me read the script again first... (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a part of the new Spotify API ecosystem, newly minted, brand new. Worth an article. scope_creep talk 17:53 02 March 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nested Context Language[edit]

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

Unreferenced; fails to meet notability as well as WP:V _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is (and is already referenced as) an ITU standard. Is the nominator planning on taking every telecoms-related XML standard to AfD? Have they read the comments against such behaviour elsewhere, at recent AfDs and at the RFC/U about them? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only is it referenced in the article as an ITU standard as Andy Dingley states, but there are many papers about it in the scholarly literature. I've added four good sources to a new further reading section in the article. It took me all of 2 minutes to find them. It obviously meets the GNG, folks.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nice amount of source coverage, — Cirt (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neatx[edit]

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

Software was last updated 4 years go. Indolering (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's not a valid deletion rationale. Notability isn't temporary. I figured there wasn't much chance that this would be notable, but I found significant coverage: zdnet, Linux Magazine, H-Online, Heise.de, Computer World. There might be more, but I stopped after that. I wouldn't be opposed to merging this to another article, but it's notable enough to survive deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. Notability seems to be clearly established. The article could use significant improvement, but deletion does not seem appropriate. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say speedy due to the lack of anything approaching a valid deletion rationale, but there we go. Plenty of good sources presented here as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:02, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sinardea[edit]

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

No indication this is real. FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced, and I can't find any sources to add. Other than what appears to be a mirror of this article at this page, which is actually a dead link with no archive, I can't find this genus covered anywhere. —Josh3580_talk/hist 08:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbaxoceras. Same kind of article. Burmeister (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No mention in WP:RS. -- 101.119.14.121 (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Lockett[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. This player certainly doesn't meet WP:BASKETBALL. Playing in the NBA D-LEagues does not establish notability. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Change to keep. Even though not all basketball players are notable, but clearly this guy has to be notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Second Team All-PAC 12 selection. The article was poorly written in the beginning but is better now. Passes GNG since it has multiple non-trivial references. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated, meets GNG due to independent non-routine coverage such as this and this and this. Rikster2 (talk) 02:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kammron Taylor[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Poorly started article just like the rest of NBAFanAndrew's attempts. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I would also prefer that newly created articles demonstrate the subject to be notable through cited sources, the question at this point is not if it's WP:UGLY, but whether WP:GNG can be met and is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem.—Bagumba (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - ~~But because the subject fails WP:GNG in addition to NBASKETBALL.~~ Rikster2 (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Changing mind in light of new sources surfaced by Bagumba. Also played in the Turkish Basketball League, which is a "similar league" to those listed in WP:NBASKETBALL. Rikster2 (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for the STB Le Havre, which is the highest professional basketball league in France. He also has enough sources to pass GNG. I'll admit when the article was created it didn't pass notability standards, but it does now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also found and added significant coverage from The New York Times and Journal Sentinel. Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage from multiple independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is pretty good now. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced very well and he was a very significant player during his years with Wisconsin. Redmen44 (talk) 06:59, 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.

Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E. J. Singler[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with the multiple independent sources cited in the article.—Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this were to apply, wouldn't that mean all college basketball player articles would need to be deleted? DaHuzyBru (talk) 05:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bagumba. Singler was an All-Conference player in a top league last year and received PLENTY of independent coverage as a result. Certainly enough to meet GNG and I believe that the improvements to the article clearly demonstrate this. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Elam[edit]

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

Promotional autobiograph with very borderline notability at best.. Contributor has resisted an effort to even tag it with a pressrelease tag, so I'm bringing it here as unfixable, which I probably should have done in the first place. It's a particularly bad representative of what has come here from AfC

"represented the coworking community as a spokesperson through major media channels and government summits" in the lede is pretty diagnostic. The entire sections 2, 3 and 5 are minor material that nobody would rationally care about but herself , her friends...and, mostly, her commercial associates. (note the photo of her undistinguished workspace in section 3.) Section 4 is out and out advertising for her projects. I note the sentence "Link Coworking is open from 9am until 6pm Monday through Friday",

I see nothing that resembles a usable reference. I see local business papers, which have a reputation for printing press releases they get from local businesses; I see some specialized trade newsletters, which do the same; and I see a few undisguised press releases from PRweb.

Some recent edits in the subject's own name have added a few more conferences. Even if the subject did not interfere, I would not try to fix this, because there's not enough notable substance. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I'll remove section 4. I would argue that Coworking is a rapidly emerging industry with 200% year over year for the past 8 years and is newsworthy. I would argue that Creative Morning, NY Times, SXSW, Forbes, Business Insiderand more. Are all press releases deemed bad? Thanks, for your help, just trying to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizelam (talk • contribs) 17:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to cross the notability threshold. While there is possibly sufficient coverage of the company to warrant a small article, the mentions of the subject herself are either glancing or in non-independent sources. (Press releases can sometimes be used for verifiability but they cannot prove notability.) If it's kept, the article needs a major re-write, but that's a matter for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that the only sources which could conceivably be used to establish notability seem to establish more notability for the company than the person. Some small amount of the information here could be merged with an article about the company, if created. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:48, 25 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) 13:31, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable person in business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2D animation software[edit]

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

This list, in its current form, serves no useful purpose ~~that isn't already fulfilled by the nav template or the category~~. In the same vein of List of 3D animation software, it was prodded, but that was contested, so I'm listing it here for further discussion. Waldir ^talk 02:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I removed the part of the rationale offending WP:NOTDUP; thanks everyone for pointing me to it. I do agree with Northamerica1000 that an expanded list with descriptions, alternative grouping, or some other sort of meta information would indeed be a valuable page. However, the page has been there for almost 4 years, has gone through 136 revisions as of this writing, and still comprises merely a list of links. I offer that this demonstrates that editors in this topic have little interest in building such a resource, and therefore keeping the page isn't going to change that anytime soon (and I'm an eventualist myself!). In fact, if the page is deleted, recreating it comprises simply copying the 2D section of {{animation editors}} and enriching the list in whatever way is deemed desirable; therefore, deleting it does no appreciable harm to either the encyclopedia as it currently stands, nor to future editors who may wish to build such a resource. I thus invite the editors who opposed on the basis of NOTDUP to reconsider. --Waldir ^talk 02:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. This list is complementary to Category:2D animation software, and it's a useful navigational aid. Furthermore, the list is expandable, such as by adding descriptions to the entries. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hi. I agree with User:NorthAmerica1000 above, in general; but we are not short of lists of animation software. Merging and consolidating is the smart thing to do right now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. An alternative to deletion would be to re-purpose the list. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As WP:NOTDUP says, lists can happily coexist with categories and navboxes as complementary forms of organization. The list itself is well-formed as a list of animation software with their own articles. I'm not opposed to merging or consolidation if that is the consensus, but there is no reason for deletion. Unfortunately, List of 3D animation software got by me. --Mark viking (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And List of 3D animation software, deleted by PROD, should be restored, too, although I can't see it. These are complementary to categories and could be / should be developed further. The current version of the 2D list doesn't have much, but can include pictures and descriptions with sources and red-links, while a category cannot. --do ncr am 07:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOTDUP, as pointed out multiple times here, means that the existence of a category does not make a list superfluous; if it did, then most of our lists would have to go in the bin. I've also requested the restoration of the 3D article as its deletion is contested. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nomination rationale has been updated to comply with WP:NOTDUP. Waldir ^talk 02:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page provides a good lists of 2D animation software. WP:LIST Unatnas1986 (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and per WP:NOTDUP. JJ98 (Talk) 23:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It was deleted by StephenBuxton as A11 (obviously invented).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban Death Knot[edit]

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

No indication of notability, and internet searches fail to turn up even a single non-Wikipedia result for "taliban death knot". In addition, while the worst hate language has been removed, it's still unsalvageably WP:NPOV. Prod removed by IP. Kolbasz (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as highly prejudicial hoax. No genuine hits anywhere, even if I search for "Taliban" and "death knot" separately. Article creation is sole contribution of editor. Mangoe (talk) 10:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's probably not an outright, intentional hoax, but I fail to see how it can survive WP:MADEUP and WP:ATTACK. It seems to exist nowhere but on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tagged it as something that someone came up with one day. I was tempted to tag it as a hoax, but NRP is right- this is likely just something someone made up themselves and decided to add to Wikipedia. It does look like it was started as an attack page. Now the thing I want to say is that even though I think that most of us would agree that the Taliban has done things that are inhumanly awful, Wikipedia is not the place to post anything that would be an attack or a WP:SOAPBOX. It's also not the place to post things that you or someone else just came up with to be a symbol against all of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 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 redirect to The Tempest#Music. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 01:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Tempest Musical[edit]

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

No sources for over five years. A Google search reveals very little beyond the one production run. No academic sources that I know of mention it. Simply does not meet Notability. Bertaut (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't yet had a chance to search as thoroughly as I'd like; so far I've found just some minor mentions: [8];[9];[10]&[11] (same content, different publications). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thomas Meehan (writer). I really can't find anything out there to show that this musical is notable enough to merit its own entry. I've found some very brief mentions about it, but nothing that's truly indepth. Considering that someone was accusing the musical of being plagiarized, you'd have thought there would be more coverage of it. In any case since Meehan came up with the concept we could include a 1-2 sentence mention in his article and just redirect there. If anyone can find anything substantial I'm willing to be swayed, but I can't really find much in any reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me. I had a look around as well and couldn't find anything of note. Checked JSTOR and asked several colleagues in the English Department where I work if they'd ever heard of it. None of them had. And as you say, there's virtually nothing in reliable sources. Bertaut (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the redirect target. There are other Tempest musicals that are likely as notable (or non-notable) as this one was, notably and recently a 2013 Public Theater production in Central Park [12][13][14], as well as the Tempest Toss'd production that Neiden worked on before moving to this, as mentioned in our article [15][16]. And then there is a school of thought that The Tempest itself is actually (or at least was intended to be) a musical. [17] (Plus, although Meehan is credited with the concep, he didn't actually write the book or the songs; the only bio to be found at the official website is Neiden's [18]). I suggest instead that the redirect go to The Tempest#Music, where we can add appropriate mentions of the various productions. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that does sound like a better idea alright. I'm familiar with the theory that The Tempest may originally have been intended to be a musical. It's a fascinating argument, and I've seen some really persuasive hypotheses thrown into the ring. Bertaut (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Tempest#Music due to lack of sources and notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my "vote". Arxiloxos brings up a good point: this should redirect to Tempest#Culture, The_Tempest#Music, or something similar, as this is such a general search term that people might be looking for something other than this particular musical. He's right- there is discussion in the main article about the music in the play and that it might have been intended to be a musical. I've added a mention of this musical on the disambiguation page, so it is listed on here somewhere. It just isn't notable enough for an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll vote for the same; redirect to The_Tempest#Music. Bertaut (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Westman[edit]

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

Page was deleted before per WP:BLP1E. Westman is notable only for Survivor and wasn't even very notable on the show either. The article is poorly written anyway, as the only source is an article on his daughter and is way too lengthy. Unless the article can be drastically rewritten to prove more notability, it just can't stand alone. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I've said, winners of reality TV competitions apparently pass notability guidelines and do not have anything to do with BLP1E. Significant media coverage and two appearances on the show, he passes GNG. Gloss • talk 01:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Don't think winning a reality TV contest guarantees notability (is there a specific policy for that? Don't know of anything beyond WP:ENT, which I don't think he meets any criteria for), but I do think Westman may meet WP:GNG. See, for example, articles about him in Entertainment Weekly and New York Daily News. However, I think merging into one of the Survivor articles may make sense as well, since the articles about Westman are only about one topic (his appearances on Survivor). mikeman67 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Same as above. There's no good reason to keep him, but at the same time there's no good reason to delete him, so we might as well keep him. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Survivor: Palau. Call me when he becomes more notable. — Wylie pedia 15:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll never understand. An American Idol contestant becomes notable enough for an article just for making the top 13. Yet once they are eliminated in 13th place, you never hear from them again but they're still notable just for placing in the top 13. Westman won a season of one of cable's longest running TV shows, and then played the game again.. and he's not notable enough? Gloss • talk 18:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your Keep vote above, you state "Significant media coverage and two appearances on the show, he passes GNG", yet there are no significant sources in his article. Everyone can list all the sources here, but, if not there, not notable. Oh, and WP:OTHERSTUFF never belongs in AfD discussions. — Wylie pedia 03:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFF is just an excuse to avoid the question, but if you choose not address my comment, that's fine. Gloss • talk 04:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Wimmer[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 00:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? There is a well cited Andreas Wimmer here [19]. Can the nominator say if it is the same person? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Looking at things, I would highly doubt they're the same person. The one you found got a PhD in Zurich in 1992, which wouldn't fit with what this Zimmer's article claims. None of the works listed in this article appear in that GScholar search (as far as I can tell) - they seem to have similar subject areas, but that's where the similarity ends. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Adequate sources not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The other Andreas Wimmer found by Xxanthippe looks quite notable, but I don't see the evidence for a pass of WP:PROF (or other notability criteria) for this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing the evidence of notability on this Mr. Wimmer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:22, 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. Black Kite (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian-identified male[edit]

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

This term is nonsense. There's no such thing as a male lesbian. The word "male" as part of this term I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong) is a reference to the point of view of people who think trans women are really men. We aren't supposed to use this point of view in Wikipedia. Georgia guy (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NEO and the absence of WP:Notability. Like I stated here, "No neologisms without a very good reason." Looking at the sources used to support this article, I see no WP:Notability to base this article on. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Re. the nomination, I believe the term is used to indicate people who are not explicitly trans*, as opposed to "the point of view of people who think trans women are really men". Having said that, delete as a poorly-sourced neologism. BTW, I've only really ever seen this term used in jest, and I'm struggling to understand it. Not a reason to delete, as I don't fully understand nuclear physics either, but ... - Alison ^❤ 00:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alison, before you linked to, and I clicked on, that article, it'd been quite sometime since I last visited it. I remember when the transgender debates were constantly going on there (I even partook in the "Not LGBT" one, though I now somewhat cringe at the "sex they were born as" text I used there, even though I was speaking of biological/anatomical traits present at birth), and I do wonder how serious he is about calling himself a male lesbian. Flyer22 (talk) 02:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, he only uses the term in jest. He's a stand-up comedian, after all - Alison ^❤ 17:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as poorly sourced (2 sources used), WP:NEO, WP:FRINGE, and not WP:NOTABLE. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any real sociologist would find this laughable. A straight man can't be a lesbian due to not understanding the experience. This is due to male and heterosexual privilege. The article has made clear this isn't a trans-issue but about men who identify as lesbians. I believe I stand with sociology, feminism and LGBT activists when I say this doesn't work.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term male lesbian isn't something new. It goes back at least twenty years. I used to hear Jerry Williams refer to himself as one back in my radio talkshow listening days and that ended in 1993 or 1994. The article may be badly written(I did some tweaks to it but I'm not a gender studies expert) and many people might consider the concept hogwash but the term does exist[20] and it has been portrayed in mainstream media....William 15:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about usage its about validity and I really highly doubt that even if this word is used seriously which I hope it isn't that any major LGBT scholar or activist would consider a cisgender heterosexual male a lesbian. I mean even if we keep the article there would need to be a huge criticism section which many of the people criticizing the concept would be lesbian. We don't only need usuage but both validity and reliability.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's exactly about usage not validity: at Wikipedia we write about commonly used concepts regardless of whether they're true or false, logical or meaningless, sensible or silly (you want to delete ontological argument, invisible pink unicorn, or fascism)? There's an article on "male lesbians" by Jacquelyn N Zita in Adventures in Lesbian Philosophy edited by Claudia Card.[21] There's also coverage in lower-quality sources, and other brief mentions in books (mostly about the L-Word).[22][23][24] I'm not absolutely certain it meets notability requirements, but this should be evaluated on the basis of whether the concept has enough coverage in reliable sources, not based on personal opinions about whether it's stupid. Of course, it's fine if the article says it's stupid as long as that's the majority opinion of the reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/merge well-sourced content (if good target can be found). There are two notable examples as far as i can tell. Eddie Izzard, and Lisa from the L Word. Lisa is fictional, but being a hallmark of contemporary lesbian culture, the show's impact should be taken into value. I think a paragraph in a suitable article about identities might be appropriate. But I'm not sure where. Covering the topic, even in a limited way, certainly makes sense. Sportfan5000 (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. "Male lesbian" is definitely not a new term. I've more often heard it phrased that way or as "guydyke" (analogous to "girlfag") than as "lesbian-identified male" though. Regardless of whether anyone considers this gender identity to be valid or not, I think the article should stand if more sources are found. Funcrunch (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were attempting to establish a gender identity I would be more open to the idea but I quote directly from the article "Despite this disposition, lesbian-identifying males express no desire to undergo the physical nor social transitions transgendered people experience in the pursuit of true gender-identity performance." Does that honestly sound like they are attempting to identify as women. This is about Cisgender Heterosexual Men who wish to identify as lesbian. I don't think most lesbians would consider these people lesbians.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have to undergo any kind of transition to claim a gender identity. And for the purposes of Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks about the validity of this identity. The point is that "male lesbian" is how some people identify themselves, like it or not. The question of whether the entry should remain in Wikipedia should center around whether the term is suitably notable and adequately sourced. Funcrunch (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge I think there might be just about enough to keep this, but it's a very difficult one, since the term "male lesbian" clearly has several different uses, ranging from a jokey expression meaning "a straight man with a strong feminine side" to a rather marginal theory that there are straight men who see themselves as "really" women in some sense. As a phrase, it's common enough in variant forms, but as a coherent concept in psychology or gender-theory it seems to be less stable. There are really very few sources, a weak article from the '90s written at the height of po-mo gender-theory babble, and something by Brain Gilmartin, a writer whose own article was recently deleted because he is not notable enough:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian G. Gilmartin. I should add that there was recently a long and acrimonious deletion discussion about an article on "incels", one of Gilmartin's other contributions to psychology. It was merged. See here.
However, it's clearly on the borders of notability. It certainly can't be deleted for the reasons given by Rainbowofpeace, because Rainbowofpeace has decided that "a straight man can't be a lesbian due to not understanding the experience." That's a complete non-sequitur. It has the same (il)logical form as the argument that gay people can't get "married", because the word married has to refer to heterosexual couples. You don't get to decide what the "true" experience must be. And in any case it misses the point entirely, since Wikipedia policy simply requires that a concept is sufficiently notable and sourcable to have an article. We don't delete articles to suppress content we don't approve of. Paul B (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the word lesbian in every dictionary I could find refers to women, girls or females. Not men. Therefore a lesbian-identified male is like Hindi-identified Christian or an Atheist-identified Muslim. If you don't believe me I will gladly post some definitions.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of whether anyone believes you or the dictionary definition, it's a matter of whether or not some people claim this identity. If there are enough reliable sources to support that a sizable number of people identify as "male lesbians", then it is worth keeping the article, no matter how ridiculous, distasteful, or offensive you or anyone else finds that term. More reliable sources can always be added to the article criticizing the use of this term. Funcrunch (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not a dictionary issue. I could find people who identify as cows. That doesn't mean they are I have not found a single dictionary that defines the term "lesbian" as encompassing men, boys or males. Wikipedia is not here to have an article on every psychosis someone decides to call themselves. It would be one thing if we were talking about trans lesbians but as I pointed out earlier with the quote that is clearly not what we are talking about.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not possible or desirable to include every identity in Wikipedia. The question is how notable this particular identity is. There almost certainly aren't enough people who believe they are cows to include an article on "Cow-identified humans", but there are enough people who identify as (partly or wholly) non-human to merit an Otherkin article, for example. Whether anyone deems this to be a legitimate identity or a "psychosis", the question is one of notability. Funcrunch (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ETA per above: You might want to check out the AfD discussion on Otherkin for similar arguments to the ones we're having on this topic. Funcrunch (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether there is coverage of the term. Huffington Post writer Ali A. Rizvi considers himself an atheist-muslim, btw, and has written some good articles on the topic. If that term gains some secondary coverage, it could realistically merit a wikipedia article at some point. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Flyer22. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a conversation about whether or not they exist. It is not wikipedia's job to make such conclusions. It is wikipedia's role to disseminate established information. If secondary sources on a subject area are lacking (as they are here), that falls to the researchers to correct. Deleting the article is not an invalidation of a group's identity, it is simply stating that there is not yet enough coverage to establish that the term is notable. If the term gains more traction, then a new article will be warranted. In the mean time, it is our job as editors to reflect the consensus of reliable sources. Personal opinions about the sanity or intentions of members of any group are always irrelevant to the discussion.Wickedjacob (talk) 07:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this might be a titling problem. The Hypatia article in the footnotes lends weight to the argument that this is an encyclopedic concept, except perhaps not under this precise title. For what it's worth, I had an employee (male) who went the TS road so that they could become a lesbian, so I know first-hand that it is a real thing, contrary to the nominator's assertion. Is there more coverage than this out there? What should be the real title? Matters to be resolved, for sure. But I think the two sources here make for a (weak) GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I want it to be known that for me this is not a trans issue. If we were talking about trans women identifying as lesbians I would have no problem with it. However I point I out two quotes "Despite this disposition, lesbian-identifying males express no desire to undergo the physical nor social transitions transgendered people experience in the pursuit of true gender-identity performance." and "The men studied in Gilmartin's work differentiate themselves from transgendered people and are comfortable with their heterosexuality." I think this makes it clear that we are not talking about trans-women who identify as lesbians but Cisgender Heterosexual Men. That's what I have a problem with. I want my position to not be mistaken. For me this isn't a trans-issue its an issue of definition-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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