Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 January	1 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 merge to No-Man. 28bytes (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Days In The Trees[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:N/WP:GNG for musicians, performers, or for recorded works ColonelHenry (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't see this fitting WP:NALBUMS, but some of the information can be included on the main No-Man page. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:15, 27 January 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (or redirect) to the band's page. This release apparently entered the UK indie charts, but the most detail I could find in a reliable sources was a couple sentences in this book. Gong show 07:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Livia Giuggioli[edit]

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

She is really only notable for being Colin Firth's wife. She produced one documentary 7 years ago and is the "Creative Director" for a company that doesn't have its own article. Plus the way the page is written is more about Eco-Age than her. Any reliable source about her is more about her husband or the company than her. If anything, create a page for the company, merge the two and then delete her page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a well known only because she is a wife ofa famed person.User:Lucifero4

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 23:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have proposed a merge if Eco-Age had an article. All her work and awards are tied to that organization. Mkdw ^talk 21:40, 1 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Mouse (software)[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - merge the data into the Unsanity article (although that one also has questionable notability, as well as the related Haxie article. This will never raise to the level of needing it's own entry. If someone combined all the Unsanity articles into one, it would actually probably be pretty decent. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 January 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Petrovich[edit]

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

I proposed the page for speedy deletion as according to me it is unable to satisfy wp:people and written like a promotional article. Most of the citations given are either of blogs, social networking sites or of other person (born 1899). Even there is no sign of notability for the person, the speedy deletion tag was removed by User:Bbb23. So I am raising the issue here. Mr RD 15:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no RS, no GNG BlueSalix (talk) 21:07, 24 January 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, Mkdw ^talk 23:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The supplied references do not support notability for the subject, and my search didn't turn any up either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:41, 5 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 Apathy (rapper). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demigodz Records[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. From WP:COMPANY, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.' All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The only references are to Discogs, CDUniverse and Amazon, all either user-generated or retail stores. Also notability is not inherited from the founder Apathy or the artists supposedly "signed" to the label, which are not backed by any reliable source or source at all. Also based on the albums released on the label that have Wikipedia articles, the label has not released any significantly notable or charting albums. STATic message me! 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete. I was thinking of suggesting a merge into Apathy (rapper), but it doesn't seem like there are any viable references for even that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP!: Added new section: Demigodz_Records#Charted_Albums showing all the albums that have been on the official Billboard 200 charts with reliable references. Improvements have been made on the page. TwinTurbo (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - All low positions, none on the Billboard 200. STATic message me! 22:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - These guys are non-mainstream independent artists. Getting anywhere on the charts is good enough imo. TwinTurbo (talk) 09:24, 1 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, ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just added more information on the page, including an album that's been on US billboard Top 200 Albums, where does this page stand now? TwinTurbo (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will gradually be adding more information on the page as time progresses. TwinTurbo (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are missing the point. From WP:COMPANY, "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.' All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." That is the issue here. It lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. All coverage is passing or trivial. STATic message me! 16:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - What do you people think of this? This seems like a reliable source... TwinTurbo (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - 1) Under no situation would that be a reliable source. On top of that, you wrote it just a few days ago, you know they have edit histories there too right? STATic message me! 18:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the large following (for independent artists), the combined millions of views online, and the fact the thousands of artists with smaller followings have sustained pages on this website, this page should remain as such, and continue to exist, and i can/will contribute to the expansion of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTNxOZ (talk • contribs) 03:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a lack of coverage about Demigodz Records in independent reliable sources. Falls short of WP:CORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Apathy (rapper). Label is notable because of chart action, but it has no notability outside of its single artist, Apathy. It is a "vanity label". I added a source with additional, interesting information, and is probably reliable as an interview, but as there is no editorial oversight, it doesn't help toward establishing notability. @user:TwinTurbo, wikia is a wiki just like Wikipedia. It is inherently not a reliable source, as *anyone* can insert any kind of information to its content. If the label signs additional, notable artists, then the article should be re-created/split out. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Apathy (rapper), but only in lieu of a Demigodz article. The label and the group are essentially the same thing (the roster of signed artists reads as a roster of Demigodz members), but the Demigodz article would have to be unsalted and recreated first (which it should be, as current and former members Apathy, Celph Titled, 7L & Esoteric, Styles of Beyond, DJ Cheapshot and Louis Logic are all notable.). - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright if things have to go this way, then I agree with @78.26. The article should be *Merged and Redirected to Apathy (rapper). TwinTurbo (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SlashGear[edit]

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

No indication of notability, only sources are first party. Prod declined without explanation by an IP. Safiel (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. SlashGear seems like a good source of info, and SlashGear even has and editorial team, but they just aren't there yet for notability. Paviliolive (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Primary sources can not confer notability. I don't see anything obvious in a Google search, but it's sometimes difficult to find stories about popular websites. Its popularity will probably lead eventually to it becoming notable, as define by Wikipedia, but it looks toosoon right now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - After seeing an article using SlashGear as a source, I Googled to see what it was, and was specifically hoping for (and found) a Wikipedia article. I happened to notice the AFD banner and figured I should let you know at least one person out there had been looking for the article. Unfortunately the article itself is a bit of a stub and didn't really have much useful for me - thus the weak. Certainly room for improvement. 2601:A:5E00:406:D552:708:106E:FA1 (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete (see comments below for reason for change). I don't think it meets the notability criteria of WP:WEBSITE (e.g. I don't think it's won any awards) or WP:COMPANY, but news sources and publishers are two subtypes of websites/companies that I think slip through the cracks of Wikipedia's existing notability guidelines. When a news site produces works that are widely cited in other reliable source works, even though those are essentially one-sentence trivial "this exists" mentions, the citations themselves, cumulatively, can be evidence of the site's significance. Those cites also create a reason that people will want to look up encyclopedic information about the site; for example I frequently rely on Wikipedia to determine whether a publisher is a vanity press or a serious academic publisher, which even a stub article typically answers. Note that I'm considering only reliable sources. In this case, a books.google.com search showed about 40 books that cited SlashGear articles; maybe ten or so are self-published junk books (super rough estimate – I was judging books by their covers!). A scholar.google.com search showed an estimated 50 or more US patent filings that cited SlashGear articles, and I'd guess at least a dozen journal articles or academic conference papers that did so. It is briefly mentioned as a site in itself rarely in such papers; e.g. "BlogNEER: Applying Named Entity Evolution Recognition on the Blogosphere" from Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Semantic Digital Archives (2013) utilized a “techblog dataset” consisting of “five popular tech blogs covering five years from 2008 to 2013, fetched from Google Reader: TechCrunch, Gizmodo, SlashGear, Ubergizmo and GottaBeMobile.” A generic Google web search is much more tedious separating the reliable sources from blogs and other nonsense, but spot-checking citations from well–known sources is a useful benchmark. Searching for "slashgear site:latimes.com", for example, shows 20 or so Los Angeles Times articles that cite or mention SlashGear over the past 5 years; the Wall Street Journal has maybe 30 such articles. Again, the references may be trivial, but the fact that the LA Times and Wall Street Journal referenced them so many times differentiates SlashGear from your grandma's knitting blog. So while I can't state a notability guideline criterion that makes this a slam dunk, in my opinion SlashGear is notable “enough” based simply on its widespread media citations. ––Agyle (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agyle has once again made a fairly persuasive argument, but I think that this is a much better argument for conclusively establishing that the site is a reliable source than for notability. WP:WHYN does a good job of discussing why notability is important; without significant coverage, we have to resort to primary sources for all our information. I guess we could turn the article into a micro-stub of one sentence, but what's the point? As WHYN says, it's better to merge or delete the article and wait for significant coverage. Dread Central was deleted for lack of notability a few years ago, but I was able to successfully find enough sources to recreate the article in 2013. Popular web sites have a way of eventually getting significant coverage. It will eventually come, and there's no hurry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reconsidered. I was going to respond that even a short stub is useful for a site so widely cited, and I assumed there would be enough material for that, but I can't find a reliable, independent source to reference even a single sentence about the topic. It's level of non-coverage is somewhat remarkable! Income Diary has an interview with some info, but even if that were considered a reliable source, all the info is from the interview, making it effectively another primary source. ––Agyle (talk) 10:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. slakr^\ talk / 13:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of C.I.D. episodes[edit]

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

Re-renominating for deletion an unreferenced long list of episodes. The list has nothing encyclopedic in it. Only episode name and date of airing. Wikipedia is not a Directory.
1st AfD was closed (non-admin) by nominator in Oct 2010.
2nd AfD was closed by admin as the list was blanked and redirected to the main article in May 2012. Hence renominating it as the redirect didn't stay much long and was again populated with this junk. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard, consensus-supported practice to have standalone lists of episodes for notable, dramatized TV series when WP:SIZE merits a WP:SPLIT. Nothing applicable in NOTDIR says anything to the contrary (and I can only guess why the nominator thinks otherwise without an explanation), and "it's WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC" is a conclusory statement, not a substantive argument. Is the nominator unfamiliar with TV episode lists on Wikipedia, or is there some reason particular to this series that its episodes should not or cannot be listed? postdlf (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the "List of X episodes" articles on wiki and am hence aware of their content and quality too. Keeping the quality aside, as poor quality of current status is not a reason for deletion, i am nominating this for it's content. The show is notable and airs fresh episodes twice weekly. But none of the episodes seem have got their own coverage. We do not have information on writers, productions, viewership stats, critical commentary, etc. We actually do not even have verifiable sources to check if the episodes were actually called what they are called in the article now. And its not the case of missing information from the article. This info is never ever available for Indian TV shows. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So now your argument is that a basic episode list for a notable series that is the longest running in Indian television history is not even verifiable? I find that hard to believe. Are you claiming that there's not even the equivalent of TV Guide in India? Are you claiming that the episodes themselves do not even have credits that would identify the writer, director, etc., or the episode name? postdlf (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help yourself in making it verifiable. Indian TV shows don't have any TV guides as such. Our newspapers do write which show airs when and that dedicated column is present in every newspaper. But none of them would mention the episodes' names. One could regularly go and watch the show and write all the spot boys' names too. But that would really be unencyclopedic as long as we don't have other third parties also listing them. Similar is the situation with episode names. If we were finding good sources discussing particular episodes as such, maybe how exciting yesterday's episode was, or how the episode dealt with a strange poison doping case, or how some particular actor's part was performed well, etc., then there could be a slight chance of making the list as such. All the notability is for the whole package that is called C.I.D.. Take out bits and parts like Episodes list, stand alone episode, music theme, separate characters' articles; they have nothing. We did have separate individual articles for characters too which was merged into List of C.I.D. characters. A WP:BOLD editor can very well blank it for lacking verification and get the article deleted speedily and there shouldn't be any bad faith assumed on their part. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing the issues for this list with the standards we'd expect to justify standalone articles on each episode (and apparently confusing notability with verifiability, as your first sentence especially suggests). A list of episodes is a basic part of a dramatized TV series article, and is WP:SPLIT from that parent article for WP:SIZE reasons. And given how readily American TV series episode lists are kept, I'm especially concerned about WP:SYSTEMIC bias here because this is an Indian TV series and thus will just statistically have fewer editors who care about it.

No, an editor could not blank an article for it being presently unsourced, as that would be contrary to editing policy at WP:PRESERVE and WP:V (which merely requires, except in extreme circumstances not present here, that sources are available somewhere) and an ultimately disruptive attempt to make an end run around AFD. Gaming the system in the manner you suggest to sneak in a result that you can't through an express procedural motion such as this AFD nomination would be an act of bad faith.

And given that you appear to concede that much of the information is verifiable from the episodes themselves, and that Indian tv guides provide air dates (not to mention DVD releases...and whatever sources have made this series notable as a whole are bound to have commented on at least some individual episodes), your claim that this list is not at all verifiable (if that's what you even mean, instead of just not notable) is not credible to me. That would mean that this list, much of which includes episodes purported to have aired before Wikipedia even existed, was completely made up by multiple editors, from the episode titles to the air dates, and I don't think that's plausible here. But let's get more opinions in here rather than us continuing to flood this discussion, as it should be clear by now to any reader what each of us think. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that other tv shows willy nilly get episode list articles whether or not they should have them is not a valid reason for keeping this article. and WP:BURDEN does in fact require the actual presentation of sources and not just the mere handwave that some might exist somewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not confusing notability and verifiability. But i think you are confusing in understanding that i am putting both verifiability and notability as reasons for deletion and not just either of the two. We split up articles only if the original article has huge size and thats when the content in it is actually worth keeping. Trimming the articles is the first solution before splitting. Splitting can happen only when the sub part is actually notable. I do understand that episode list is basic part of the whole serial. But so are the characters and individual episodes and we do not let stand alone character and episode articles just stay there. They have to have something of their own worth notable. With your logic if the character has stayed long enough on the show for which his actions can be written into a larger-than-stub article, it would simply make its own space on wiki; but thats not what we do. Also, i am Indian and there shouldn't be any reason to assume this deletion is coming from systemic bias unless you are thinking am anti-India. Nor do i intend to blank the article and "game the system" now. Am not that foolish to reveal my plans. If i wanted to do, i wouldn't have opened this 2nd nomination. And i said that newspapers list that C.I.D. would air at 9pm to 10pm on Friday. It doesn't say it would air "Zehrila Khanjar" on this Friday, the 31st Jan '13. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, standalone lists of characters from notable media are regularly kept at AFD even though none of the individual characters merit standalone articles, if those lists (once trimmed of trivia) are too large to be incorporated in the parent series article.

I've found your claims hard to follow, but they seem to boil down to the notion that even notable TV series are transient (like we're dealing with the early days of radio) and nothing is written about them in any reliable source that would even verify the barest of broadcast facts beyond time slot. So I don't even know where you think the information in this list came from (you haven't outright said you think it's a hoax), or how a TV series could be notable without any specific information about it even being verifiable. So regardless of how this AFD turns out, I'd like to see a substantive discussion with both regular TV- and India-related article editors on the general topic of verifying Indian media, what sources are there, what level of preservation is there for Indian TV, because these questions have come up again and again. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No am not talking about standalone lists of character articles. Do you think that a standalone article should be created at Archana Manav Deshmukh for the lead character of the 1200+ episodes show Pavitra Rishta? If we were to write about this character, the article is going to be long enough to keep it separate. And that's for many characters of this show and many many more other shows. When you say its part of the series, i suppose you should support such articles on basis of SPLIT.

The discussion on general status of Indian television, Indian media, poor articles and what not can happen elsewhere and it actually should. This AfD is not a right place for that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standalone articles for individual characters pose a different issue, because the consensus view is that they typically consist of excessive plot details. So unless there is also secondary sourcing on critical analysis of the character, production details and/or creative development of the character, popular or critical reception, etc., those are usually not sustained as splits but instead trimmed down to a basic summary description and overview of the character's narrative in the series to be merged into the TV series article or a character list (and with long running series or multimedia franchises, there are often multiple character lists that also mitigate against an argument for splitting into individual character articles). The same would go for individual episodes; unless there is more information verifiable than a plot summary and basic broadcast details, their descriptions are trimmed to fit into episode lists for the series. And either character lists or episode lists are then split when size dictates, provided that the size isn't just because of excessive plot recitations. That's all consensus-supported principles and practice that I have observed, not my opinion. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what is this list other than excessive plot details? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There are no plot details in this list of episodes. None of the episodes have any description of their contents. postdlf (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

then one questions what worth the list is at all-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a popular TV serial.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! We are not Congress. Notability is not inherited here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"not inherited" has no application here, as whether the individual episodes merit their own articles is not at issue, as I explain above. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

of course "not inherited" applies here. just above you are going on and on how this list is a spin out child article which is exactly where WP:NOTINHERITED applies. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that essay section itself says "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation..." And except that none of the examples given there are analogous to this list, but instead would apply to, for example, the claim that any actor who appeared on the show was notable just because the show was notable (i.e., separate subjects or divisible elements that have connections to the notable subject). And except that a TV series is nothing more than the collective sum of its episodes, so it's not even coherent to try to analyze the notability of an index of those episodes somehow separate from the series itself; it would be just as meaningless to claim that a country is notable but a timeline of its history is not (we can analyze the notability of an individual episode, sure, as that's a divisible and distinct element...but not an overview of what episodes have aired and when, which is just information about the series itself as a whole). And except that AFD after AFD has confirmed this view that lists of episodes of notable, dramatized TV series are acceptable even when none of the individual episodes merit articles.

I think it would also be a nonsensical result if we listed episodes in a notable TV series that only lasted one season just because we could easily fit those in the series article, but we would delete a list of episodes in a notable TV series that lasted for ten seasons (and thus likely a much more important subject) just because the list was then too big to fit into the series article and it was decided it failed some additional inclusion threshold applied just because it was formatted into a separate page. And here we're dealing with the longest running Indian TV series ever. postdlf (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a standard, normal list kept via consensus of a TV series' episodes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please dont delete it.... Its very usefull for us.. All Cid fans use this as a reference.. its not a dirctory but we can use it for our reference.. Please dnt delete it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachin1495 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC) note, this comment was originally left by a new user on the talk page and moved here to the main discussion by -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is quite common in WP to have lists of episodes of TV series. This TV series is one of the longest running in Indian TV; the list of its episodes meet notabilty, in my opinion. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So after how many episodes does the list of episodes become notable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many fewer than the number here, but definitely when WP:TOOLONG becomes an issue which is the case here. The members of a list do not have to be individually notable per WP:CSC. These types of lists, by editor consensus, are kept even if they do not strictly meet the article notability and WP:V guidelines. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well.... if something is getting too long, we need to debate on individual notability more than otherwise. Because that's where we are afraid of turning into a directory. Demographics of India is a notable topic but a List of people of India (a redirect now created after my post) is not. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though the comparison isn't relevant here, List of Indians actually does exist, as a list of lists of notable Indians (the "topic" is the people listed, the list is merely the format of that information; there's no such topic as "list of Indians"). Such lists of people are restricted to notable people and so just function as article indexes rather than as primarily informative in their own right. Lists of episodes, however, are used regardless of whether the individual episodes are notable. postdlf (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I understand that a list of blue links is just a page which provides ease of surfing. But you aren't making any comments on why a list of non-important non-blue-linked items is notable. You are saying its to be kept because its long and hence needs to be split, its long and has enough bytes to make a article, and now that it's entities are not notable but still its too long and hence should be kept! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained above at length. While it may make sense to judge the notability of individual episodes, there's no such thing as the notability of a list of episodes somehow separate from the notability of the TV series itself. The episodes collectively are the TV series. So the relevant question is then whether significant details for each episode (such as broadcast debut, writer, etc.) is proper information to include in our coverage of that series. If this were a daily news show or a game show, the answer would most likely be "no". But because this is a dramatized series, the answer is "yes", and that the list cannot fit within the series article does not change that. This is established consensus. And it should be common sense, because otherwise, a series that gets cancelled after one season would get a list of episodes within its article, but a series that is the longest running in the history of its home broadcast country (as we have here) would not. Should topics that are less important and less substantial get greater depth of coverage, just because of the arbitrary constraints of what we consider a large article and the formatting of what is really one topic across different pages? postdlf (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't agree with you that episode list gets notability from series' notability. But as said by you, you have already said enough; and so have i. So lets wait and watch. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:13, 11 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rapsody Overture[edit]

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

Could not find sources to verify WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No citations included but are there on the net. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Rafaelgriffin (talk · contribs) has been blocked for sockpuppetry. LibStar (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSTBESOURCES? LibStar (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Top 20 in Germany [1] & a GBooks search suggests it passes the GNG. 78.19.9.121 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC) — 78.19.9.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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} 09:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NALBUMS . It is a compilation album, although contains notable songs, it is not notable as an album. LibStar (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 20:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Labour Party[edit]

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

Non notable grouplet with failed candidature. No future notability. doktorb _words^deeds 18:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 12 January 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} 09:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete coverage is routine about it being unsuccessful, fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, 'future notability' is not a valid argument, notability isn't temporary. Party received 12,113 votes, which is a testament of notability. --Soman (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

number of votes is not a criterion, significant coverage in third party sources is. LibStar (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's grounds for deletion don't appear very strong to me. Having un-notable failing candidates in itself does not seem like a good reason to delete to me. The lack of a more extensive case from the nominator suggests this to be more of a kite flying excercise than a geniune attempt to have an article deleted. I don't think Libstar's point about coverage in third party sources is that strong. What I think is important about this article is that it gives an opportunity to record an element of lack of satisfaction with the Labour party and the miners strike. I think the information should be retained in this format if it can not be incorporated into a more suitable article.Graemp (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV is part of the notability guideline. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank LibStar for confirming they had located SIGCOV. Graemp (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the three sources provided are not in depth and merely confirm the party ran. Where is the indepth coverage of the party history? LibStar (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If my memories from nearly thirty years back are correct, this group got quite a lot of national press coverage during the British 1987 general election campaign. The fact that the Glasgow Herald, published several hundred miles away, printed at least two articles mentioning the party is partial if inconclusive evidence that my memories are correct - the reason for more not being online is almost certainly that freely available British online newspaper archives from the 1980s are fairly thin on the ground. Of course, when their candidates did not cause an upset in the general election, press interest dropped off completely, so while I think enough reliable sources probably do exist, coverage may have been far from persistent. PWilkinson (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Wikipedia can have large numbers of articles about comparative trivia of 1980s pop culture (not that I'm saying such articles should be deleted: they have their place) it can certainly have an article about something of at least equal importance within the capital-H history of the decade. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid vote, User:RobinCarmody doktorb _words^deeds 07:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but your "no future notability" seems bizarre to me. By those criteria we could delete all articles about the UK coal industry itself. RobinCarmody (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt was a real political party. It did enter several elections. It did gain suport and 12000 votes are 12000 people who knew about them not to mention that on each of those votes atleast as many heard of the party but still didnt vote for them.Stepojevac (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free Party (UK)[edit]

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

Single issue party which came and went within a very short while without any impact on British politics. Not notable organisation. Likely to be biased or single-issue editors, which compromises the article's neutrality. Has not proven notability following the party disbanding after numerous failed elections. doktorb _words^deeds 18:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources. Never put more than 3 candidates up for election, making it the most minor of minor parties. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:56, 21 January 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} 09:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as we're clear it's not a WP:HOAX entry, which I'm sure it isn't, it's important to keep articles as a historical reference for parties who have registered votes of any amount in any past election in any country. BlueSalix (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons kept in 2009, and because notability is not temporary.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Participant in national elections, so that suggests notability to me. --Lquilter (talk) 22:19, 8 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) Ethically^Yours! 15:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International League for the Reconstruction of the Fourth International[edit]

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

There is little or no convincing evidence here of notability - apparently, the only source is a brief mention in one book. (The article was nominated for deletion years ago, and the result was no consensus). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Varga's tendency did have certain role in the international Trotskyite movement. Also a peculiar feature of left-wing opposition in the Eastern Bloc/Cold War-context. In general, these groups are difficult to find via their English names, searching in French gives better coverage. The organization figures in the following books; [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. --Soman (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soman. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:22, 1 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. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verasafe[edit]

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

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

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

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

The page for this company lacks significant independent coverage. Given that it's well maintained by WP:SPAs who stuffed it with citations to third-party sources that don't actually mention the company, and that cursory web search doesn't turn up any such sources, I recommend deletion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article references have been updated to meet the Wiki standards, and that there is one reference from the US Federal Government that specifically mentions Verasafe. That particular reference makes mention of only 2 other similar companies in that context (both of which also have Wikipedia articles). ThomasDelay (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The USPS endorsement of Verasafe cold be just a business deal. I think more than that is required to justify a Wikipedia article per WP:CORPDEPTH. 07:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I researched this and found that the endorsement from USPS is not a business deal and is totally independent of any commercial interest. The USPS endorsement is not trivial or incidental, and does establish notability considering that the source is the Federal Government, and the recommendation is only given to three organizations (all of which have Wikipedia articles).76.19.81.220 (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC) — 76.19.81.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep, nice amount of source coverage. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://threatpost.com/zitmo-trojan-variant-eurograbber-beats-two-factor-authentication-steal-millions-120612/77287 76.19.81.220 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — 76.19.81.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    - Are you the same person as User:Cirt? That page is not covering Verasafe in terms of WP:GNG. It contains a passing mention as in "The Trojan, dubbed Eurograbber by researchers at Check Point Software Technologies and Verasafe, is a variant of the Zitmo Trojan." The rest of the page is describing Eurograbber. Give me a break with the WP:BOMBARDMENT. I should add that there is plenty of in-depth coverage of Eurograbber in more mainstream (less bloggish) sources that doesn't ever mention Verasafe (whether that's fair or not in this case) [13] [14] etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, Someone not using his real name, that was not me. However, I did find some coverage in a search at Google Scholar, and elsewhere. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you be more specific? http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Verasafe%22 returns 2 hits (a set of slides [15] in which the only mention of Versave is the full 170-member company list of TCPA and [16] which is a hit because it contains a citation for their Eurograbber study as "E. Kalige, D. Burkey, A Case Study of Eurograbber: How 36 Million Euros was Stolen via Malware, joint Verasafe –CheckPoint whitepaper, 2012, http://www.checkpoint.com/products/downloads/whitepapers/Eurograbber_White_Paper.pdf"). Neither of these look like they would satisfy WP:GNG for Verasafe. Being cited in one paper is far too low a threshold for considering a company notable. Membership among 170 companies in TCPA doesn't add a whole lot to their notability. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        N.B. Two press articles about Eurograbber I've mentioned previously [17][18] do mention Verasafe... except they both misspell it as "Versafe" (dropping an "a"). Still, they contain only a passing mention of the company. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's another source: Softpedia News. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure it's the same company? Verasafe is Boston-based, while Versafe is described in that article as Israel-based. (The logos are also different.) I'm starting to think that the mainstream press about Eurograber is actually correctly calling the company involved Versafe, while the bloggish coverage (threatpost.com) plus the Romanian academy paper (found in Google Scholar) attributing the feat to Verasafe might actually be the ones with typos. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that assumption is confirmed by checking the Eurograbber whitepaper [19]. Verasafe is not involved in it, Versafe is. (Versafe's web page is http://www.versafe-login.com/, by the way. They don't have any offices in Boston [20]. Clearly these are entirely different companies if you also look at their product lists.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Additional information available in LexisNexis includes material from Zoom Company Information, GlobalData, and also from Jigsaw Company Profiles. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given that the original concerns raised here have been addressed, I would recommend keeping the article. If no consensus can be reached here, I suggest implementing a 'no consensus' outcome: close the deletion discussion as 'no consensus'; edit the page to remove the deletion notice; and record the outcome on the page's talk page. Flaviohmg (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How have they been addressed? Let me summarize the discussion above:

Two concrete third-party sources correctly mention Verasafe: one USPS endorsement [21], and one mention in a 170-company membership list of TCPA [22].
Any mentions of Verasafe in connection with the Eurograbber investigation are typos for Versafe (note a missing "a"), which is an unrelated Israel-based company.

Cirt claims above the company is also mentioned in a few (paywalled?) databases, but WP:CORPDEPTH requires more than that. ZoomInfo's business for example "allows users to collaborate in the construction of its content by contributing information to their own profiles" (according to our Wikipedia article). That doesn't sound like independent coverage. Jigsaw/Crunchbase has the same business model; it's user-contributed (and the contributors to any one profile are normally officers involved with the company--I know this from first-hand experience--see also [23]. Crunchbase also has a "Venture Program" in which the VCs [rather than company PR] submit info about the companies they have invested in [24], but that's not much more independent. Note that links to crunchbase.com are flagged by COIbot. I'm aware of one previous AfD where Crunchbased was used as source, and the result was delete) There is no coverage of Verasafe in Techcrunch proper [25] (the publication run by the same people that run Crunchbase), which would be independent coverage if it existed, but it doesn't. I don't know what GlobalData might refer to, there are several companies with this name. Finally, the Lexis Nexis database covers "over 80 million companies", far more than wikipedia has articles, so I'd say that's too low a threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:NOTDIR. One thing is clear however: Verasafe's people have been contributing to their Wikipedia article here and to this discussion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also if very sketchy data that Hoovers has about this company is up to date [26], the company has one employee and sales of $64,000 annually, which is very low for a company to be considered notable. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your original concern was that the article contained: "citations to third-party sources that don't actually mention the company, and that cursory web search doesn't turn up any such sources". The diverse group of editors on this page have taken a careful look at your concern and found many third-party sources that do mention the company, including highly authoritative sources. While your cursory web search might have not turned up many sources, a more in-depth analysis did yield a variety of good sources which have been discussed here. I would endorse the notion of marking this discussion as no consensus. 76.19.81.220 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — 76.19.81.220 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Sources offered fail GNG by several miles either by being indiscriminate/user-contributed databases or having only very brief mentions of Verasafe, in addition to the confusion with Versafe, which consumed a lot of space above. Can you summarize which independent sources actually cover Verasafe in depth? I found none. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete So they're a consultancy with a branding exercise. Who cares, and who is caring enough to write about them? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable organization. Paviliolive (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are a household name in some circles and deserve to be included.162.222.73.149 (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC) — 162.222.73.149 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Quite clearly fails GNG and CORPDEPTH, and the flurry of SPAs is concerning from a COI perspective (which of course is not provable and unnecessary to make deletion obvious). This is, of course, pending Cirt's follow up to elaborate on the extensive coverage he's alluded to but others have been unable to find. Certainly it couldn't rest on user-contributed sites and casual mentions of business trivia/data routinely dismissed in deletion discussions (the sort that would effectively nullify corpdepth). What did you search for on Google Scholar? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 17:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The usual combination of lack of significant notability and promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:VRS. If more are provided, I'm sure admins will disregard the vote; if they're not, it's not WP:GNG. 88.104.24.150 (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above analysis of sourcing/typos. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – after a quick Google search, I found zero news reports concerning this company, three social networking profiles for the company, the company's website, and the Wikipedia page. That's just about it. Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above citations that have been found, and WP:IAR. Lack of coverage in cursory Google searches doesn't satisfy lack of CORPDEPTHThomasDelay (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC) — ThomasDelay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- What above citations? Many of the above posts about coverage are from Cirt, who says they exist but so far as provided only a link to a minor story about a different company. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has to be established. That "lack of coverage doesn't mean lack of CORPDEPTH" is missing the point; it has to be shown to meet a notability guideline. If the only argument for keeping an article is that "not meeting notability doesn't prove it's not met", then that's a pretty clear sign that the article isn't notable. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH, also per my comment above. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Rhododendrites please read the full discussion. There was a major source from US Postal Service that was discovered. Please review the earlier comments. ThomasDelay (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: ThomasDelay (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

...Which has now been struck. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 04:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly Communications[edit]

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

Advertising. Not notable. Awards are usual industry ones or not highly placed. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP. almost all the sources are PRweb. also lacks reliable indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Note that the sources are PRWeek (an actual RS for news relating to the PR industry), not PRWeb (a press release distribution service). The article's creator, Mattgirling is obviously not a COI editor. Still, it would be nice to see greater breadth of sources. BlueSalix (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been a bit strong to call it an advert, but it is the lack of any real distinguishing factor that makes this article and all the similar ones so dull. Maybe they have done something interesting but you wouldn't know it from the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. IMHO: A clear advert! "The article's creator, Mattgirling is obviously not a COI editor" - Ye-a...right, and may I politely inquire why "a musician and sound engineer" got so suddenly enthusiastic about a "European-based public relations consultancy"? --Murus (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa whoa whoa! What happened to assuming good faith, Murus? What I do has sod all to do with that article—it's just one article I created. Besides, a conflict of interests here would only be a problem if I was pushing some sort of bias which, by looking at my edits (they were a long time ago), I clearly wasn't. I've got no opinion on whether or not the article is kept or deleted, but I think it'd be better if you didn't make silly assertions like that. matt (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "silly assertions". It is very unfortunate that you have decided to become a Wikipedia administrator without first familiarizing yourself with WP:PERSONAL. I respectfully request an apology from you, and please kindly stop harassing the deletion discussion participants. --Murus (talk) 02:09, 12 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. SmartSE (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ICM Research[edit]

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

Not notable. Advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Lack of independent coverage. This is one of the few such companies where their name has any sort of "Clapham omnibus" recognition, so we ought to be able to justify an article. However WP:N still wants sources, and sources in the article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As Andy Dingley says, ICM is an immediately recognised name in the UK. Indeed, when I went into the newspaper shop this morning, it was immediately staring me in the face, in large font on the front of Scotland on Sunday [27]. I am cautious of falling back on an "it's clearly notable" argument though. I have added a couple of 3rd party references to the article, but am conscious that they place this firm in its industry context rather than being specific depth coverage of the firm in itself. However that and other sources, such as the discussion on weighting methodologies by this and the other 2 main firms in "British Elections & Parties Review" (via Questia, subscription reqd.) feels like enough to indicate that the firm carry sufficient notability for encyclopaedic inclusion. AllyD (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to hundreds of brief references, there are in-depth sources for this, particularly discussing ICM's polling methodologies, covering 15 or 20 years (which makes it harder to describe their present activities). Sources include: The UK General Election of 2010: Explaining the Outcome edited by Justin Fisher, Christopher Wlezien[28]; Opinion Polls: History, Theory and Practice by Nick Moon[29]; The Economist discusses their methodology[30]; academic paper on polling[31]; there's also 17 hits in Opinion polls and volatile electorates by Matt Henn on Google books which is snippet view only. As everyone agrees, it's a well-known company whose polls are commonly reported, but there is coverage which goes well beyond the typical business press "X taken over by Y"/"X reported sales of $Z". --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ICM is quite a well used poll. And with many books, it is relevant to look at the publisher to provide some credibility in academic sources. I Have in the past seen ICM surveys used in student essays from the social sciences. Though I would suggest more research is given for the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.31.162 (talk) 19:21, 5 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SJD Accountancy[edit]

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

This is advertising. They have won top place in awards that don't matter, but done poorly in ones that might indicate notability like the Sunday Times one. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I see no reason to keep this – but then I have no policy reason to delete it, so we're stuck with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As nom says, its an advert - written by a human robot. Szzuk (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Advert or not, it meets WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's notable. --do ncr am 19:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longridge Town FC[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. No reliable sources out there to indicate that this club is notable and generally clubs which have played no higher than the eleventh level aren't. Has not played in the national cup and therefore fails WP:FOOTYN. Valenciano (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FCHD - [32] confirms lack of play above 11th level. Nfitz (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Nfitz, no indication club has played in a national tournament. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:31, 3 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian geniuses[edit]

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

Also nominated: List of Italian polymaths. per the (old) precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of geniuses, I don't believe that having people listed by attributes which are very hard to define exactly but are (much too) often used in biographies, newspaper articles, and so on is a good idea, per WP:NOTDIR. The lists can be expanded quasi endlessly (e.g. this book is about three Italian poets, Umberto Saba, Giuseppe Ungaretti, and Eugenio Montale, calling all three geniuses, but none of them are in the list), since so many people have been described (rightly or wrongly) as a genius, and all these people are already (or can easily be) listed for the things they are truly notable for, not for one hard-to-define general characteristic / description. Fram (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The article is a well researched, anachronistic delight, triggering lots of further reading. Chienlit (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because "genius" is an opinion. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Delete lolwut? yes, obviously delete as per CultureEurope; on closer examination he has indeed created a maniacal work that is extremely well sourced. There may be some slight wordsmithing that could occur vis a vis the definitive use of the term "genius" (perhaps simply an edit to the title of the article), however, it would be a disaster and monstrous waste to simply delete this great expenditure of time and effort he has contributed. Further, his attentiveness to good style and grammar throughout indicates a dedication to the highest standards of WP and to simply delete this would discourage the future participation of a valuable editor. We need to actively encourage more editors like CultureEurope who are in scarcer supply as this place becomes more and more inundated by PR flacks. To underscore how seriously I take this, I would like to note my last 18 opinions in AfD have all been for DELETE, and this is my first KEEP in months. (That said, I am also a fan of Fram's work and - in the extremely unfortunate event this ends up being deleted - it probably won't impact by Framdom at all.) Also, on an unrelated note, what an extremely pleasant and genteel response he made to this AfD, which is not usually typical of newer users who more often react bombastically to having an article they've written AfD'ed. I intend to give him a Barnstar. BlueSalix (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I respect your opinion but I disagree. I've done an amazing job. Each name on the list has its reliable source (The New York Times, University of Oxford, INTELLIGENT LIFE Magazine, USC Sidney Harman Academy for Polymathic Study ...) The cancellation of the list is ""questionable."" A maniacal work. Precise And Perfect. However, I will accept any decision. I worked hard on these two pages of wikipedia... --CultureEurope (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - The sourcing in both articles is exemplary, and it appears that every entry has a reliable source or sources backing up the assertions of genius or polymath for the subjects in the respective articles. Thus, both articles pass Wikipedia's notability test. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would love to see these kept, but the following two AfDs should be taken into account. WP:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called a polymath and WP:Articles for deletion/List of Renaissance men -- unhappily Martin451 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly we can work around this by simply renaming the article to "List of Italian Thinkers" or something like that. Such verbiage would be consistent with precedent that exists with List of people related to Cajun music, List of brain tumor patients, etc. I recommend Keep and allow CultureEurope, and anyone else who is interested, to slowly and deliberately consider possible other appropriate names on the talk pages of these articles for the next several weeks or months. BlueSalix (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your answers ! --CultureEurope (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my nomination of this page had nothing to do with "the article creator did a poor job", my nominations are based on the potential of a subject, not on the current state of an article (except in extreme cases, but this obviously isn't one of them). The potential for these pages is to become nearly endless, since so many people are labeled "genius" in reliable sources, devaluating the term completely and making it basically meaningless. It is not a well-defined criterium to base a list on, unlike people's occupations (army officers, painters, ...), awards (Olympic medalists, ...) and so on. That's the reason I think these should be deleted, not any objectin against the creator of them or the work he put into them. Fram (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I worked hard on these two pages of wikipedia. Each name in the list has the best sources (University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Pennsylvania, Yale University, The New York Times, The Times, INTELLIGENT LIFE Magazine, USC Sidney Harman Academy for Polymathic Study among others.) A maniacal work of the highest precision. I hope that my efforts will be rewarded. Thank you. --CultureEurope (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regrets. Per reasoning on WP:Articles for deletion/List of people who have been called a polymath, it is based on highly subjective criteria – and even the authors who wrote quoted WP:RS must have applied necessarily subjective criteria. There is no objective criterion for being a "genius", sorry, and the category is way too open-ended to be encyclopedic. No such user (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clearly there is no consensus and the AfD should be closed, though possibly revisited in 90-180 days from now. BlueSalix (talk) 16:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it is a WP:SNOW close (or speedy deleted or withdrawn) , then it needs to stay open at least a week. No consensus should not be shut after a couple of days. Martin451 22:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course - sorry, I didn't mean to jump the gun! BlueSalix (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as indefinite, per precendent of similar lists. Mangoe (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted by others, definition of genius is too subjective. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked for nothing. For each name in the list I have done an exhaustive research. I have lost three hours for name. I'm very disappointed (...) Goodbye. --CultureEurope (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - the eight year old AfD has little bearing given that consensus can change per WP:CCC. Unfortunately, because they were deleted, the more recent AfDs also have little bearing here because it is no longer possible to see if their members met WP:GNG. All members of these lists are notable per WP:GNG, so meets WP:CSC. Selection of the list members appears to meet WP:NPOV. Perhaps a change of title(s) would resolve the issue (e.g. List of notable Italian thinkers). VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:LISTN, we could use some evidence that this sort of compendium has been done in other external sources so here's a couple of reasonable examples: Sprezzatura: 50 Ways Italian Genius Shaped the World; The Italian 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Cultural, Scientific, and Political Figures, Past and Present. Andrew (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: I don't think The Italian 100 is a suitable source: it includes characters like Lucky Luciano and Al Capone. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Response edited, as this debate seems to cover both a list of Italian geniuses and a list of Italian polymaths. My general conclusion is the same in both cases.) I can see that one editor has done a great deal of work on these two lists, and I wish I could reach a more pleasant conclusion, but I think we'd be unwise to retain these articles. The problem, as I see it, is that Wikipedia strives to be firmly grounded in fact. We do our best to avoid matters of opinion. But when I look at www.dictionary.com I find that a polymath is simply a person of "great and varied learning", while a genius is someone with an "exceptional natural capacity of intellect". I don't know of an objective way of defining these, and the references to the lists seem to consist of writers saying "so-and-so was a polymath/genius" as a matter of opinion. If we had a definition (a polymath has a minimum IQ of X, speaks Y languages, has written Z papers in Q different disciplines, etc., or a genius has a minimum IQ of W) then we would remove the matter of opinion. At present, though, we don't have such a definition (nor could an editor just create one, as that would be "original research"). Right now these lists are composites of many people's opinions, nothing more, so I feel they should be removed. Sorry. RomanSpa (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps one way forward would be to rework these lists into something like "Notable Italian Contributors to the Sciences and Arts" or "Notable Italian Thinkers". This would have the advantage of being something that we can work with - we have a clear definition of notability - and is something that would be useful for our readers, particularly if the list could be sorted in date order. I don't know if such a list already exists; if it does, a "merge" should allow us to preserve what is good here. We can then leave our readers to decide who they think is a polymath or a genius or whatever: we simply provide the facts, they can form their own opinions. RomanSpa (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Best Thing I've Ever Read. A work of great quality. + 1 --Daedalus&Ikaros (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think many of us agree that the quality of the work is good. However, what we're concerned about here is whether it's suitable for Wikipedia - that is, whether it is encyclopedic. If this list were turned into a book I might well buy it, but I probably wouldn't put it next to my dictionaries and encyclopedias, I'd put it with other books on cultural studies. And that's the problem. RomanSpa (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would put it next to my dictionaries and encyclopedias and decorate it in mint leaves to draw attention to it and add a fragrant odor so that, when people opened it, they would be treated to a pleasant aroma. I hereby reiterate my Strong Keep. BlueSalix (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMPORTANT Comment. (Sorry to use capitals, but I hope someone will read this.) I feel deeply uncomfortable with Daedalus&Ikaros. It is disturbing to see from his user page that this user claims to be "no longer very active on Wikipedia", but from his contributions list we can see has returned just in time to join this debate. I also note with some sadness that this user displays similar turns of phrase to CultureEurope - see for example the characteristic use of "Goodbye" on the user's talk page. I'm unhappy that so much support for this article displays florid language, similar to that of the article's creator, and I am unhappy that inspection of the contributions to Wikipedia by these two ostensibly different editors show such similarity of interest. Of course this is merely an unhappiness on my part, but I hope that someone more qualified than I will examine this further. With regret, RomanSpa (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RomanSpa: I have looked at their edit history, and what I see is a common interest in Italy (but little overlap in any given article), a lot of constructive edits and no sign of any disruptive behavior. Frankly, even if they turned out to be the same person, I'd say good luck to them. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hate calumny even more[edit]

The moderator will do justice for me. I am serene because I did nothing wrong. "I Have Nothing to Hide." No problem. Goodbye. --CultureEurope (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not this user. The moderators can shed light on the problem. I am serene. Goodbye. --CultureEurope (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even the article on genius points out that "whether the notion itself has any real meaning has long been a subject of debate." A list that is based on a vague superlative like this borders on advocacy. To justify inclusion of individuals in this list, CultureEurope (talk · contribs) frequently resorts to florid fanzine language; and although this language could be removed, it's a symptom that the subject of the list is incompatible with a neutral point of view. Any material that is worth keeping can be distributed among the many lists such as List of Italian painters and List of Italian scientists. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To justify inclusion of individuals in this list, CultureEurope (talk · contribs) frequently resorts to florid fanzine language

I respect your point of view, but I don't agree with you. Each name in the list has the best sources. Almost-maniacal attention to detail is one of my flaws and strengths. I am a mathematician. Goodbye. --CultureEurope (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been weeks now and we are nowhere near a consensus. I move to close the discussion. BlueSalix (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueSalix: There is no point in your moving to close the discussion. It will be closed when an uninvolved admin gets around to it - see WP:CLOSEAFD. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main problem with a topic like this one usually is the inability of building a decent article, and this one is an excellent one, much better than I could expected and higher than the standard for articles of this kind. I would not be surprised to see it, after a bit of work and expansion, assessed as a good article. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Cavarrone 12:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list. It can be a featured list, but never a good article. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:35, 9 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) Ethically^Yours! 15:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Grummett[edit]

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

Non-Notable Canadian politician. Rivalnator (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POLITICIAN, a person who has sat in a federal, provincial or state legislature is always notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, with no exceptions. See point #1: members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. They do not have to meet some subjective or arbitrary threshhold above that which would separate "notable" from "non-notable" members of the same legislature, a condition which would just lead us into a constant parade of circular, unresolvable and potentially partisan (i.e. "delete because I disapprove of their ideology") debates about whether any given legislator was "notable enough" or not; while the actual quality of the article can still be an issue that necessitates improvement of the article in some cases, if they've sat in a legislature then their basic notability is not up for debate. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Bearcat. --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Members of provincial legislatures are notable. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Finnegas (talk) 16:32, 2 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. By itself, WP:COI is not a sufficient basis for deletion if the article meets required standards in basic policies and guidelines such as WP:V and WP:N. However, the consensus here is against keeping the article. I have considered some the suggested sources. One of them appears to be a dead link, while the "DIA works appraisal paints a complicated picture" article only mentions the subject by citing his statement. The Macomb Daily article is more substantially about Spoutz, but the usual precedent is that an interview in a local paper is not always a sufficient basis for notability by itself. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ian Hornak Spoutz[edit]

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

There is no reason to believe that this person is notable. Any claim to fame must come from being the nephew of Ian Hornak, whose work he's placing all over the place but without any of it raising any dust. Note that Hornak's article, which I've pruned considerably, was little more--unfortunately--than a promo piece, in part to advertise a traveling exhibition (see this edit) and with a significant amount of namedropping for the subject of this article (note the kind of fluff I removed here).

It is worthwhile noticing that User:Jhf44 has been responsible for the fluffing of both articles, with more interest in the reputation of both artist and representative than in Wikipedia's guidelines in regard to sourcing and neutrality. For the Eric Ian Hornak Spoutz, the sourcing and the relevance is not there to make this pass notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Though shifting; please see comment below). This does look like a resume. The most credible Google hits are short promotional mentions in local newspapers tracking speaking engagements on behalf of his uncle. JNW (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not substantially different from the article that was previously deleted by AfD. Still fails to meet WP:BIO.—Jeremy (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My name is Eric I. Hornak Spoutz. While I see that contributors to this thread are under the impression that my career primarily relates to my uncle, Ian Hornak and his legacy, I wish to make a statement for the record. Currently, as can be seen on the International Foundation For Fine Art Research's website, in my capacity as an Art Historian, I am the lead scholar for founding Abstract Expressionist artist, Franz Kline. Additionally, I have been responsible for placing works of art in the permanent collections of many of America's largest museums by many of America's foremost artists including Franz Kline, Robert Indiana, Alex Katz, Claes Oldenburg, Fairfield Porter, Joan Mitchell, Jane Freilicher, George Rickey, Hilo Chen, Tom Blackwell, Richard Mclean, Howard Kanovitz, Charles Bell, Lowell Nesbitt, Josef Levi, John Kacere, Julian Stanczak, Heinz Edelmann, Yaacov Agam, Jean-Pierre Yvaral and Victor Vasarely. Most of these inductions that I have initiated and overseen have been very significant first time inductions to these institutions for these artists, marking them as significant acquisitions in each of the museums histories as well as in American history. Among the museums that I have been under contract with and have assisted with the acquisition of artwork for their permanent collections are Smithsonian Institution's American Art Museum, the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History, the Library of Congress, Rare Books and Special Collections Division, the Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum (Library and Archives), the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, The George Washington University, the Children's Hospital Boston, the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction, the Detroit Historical Museum, the Long Island Museum of American Art, History, and Carriages, the Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum at Rutgers University, the National Hellenic Museum, Detroit Institute of Arts, National Czech & Slovak Museum & Library, Florida State Capital and the Flint Institute of Arts. While in 2007, I was contracted to assemble my uncle, Ian Hornak's repository at the Smithsonian's Archives of American Art, I was also contracted by Dartmouth College in 2012 to assemble the repository of papers for the Assistant Director of Edith Halpert's Downtown Gallery from the 1950s, Jay Wolf, for the Rauner Special Collections Library. In conclusion, despite the assumptions of the contributors to this thread, my career has had little focus on my uncle, Ian Hornak's work or legacy and rather has been related to many of the foremost American artists and institutions of the 20th and 21st centuries. While I understand the points that are being made regarding "fluff" in the article, the core facts for my contributions to the art world stand for themselves and are each entirely verifiable. It may be reasonable to entirely restructure the article, to delete it would be excessive.Eric-spoutz (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of issues here, Eric, the first of which is WP:COI; it looks as if you or several accounts related to you are involved with the article. The resume you entered above echoes content already in the article. Nobody is arguing here that this isn't interesting--the issue is whether the achievements have received substantial coverage in multiple objective, reliable sources, per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RELIABLE. JNW (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I will address the issues that you have raised. This account is my account and the other is used by my assistant. The article has now been substantially edited and you will see now that additional references have been added to the article. There will be additional primary references that will be added, once time allows in the coming week, in order to further substantiate the credibility of the article and its subject.Eric-spoutz (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for elaborating; that the article has been largely written by an assistant does confirm the conflict of interest concerns. This [33] appears to be yet another account with knowledge of your personal life. The additional cites include several in which you've been referenced as a scholar in your field, and one article that is apparently about you, though some sort of live link that would allow viewing of the article would be helpful. JNW (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems a little better now...Modernist (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note see remarks below, re - reliable sources...Modernist (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again Not seeing enough significant third-party RS coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the request of the administrator above, I am providing here, live links to a few of the articles that are used as references.

[34][35] [36]

- These are helpful...Modernist (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Over the next week, additional references will be posted including a feature biographical article that is being published by a USA Today publication on Friday, February, 7, 2014.Eric-spoutz (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, these are a couple of links confirming that I acted as the author of a book for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. [37] [38]Eric-spoutz (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric, I'm not an administrator, but I do appreciate the link you provided to the Macomb Daily article, which is helpful. My inclination is moving from delete to neutral, and may be further reassessed after viewing the forthcoming USA Today publication. Thank you, JNW (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The article actually ended up appearing in The News-Press which is a Gannett Company owned periodical. There will be other articles appearing in the next month. [39]Eric-spoutz (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprised that WP:COI isn't as prevalent here... even if it was written by an assistant, it isn't reliable. The coverage isn't easily verifiable, either. Even with what the subject has provided above, if it isn't enough for us to keep the article. I wouldn't go anywhere near a keep, let alone a weak delete, because of WP:COI. It clearly states that this isn't allowed! Sorry. SayItRight1 (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been greatly improved and now relies on suitable articles.Slaenterprises (talk) 03:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Originally this article was a disaster and didn't cite references that supported the content. It's now correctly cited and the subject appears to be within the scope of notability as recognized by Wikipedia. Rcs1898 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is actually very simple. This is a clear case of WP:COI even admited by Eric that this article was writen by his assistant and by that nothing says Eric himself didnt ad a line or two thru his assistants acount. I do sound harsh and I apologyze. I am only pointing out a possible possibility.Stepojevac (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted under A3. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 18:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fructose and mannose metabolism[edit]

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

If anything, fructose metabolism and mannose metabolism should be separate articles. No one is going to search specifically for "Fructose and mannose metabolism". This looks like a half-assed redirect page. The appropriate redirects already exist and there is no point in combining these two search terms. Iamozy (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; redirecting to the article on her late husband Gene Scott may be done at editorial discretion. The main issue here is reliability of sources. From the discussion, much of the subject's attention has been due to a text in the magazine Marie Claire, and it has been established that it is not a reliable source. Looking at the article, this is covered in a section entitled "Secretive past", which appears to consist of speculation. Much of the rest consists of fairly general personal data, made up of sources that contain very brief coverage.

Several of the keep votes have suggested that the article ought to be fixed up becuase the subject is notable, and one provided some sources to show that the article can be fixed up. However, even if this is so, in this case we have an issue with unreliable sourcing on a matter that is invasive on the subject's private past. That is a BLP issue that requires more urgent action than waiting for someone to fix up the article. The consensus is clearly against having this as a separate article.

The choice is therefore between a merge/redirect and outright deletion. The subject is covered in the Gene Scott article, which might suggest a redirect even if there is not really a consensus for it. However, I am calling this an outright deletion since the BLP problems would otherwise remain visible in the page history. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Scott (pastor)[edit]

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

Nominating this mostly procedurally, but also because it needs a discussion. This is a BLP about a woman who took over pastor duties from her husband after he passed (Gene Scott), but does not appear to have any singular notability except for a theory pushed by Marie Claire prior to her conversion to Christianity. As I believe it to be a possible BLP violation, I will not link to it here, but it is in the talk page, the history, and some discussions in the BLP noticeboard otherwise. I do not see how this person has enough notability to maintain an article even with the questionable material, nor are there enough reliable sources to do so even if the notability was conferred by the questionable theory. So I am nominating this for deletion, and would currently likely vote in favor if I ran across it today at AfD. Previously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Scott (televangelist) in 2006. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed multiple times, in multiple places. Here it is, again. It is neither a "theory", nor a "BLP violation". The "Barbie Bridges" stuff is completely verifiable through public records. The problem is, that at this point, we have no way to get it into the article without straying into original research. It's not in the article at this time, and it shouldn't be. This is because it would violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH; not WP:BLP. There's a big difference. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks to the fellow editor for bringing this request. I DON'T agree that this article would still lack notability if Marie Claire were added. But in any case, MC is effectively "banned." One or more admins even tried to ban it from the talk page, which not only I think is absurd. As it stands now, there are no valid sources in the stubby article at all, except 1. as rel her husband, 2. about a church that was sold which is not tied (@ least in the art.) to MS, and 3. about her preaching broadcast schedule. IMO WP BLPs should not function, especially exclusively, as advertisements for their subjects. I am an "inclusionist." 'Have never supported deletion of a WP article I'm sure. But this one IMO should go. Paavo273 (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick indpendent search on the web turned up a good deal of sources on the subject. Clearly it should be scrubbed to meet WP:BLP and then protected if necessary, but deletion is not the solution.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly it should be scrubbed to meet WP:BLP? What the hell is in the article at this point that doesn't meet BLP? Joefromrandb (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you link some of them here for review? Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's one that says that due to vandalism the Wikipedia page had to be removed. I think we can protect pages now... --Paul McDonald (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's the article that's been "banned by WP" because it mentions her past as a nude model and porn actress. Paavo273 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there an actual link to the discussion about the "banning of the source" by Wikipedia? I can't find it and would like to know more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if a theory about someone's past can confer notability on them, we need multple, reliable sources. Is there more than this rumor? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe it is a theory or rumor. IMO it's either a fact or a falsehood. MC 2009 cited multiple sources w/ 1st-hand knowledge of MS. If MS is not a Public figure (as in New York Times v. Sullivan), she could have owned the MC company and all those other people who talked "bad" about her to the article author--if it were false. Even if she is a (limited purpose?) public figure, I would think she could have proved the "actual malice" required and still owned 'em all--if it were a falsehood. Paavo273 (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Paul McDonald: I'm glad you saw the follow up comments to your vote. It wasn't actually "official" action. More of a de facto banning. Mainly some heavy-handed actions by one or more certain WP admins. (who even tried to ban discussion of it on the talk page) and a chorus of some people who seem to have a personal emotional need for this article to exist, WP rules be damned (probably the basis for s.o. placing the "close connection to subject" tag). I'd refer you to the talk page, especially the top half to see how it went down,e.g., (1--bottom 2 lines of section) and (2--bottom 3 lines of section) . Coincidentally, an unusual number of prior participants on that talk page (weirdly or by coincidence) have been blocked from or voluntarily exited WP. One would have to go back into the history of the talk page to find the actual diffs., but the admin. who doctored the talk page literally expunged the MC2009 material from talk as promised by that admin in my Wikilinked refs above. Another user later added some of it back with his own critique.Paavo273 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be I. Please note that I added it back after a WP:BLPN discussion deemed the material to be acceptable to discuss on the talk page. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing there to scrub or protect. As per copious discussion on article talk page: No notability, and totally lacking meaningful content or source citations because there are NOT any valid sources on the WWW except Marie Claire 2009 which has been "banned." Paavo273 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Marie Claire article hasn't been "banned". It was deemed by consensus to not meet WP:RS for WP:BLP purposes. Prior discussion at the BLP-noticeboard has, however, deemed the article perfectly fine to link and discuss. It's quite conceivable that a better source may be available in the future. It is for this reason that I advocate merging it to Gene Scott–thus preserving the article and its history– until we can have an article that covers her entire life, rather than the tiny portion of it that is currently covered. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Don't know how I missed that. Must not have watched the article. I wouldn't object to a merge as long it involved losing the plug for her broadcast schedule in the text of the article. (Let's face it, there's not much to merge.) That info could be IMO appropriate to keep as a link to the cited broadcast website in "See other" or "External links" @ end of GS article. Paavo273 (talk) 18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Gene Scott. It seems that there isn't much about her lately; there was a time, around the time she started taking over the preaching [40], she did have a higher profile (even leaving aside the rumor discussed in that Marie Clare article). Given the anodyne nature of what's there now and the apparent unlikelihood that the article will be expanded meaningfully anytime soon, merger to Gene's article might be the best alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gene Scott, per my previous proposal. It was opposed, with the false argument: "we have different article-standards for living and dead people". If anyone opposes a merge on these grounds, please note that WP:BLP would absolutely not cease to apply in such a case; it is in effect anywhere any living person is mentioned, anywhere in the encyclopedia. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:18, 1 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 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 14:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should already have been speedy closed as there is no deletion nomination and no WP:BEFORE. Requests for comment are handled under RfC. affaritaliani.it is a publisher with articles on both the English and Italian Wikipedias. [41] states, "La nota predicatrice televisiva..." (the well-known television preacher). The Wikipedia article itself has attracted attention in the press (MC). So much for wp:notability. Research shows that other names for this topic are Melissa Pastore, Melissa Pauline Peroff, Barbi Bridges, Barbie Bridges, and Mrs. Eugene Scott. As for the argument that the ministry is shrinking, notability is not temporary. Merging with the bio on the previous church pastor would confound the issues of Christianity and nudity with the Gene Scott ministry. Is there any source to show that Gene Scott was aware of the nude pictures? There is little overlap between the two topics, and Gene Scott had more than one wife. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Merging would confound the issues of nudity and Christianity with the Gene Scott ministry". I don't see how it would, as there is nothing about it currently to merge. It won't be in the article until either a better source is found or there's a change of consensus as to the Marie Claire piece. When and if that happens, there still won't be any confounding, as the article can simply be moved back to a standalone. You're right about there being very little to merge. This is a pathetic article, and it wouldn't bother me one iota if it were deleted. I just figure that per WP:PRESERVE, it would be better to merge to retain the history. History, as in back when the article actually contained some information about her. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you've been unable to build consensus on the talk page for a merge, why should AfD overturn the current consensus? The policy WP:ATD does not allow the use of AfD for what are really content disputes. Unscintillating (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? There's not really a content DISPUTE, more of a DEARTH of content. It appears IMO that WP:BEFORE has been solidly met. And WP:Notability (people)#Basic criteria states in part, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject." Here a specific "finding" by "consensus" was made by the involved editors (not me) that MC2009 is not reliable, d/n qualify for use in article. I'm not optimistic affaritaliani.it would meet the required standard set by these august contributors. ‘Haven’t read the WP policy about "confounding/overlapping Christianity and nudity" Even if that one exists :-), it's IMO not relevant 'cuz nudity can't come in per the "consensus." Is there really some other technicality that wasn’t followed? Paavo273 (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell are you talking about, Unscintillating? "Unable to build a consensus"? "Overturn the current consensus"? "Content dispute"? What article are you looking at? I proposed a merge quite some time ago. It got precisely one response: an "oppose" by an editor who mistakenly thought that WP:BLP would cease to apply to Melissa Scott if her article were merged into that of her dead husband. The fact that it got only one response, coupled with the fact that no one even bothered to remove the "merge" tags after over a year, shows how lightly trafficked this article is. The article, its talk page, and now this AfD, are a ubiquity of bedlam. "Merge" is as acceptable a result as any other at an AfD-discussion, and there is nothing that even remotely approaches a consensus on the talk page. Some time ago, an editor attempted to block any attempt to even discuss how the article should be handled. He made all kinds of bizarre removals and redactions, rendering the talk page an unreadable mass of lorem ipsum. I attempted to improve the article to the small degree that was possible; this included restoring the talk page. Restoring the talk page meant hours of sifting through endless revisions to make the fragmented discussions make sense. I also had to double-check that no actual BLP-vios removed during the slash-and-burn were accidentally returned, monitoring simultaneous discussions at the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard. The only other editor who was interested in this article was the one who made the ridiculous removals. He quickly lost interest when the BLPN discussion didn't go the way he wanted. I would have been perfectly within my right to boldly merge the article at that point. It would have been equally acceptable for me to have merged it when, after a reasonable amount of time had passed since the merger had been proposed, it received neither support nor opposition. I honestly don't give a fuck if the article is kept, merged, deleted, or made tomorrow's fucking TFA. Just don't misrepresent my actions or opinions. That I was "unable to build a consensus on the talk page" is utter bullshit; ditto for "asking AfD to override current consensus". If you can't be arsed to research the history you should abstain from commenting here. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am explicitly nominating this for deletion. As my final sentence says, "I do not see how this person has enough notability to maintain an article even with the questionable material, nor are there enough reliable sources to do so even if the notability was conferred by the questionable theory. So I am nominating this for deletion, and would currently likely vote in favor if I ran across it today at AfD." Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article for dishonesty. It fails to note Pastor Scott was formerly a porn star know as, "Barbie (Barbi) Bridges." http://xhamster.com/photos/view/1656994-27245364.html#imgTop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.168.143 (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Failing to note something is not dishonesty and dishonesty is not a valid delete-rationale. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Incomplete information is not a reason to delete. If it can be confirmed and doesn't violate policy, then add the information.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to just go around in circles. The problem is there are NO qualifying sources. The quantity of Internet sources on topic has shrunk to nothing (except MC2009, which has been disqualified); it hasn't grown. Please READ the article.

The Italian source mentioned above, complete with a nude photo of MS, seems hardly reliable, hardly scholarly.

To keep an article just 'cuz some day a qualifying source might turn up mocks WP's rules WP:NOR, WP:Notability, etc. The main objection to this article IMO is that it says nothing and what extremely little nothing it does say is sourced to GS or MS--and even the MS-sourced cite is dead. Paavo273 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly tempted to simply redirect this article. While doing so during an open AfD-discussion is discouraged (not forbidden), as you said, this is just going around in circles. This discussion is obviously headed for another no consensus, meaning yet more time wasted on such a ridiculously trivial individual. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it listed anywhere, but I'm pretty sure that "wasting time" is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is your point? What are you trying to refute? Joefromrandb (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If by tempted to "redirect" you mean to merge, Joefromrandb, I support that move. My close reading today of WP:Deletion policy turns up one or more ADDITIONAL bases to DELETE this article as well. That includes lack of at least one reliable source. As it stands, the article says virtually nothing, especially after my removal of the gratuitous and unsourced plug for her ministry, "speaks 20 languages..." or whatever.

One of WP's policies is to AGF. I always try to. It's normal when someone jumps into a discussion to not be fully up to speed about what's going on. But when a participant refuses to read and self-educate about the current state and history of the article, especially when pointed directly to the issues, and continues to merely interject comments not based on WP policy or the actual condition of the article, IMO a reasonable admin. could find consensus among those participants who show a baseline understanding of what is required for a WP article and are making informed, serious arguments. Paavo273 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to those who disagree, I don't find the anonymous contributor's vote to Delete based on "dishonesty" completely without merit. It's not exactly in the same sense as the anon. user meant, but IMO there are multiple instances going way back in talk of "arguments" approaching WP:I like it, WP:Begging for mercy, etc. which IMO add up more or less to a form of WP:Gaming the system, meaning reasoning not based on the article or WP policy. And that sort of input has not dried up here in the AFD discussion. If I'm wrong, anyone opposing delete or merge, please tie what you say to some SUBSTANTIVE and/or POLICY-based argument. Paavo273 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor)#Book sources, I have added ~~three~~ ~~four~~ six books published since 2009 that cover Ms. Scott, one of which has an entire chapter devoted to her. This is more than enough to establish notability. — Brianhe (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do these sources discuss the entirety of her life, or do they omit everything from her birth to her marriage to Scott? Joefromrandb (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both Nightfall and Holy Sinner mention her life before Dr. Scott. If your point is, is her life story subordinate to his, it's just the opposite in the latter: Dr. Scott is mentioned peripherally in the chapter titled "Melissa Scott". — Brianhe (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. You voted "keep" and added sources to the talk page, yet nothing has been added to the article. Why not expand the article using the sources you have found? It may sway opinions here, especially if the actual reason she's notable can finally be added to the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm kind of busy in real life at the moment. The nominator questioned the subject's notability and availability of reliable sources, and I spoke to that. AFAIK AfDs often proceed this way, not with a demand to expand the article before !voting. — Brianhe (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that the ~~five~~ six books I listed as sources range from a straight up list of ministries, a novel, biblical commentary, film commentary, to an inquiry into misdeeds of the clergy. This isn't one-off reportage and I see no basis for a claim that someone with this kind of cultural impact falls beneath notability. — Brianhe (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"someone with this kind of cultural impact" ? :-) 'Might want to have a(nother?) look at those six sources and/or see my summary below. Paavo273 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Only one of those books, the longer-form one specifically about her, could confer notability. The problem is that the piece is entirely reliant, again, on a rumor that is unsubstantiated and unproven and arguably a BLP violation. The question remains as to whether such rumors are enough to confer notability in light of BLP. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think TO has identified the problem here concisely. And because User Brianhe has been a main player in preserving this article yet if I recall correctly also in excluding any porn-career info about MS, this definitely calls for clarification.
Firstly, all but one of these six sources are IMO junk, completely worthless in establishing any notability:

(1) Barber 2010 mentions MS just once and IMO is surely no authority on her language abilities, so a ZERO. Barber's few words about MS mainly DO establish a now defunct CONNECTION between MS and the UA cinema, something completely missing in the article's mention of the historical building before a user recently deleted it.
(2) Beverly 2009 also mentions MS just once, to say she took over from GS; that is not in dispute.
(3) Rel Carmichael 2013, not sure how one would argue that sponsoring a pizza party at a remote state prison and giving out religious literature the inmates didn't like would confer notability. Just like Barber, Carmichael is surely no authority on MS's language ability; however, with multiple sources mentioning the language thing, it would be IMO reasonable to mention the language claims, but absolutely not in WP's voice as before.
(4) About Carvajal 2009, this is a NOVEL! WTF? In some obtuse way the mention of WP article deletion (taken from MC2009?) might confer a grain of notability on the WP ARTICLE. But it's a long logical leap from there to notability for MS.
(5) Next, Whitman 2009 appears to be a personal narrative of the author's spiritual or ministerial journey (e.g., "I study more in anticipation of ministry unto Jahweh all my life, and the tools Yahweh God has given me..." p.viii and "[MS] has often ... had periodic pastoral nuggets of exhortation for people to focus on only what she's saying, not anything else..." p.63) 'Can't see how any of these confer notability on MS. Sources can also still be found that post nude photos of s.o. alleged to be MS and either praise her looks or ridicule her perceived hypocrisy.

That leaves Webb 2013, which includes largely the same material as MC 2009. Since Webb is being offered as a reliable source to establish notability (IMO the ONLY one of the SIX offered by Brianhe for which a serious argument can even be made for establishing notability for MS), is Brianhe now totally okay with a discussion of MS's real or according to Webb, "theor[etical]", porn career? If so, we @ least now have something to use to flesh out the article a little. (Whether or not it confers notability and so deserves its own article is a separate issue, as others have noted.) If not, then these SIX references amount IMO to exactly squat.
If Brianhe IS offering Webb 2013 as a reliable source for use in the article--and to do so for any other reason w/b a serious self-contradiction--IMO MC2009 also deserves a revisit, because now we have a corroborating (and then some) source for MC2009.
Finally, one other issue that is likely to come up later if not now: Most of these sources are extremely dubious as not being printed by major publishing houses: Whitman--CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Webb--CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Carvajal--Fear Nought Publishing; Carmichael--AuthorHouse; ('Not sure about Barber's Reaktion Books.) Paavo273 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Paavo, for taking the time to research these sources. I was puzzled that a "keep" voter would list potential sources on the talk page while making no effort to incorporate them into the article. Your analysis seems to help clear that up. I can tell you right now that if this source discusses "her theoretical porn career", there's no way it's going to be allowed in. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending the quality of each of the sources above as information that could go into an infobox; however I think my argument that they are, as an aggregate, evidence of her notability is still true. In brief, is a novel a good source for biographical details? No, of course not. Is it a good source for the notability of a non-fictional subject mentioned in the novel? Yes. I don't know if we have enough independent material to start talking about the alleged connections in Scott's past. And I have a right to change my mind in the 2+ years of watching and contributing to this article. However there is definitely enough to establish that she is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader, and should have a Wikipedia article. I feel like the discussion has slid from an offhand dismissal, to a delete nomination without a serious search for sources (I found the first 4 books in a few minutes at Google Books), to, once they were found, criticism of the depth of the sources (a chapter in a book is trivial?) or the names of the publishers. People involved in this AfD have made unhelpful comments like the subject is a "ridiculously trivial individual", the article is being stood up by the "MS fan club" and "we don't need an article about every TV preacher." Please try to look at this objectively whether or not you like her message. Can we decide together at least that the subject is notable, then go on to decide how to improve the article, perhaps on its talk page? — Brianhe (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I have a right to change my mind in the 2+ years of watching and contributing to this article." That IMO is absolutely reasonable. What is not reasonable is to just make up your own rules.
You can't just push your own theory of Notability such as "my [offered sources] are, as an aggregate, evidence of her notability..." OR "[T]here is definitely enough to establish that she is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader, and should have a Wikipedia article." Just saying it 'don't make it so. ** "prominent cultural figure as a religious leader..."?! You've gotta' be kidding!
You can't have it both ways: offering sources you say are reliable to establish notability but then saying you're not sure if they can be used. There's simply no such WP authority. It is true that notability established by a reliable source is still subject to other WP rules. But there are not two different standards; either the source is reliable or it isn't. I agree with Joefromrandb that it would be helpful if you had edited the article according to your "reliable" sources. At the very minimum, you need to point out WHAT SPECIFIC PART(S) of what source(s) you find make her notable AND are reliable for inclusion in the article.
As for unhelpful comments, interjecting cavalier remarks or "offering" sources without REALLY offering them, or I.D.ing sources which clearly do NOT establish notability are IMO most unhelpful; and this sort of contribution wastes a lot of GF participants' time.
WP:Notability also specifies, "[Notability] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." *** Given the current state of the article, IF no consensus can be found to delete, I wholly support and would gladly assist, if asked, any editor's action to merge the article UNTIL such time the article actually says something and might be worthy of a standalone. *** This article consists of all of seven lines and even that consists only of her taking over GS's "ministry" + her broadcast schedule; it not only includes nothing NOTABLE about her, it includes virtually NOTHING about her period--no biography, no education, no prominence, no connections, no cultural identity, no leadership, no anything. Instead of The Man Without a Past, this article reads like the woman without a past. Paavo273 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, taking sources in aggregate is explicitly allowed by WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." So, we have multiple independent, published sources discussing the subject as required by WP:BIO. Now why should the article be in jeopardy of deletion? — Brianhe (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because the weight of the references involve an unconfirmed rumor that is arguably a violation of WP:BLP? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And because the other FIVE of six sources offered say nothing individually and therefore nothing together. Five times zero still equals ZERO. The critical second part of the sentence Brianhe left out of his policy quote above is "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

The question asked by at least two different editors that we still can't seem to get an answer to is WHAT specifically can we take from any of those sources--even if we assume they're reliable--that in any way--individually or collectively--establishes notability.

As with a lot of what occurred the last couple years on the talk page, what we have here IMO is continuation of a long-ongoing, heretofore successful effort to keep this article that borders on WP:Gaming the system--making arguments and "citing rules" in a way that appear prima facie to be valid but totally and completely lack substance. What reasonable person who knows this subject, even if s/he included all the source material actually excluded for lack of reliabilty, would take seriously the statement, "...[S]he is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader"?! Paavo273 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I've said in past discussions, the Marie Claire article regarding the subject's past is true, but it cannot be verified without resorting to original research; that's the dilemma this situation has always teetered on. Until a definitive source comes along and breaks the story for good, what we're left with is a pastor of a church with no source coverage of Ms. Scott directly, but rather coverage of her late husband and the church itself. Tarc (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Who among you believe(s), just arguendo, IF the porn career WERE to come in (via Webb2013 or MC2009), that would make the subject notable? If not, then IMO it's clear what needs to be done here--posthaste. IOW, does a former non-notable porn model who becomes a non-notable tv preacher add up to a notable person? Paavo273 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If the rumor could be confirmed with reliable sources, I would probably argue to keep the article. As it stands, no one appears to be able to do so, which is why there's a problem: an article should not continue to exist based on the notability of a possibly damaging rumor. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Without mentioning the controversial biographical material, I've incorporated book sources 1, 2 and 5 into the article, as well as pieces in The New York Times and D Magazine. — Brianhe (talk) 07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Better have a COLLECTIVE look at those sources, y'all! Now the dubious porn sources come in but the porn info is censored out? WTF kind of logic or process is that? Good sense and I'm sure WP procedure rel reliability of sources can't allow that to fly. How will it be decided what comes in and what stays out? Is there to be a specially appointed WP censor for this article? What about the nude modeling? What about the pony-girl phase? What will WP readers think when they read the cited porn sources? Does anyone really think this is a viable way to source an article?

And why is a blurb (that includes porn info) in a LOCAL magazine and a 5-page "chapter" in a virtually self-published (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) book all about her porn past permitted while a researched feature article in a national magazine excluded?

The NYT obit's total mention of MS: "He is survived by his wife, Melissa." Mentioning s.o.'s name doesn't make her notable as per the missing second half of the sentence on WP policy you left out in your discussion above: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." So please don't offer that one as establishing notability. Paavo273 (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, claiming that others (like me) who don't agree with your viewpoint are "gaming the system" and "wasting [other people's] time" is unproductive, uncivil and not AGF. I'm a longstanding member of the Wikipedia community and don't appreciate that comment. I've provided sources for this AfD in a completely appropriate way and have both invited feedback on them on the article talk page, and days later added them to the article as a demonstration of their suitability.

Let's do a little thought experiment. If the Nowheresville, Oklahoma Shopper's Gazette mentioned Pastor Bob in passing, and Pastor Bob's sermons are listed in the local gazette but never reached the eye of published critical commentary, maybe we would agree that it wouldn't support a Wikipedia article on Pastor Bob. However, if The New York Times mentions M.S. in passing, and the content of her sermons is also mentioned by a notable author like Stephen Barber (notice the bluelink), then I think we should agree that it supports a Wikipedia article on M.S. This is why the guideline says "trivial coverage may not…"; we have to take it in context and make a reasonable decision about what notability the sources (plural) confer. Not to mention the fact that coverage that would be trivial if it appeared in a local gazette doesn't quite equate to its triviality when the same information appears in the national newspaper of record; I think one could argue that any issue covered in NYT's A section is non-trivial by definition.

Now as to the sources I've offered. Claiming as you have that if only a small snippet of information is usable from a particular source, that source should be entirely invalidated, contradicts common sense and Wikipedia policy. Citing the NYT Eugene Scott obituary just for the fact that M.S. is his wife, is fine, and in fact this biographical detail wasn't captured by any online citations so it was even necessary. Citing the book Holy Sinner which has controversial bio details I'd rather not touch at this time, to establish that M.S. has claimed knowledge of many languages, is also appropriate. We can pick and choose the bits of each source that are appropriate and improve the article, and leave out the bits that either deal with off-topic issues, or touch on controversial material that we have agreed through consensus should not be in the article. You ask by what logic or process will good sources be found, by a judge? No, by consensus. This is not "censorship", it is abiding by the decisions of the Wikipedia editor community. The fact that you don't or won't recognize this reflects poorly on your grasp of Wikipedian principles. You are promulgating an illogical all-or-nothing approach that inevitably would lead to an empty shell of an article, which is pretty much where it stood a week ago, and exactly what I'm trying to avoid by adding well-chosen and well-sourced biographical details to the extent that they can be found. — Brianhe (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* > > > Discussion continued below < < <

Questions. This person is pastor at "Faith Center Church" (currently redlinked). Does this merit an article? If it doesn't, why does Scott merit one? The claims made for her look ropey. (Actually the claim about her past is from a source that looks more carefully done than anything that is cited.) One claim within the current article is that "Scott is reported to claim to be able to speak 20 languages." There are two sources for this: an article that looks like the product of ten minutes' work, and a book from a very obscure publisher. Well, the claim is usefully discrete (and non-libelous). Let's see: Scott says herself that she has "a mastery of over 25 languages". That's five more languages; and mastery, excellent. This page offers her in not 24 but just three languages (Spanish, Japanese, Tagalog) aside from English. When I click on any of these links I see a video (often at a wrong aspect ratio) of her talking in English with an interpreter putting what she says into one or other of the three languages. Am I missing something? -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: 'Appreciate your cogent and slightly humorous, understated analysis. Great point IMO rel notable pastor @ non-notable church; I think you're the first to raise that. :-) Don't think you're missing anything. Would you care to vote? Paavo273 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no problem with deletion, the argument: if her church isn't notable, she isn't either", is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joefromrandb, try this: If she isn't notable for activities or achievements outside her church (and as far as I can see she is not), and if her church is not notable (and I don't claim to know), then she is not notable. How'm I doing? (And is her church notable?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying that a pastor can be notable without her church being notable, and vice-versa. Notability comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources, something this woman, IMO, lacks. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: In my view the Faith Center is notable,[42][43] but its notability is largely based on its history and is essentially inseparable from the notability of its extremely famous former minister and its somewhat less famous current one. Which is why, after reading all the discussion here, I still come down in favor of merging and redirecting Melissa Scott to Gene Scott.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Joefromrandb: Agreed--if this were being reduced to deductive reasoning ala "If A, then B" syllogisms. IMO, it's just one more illustration of the nothingness/non-notability of the subject for a very long time. As much pointed out, she has to be notable some way to stay, and it sure isn't from her church. The UA Cinema where MS preached for a short time IS notable, but not because of her. She doesn't appear 2 qualify under Pornographic actors and models.

BTW, WHERE do you think this AFD is at? (I think it is at or close to consensus based on the WP:Consensus standard. For sure the vote but also IMO the level of reasoning is one-sided.) Paavo273 (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Clearly the article has massive BLP issues due to verification problems and I'm not convinced the subject meets WP:GNG partly because of the verification problems.Blethering Scot 16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this discussion shows, to me, a complete lack of consensus so far. Can another sysop re-list this or close it thusly? Bearian (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 11 February 2014‎

@Bearian: What about this AFD shows a "complete lack of consensus" to you and why are you asking for another admin to close it? It appears that activity here is just now picking up, and that a consensus is building for merge or delete. Only a couple "Keep" votes based on misapplication of WP policy, and a growing number of merge and Delete votes. IMO & IME "consensus" is at best a SLIPPERY concept both in real life and in Wikiworld, often used by those who want to get their way and avoid an up/down vote. The WP:Consensus page does offer significant guidance including the following: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." IMO that has serious applicability here. One or two contributors IMO are pushing the "Keep" position w/o much or any substance or WP policy to support them. As such, I respectfully request this discussion and hopefully building consensus be allowed to play out here.
If an admin. is to get involved wearing her/his admin. hat at this point, I'd ask that it be to join in the discussion and give an opinion of the relative strength of reasoning presented in this discussion rel WP policy and the facts of the article. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just wanted to hold this open while we could do a bit more research before taking action. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with delete. The only really independent notability is some salacious allegations by a woman named Marie Claire. I conducted several research paths online, and found -- not much. There's a really nasty blog from the Free Republic, which is not a reliable source; nor are any of the blogs or websites she runs. The New York Times article mentions her, but only in passing, and in her husband's obit (which, FWIW, proves her husband's notability, not hers). The biggest problem I'm having finding reliable sources that might exist is that she shares a name with a well-known SF writer, Melissa Scott (writer). Bearian (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some salacious allegations by a woman named Marie Claire I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or (pardon me) obtuse. Somebody called Gretchen Voss has a long article about our biographee, "The preacher's unholy past", on marieclaire.com (see Marie Claire). This is dated 2009. This suggests that it has been there for four years. At its foot we read "©2014 Hearst Communication, Inc. All Rights Reserved." Hearst sounds to me like a company that could shell out quite a bit in a libel payment, yet I infer that its lawyers have played down or dismissed the risk of a successful libel suit. NB I wouldn't be keen to have this material added to the article even if the latter survived AfD. Nevertheless, it looks more substantive than the dribs and drabs about the woman's linguistic prowess, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

> > > Discussion continued from few paragraphs above < < <

@Brianhe:

I've explained w/ evidence--quotes of yours, analysis of your sources, cited policy, etc.--my basis for believing your arguments here range from shaky to utterly w/o merit. No point to repeat.

It’s frustrating to keep pointing out broken logic seemingly ad infinitum. There’s no objection to using NYT to establish MS was GS’s wife. The problem is your level of reasoning about cumulative trivial nothing sources adding up to notability (still persisting in your "thought experiment" above). Obits. mention family members, whether it’s the NYT or the Bumblefudge Weekly Despatch. It doesn’t confer one iota of notability 2B named as a family member in an obit. And it doesn’t amount to “cover[age]” of the family member of the deceased "in a national publication". And adding sources like this together with the other sources you offered 2 establish notability, you still get NADA. 0 + 0 = 0 and 5 X 0 = 0

Well, what do other editors think?

In looking back at the prior discussions Brianhe cited on my talk page ( Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive107#Melissa Scott and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive188#Unreferenced defamatory assertions on Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor), I see the same broken reasoning as presented here. If Marie Claire 2009 was not a RELIABLE source and couldn’t be used, it IMO makes no sense to allow the use of much less authoritative sources that talk about MS’s porn career.

The ideas of “limited-purpose reliability” within a source and that WP editors are supposed to by concensus line-item veto or approve RELIABILITY (not to be confused with relevance) of info within a given source seems IMO completely unworkable. Is there any specific WP policy or precedent on point?

IM(revised)O, even if the porn career comes in, notability is still nowhere to be found. Non-notable porn model PLUS non-notable TV preacher EQUALS non-notable subject.Paavo273 (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment remember, consensus can change. Consensus can also be incorrect. I see no reason to disallow the Marie Claire article. I know that there are arguments against its use, I just disagree with those points. We should be careful to not just drink the WP:KOOLAID on this one and re-investigate the facts and not the folklore.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libel or not, this article is still a total mess. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate. Either (A) delete and salt or (B) turn into a redirect and fully protect this. And ditto for actual or likely alternative article titles. (I neither know nor much care which of these two options.) Why? Well, the only thing that seems to have changed since the 2007 DELREV is that there is now a long and detailed article on a part of this person's life that she clearly wants forgotten (an article that is imaginably mistaken and libelous, though Hearst's confidence in publishing it and leaving it on the web for years makes me doubt this). As for her current profession, the other sources I've looked at seem to lack authority, or to be very slapdash, or both. If a DELREV concludes that an article should stay deleted, then it should stay deleted; unless of course it is agreed in a second DELREV that "notability" (or whatever) has changed so greatly that the article should restart. Here the DELREV was ignored (or not noticed), and though AfDs that result from unilateral restarts can at times give rise to mildly entertaining argle-bargle, they're mainly a waste of time. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD so far, and request for further inut So far the vote is about 7-2 in favor of delete or merge. Consensus is supposed to be based on WP policy including the following: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." It's not a vote, but rather the strength of argument(s). Brianhe has graciously provided links to the sources he's offered (except for the NYT obit. in the MS art. but I added)--they're all short and easy reading--along with his view of how they make MS notable. I and other contributors have offered analysis rel why we don't think they make her notable. See links to those sources listed on the talk page HERE.

QUERY 1: Does the Marie Claire article's admissibility need a revisit, along the lines of what Paulmcdonald is saying?

QUERY 2: But B4 we go there, if that's what y'all want to do, assuming we admit Marie Claire in full can someone make a WP-policy-based argument for the proposition that any OR ALL of the contents of that article, if included in the MS article, would make MS notable? (As mentioned above, IMO Non-notable porn model PLUS non-notable TV preacher STILL EQUALS non-notable subject.) Paavo273 (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gene Scott or *Delete. Only looking at the article itself I fail to see anything in the article to make it worth keeping. Almoust everything about the church work was done by her and Gene Scott. It seems after his death she just took over and kept going but not really adding anything new. I admit I dont live in USA so for me this was the first time I ever heard of her but after a google search on her name I see she does seem to have some notibility atleast in the field of rumours. Still this article doesnt mention why exactly she is notable except of being a tv pastor amongts many many of them. Are we to have a page for each tv pastor? Can anyone even imagine how many there are around the globe? Still what is it that makes her a notable tv pastor? Merge the article with Gene Scots article would be the best option or delete it.Stepojevac (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. per the arguments that WP:BIO isn't met, rather than G5 SmartSE (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Peyronel[edit]

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

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

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

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

per WP:G5 LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP well sourced. notable enough to be reported by the trades (hollywood reporter). has directed and written a film with a major star, wrote episodes for major tv networks and is currently writing and developing a major comic book into a feature lenght film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.79.89.102 (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not her being well sourced or notable enough, the problem is it was created by a blocked/banned user per WP:G5 LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Creations by blocked users don't need to be deleted, and in this case I think it'd be worth having a discussion as to whether WP:G5 should be applied or the article should be allowed to stand (given its sourcing). However I'm not so sure it meets the notability criteria, so could be deleted for that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checking the sources shows two things. First that the sources are, generally, either passing mentions or are not WP:RS, or both, and second that the person is not yet notable. When they are they can have an article here, just not yet. Fiddle Faddle 09:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sources that are listed, only about 3 of them are reliable as from the NY Times and Hollywood Reporter and it's more about the film she is working on and not her. She probably will become notable once she directs and produces more films but right now, per IMDb she's only written 4 credits (2 of them are shorts), directed 2 films (1 short); and produced 3 films (all shorts). I don't find that notable enough for a Wiki page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:25, 6 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. NPASR. Unscintillating (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Village Presbyterian Church (Prairie Village, Kansas)[edit]

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

Non-notable article per WP:GNG. Has no significance beyond a passing mention in a PCUSA list of largest churches. No other sources or news found. Velinath (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (does not meet GNG; no sources past the PCUSA list of largest churches):

- Velinath (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. We evaluate articles on their potential, not their current state. The nomination reflects a failure to perform the basic review outlined in WP:BEFORE, before nominating an article for deletion. A basic Google or HighBeam search shows quickly that these are important churches with significant coverage in reliable sources. Second Presbyterian of Indianapolis is old, large, and full of history; it's had important leaders including its founder, Henry Ward Beecher, and longtome mayor William H. Hudnut III. A lengthy history of the church can be found here [44] and there's more here [45]. Village Presbyterian of Prairie Village is well-covered and influential; as noted in this 1994 Washington Post article it was the subject of a Cronkite Report episode that year in which Cronkite examined it as "a church that was an absolute perfect example of what is happening to churches all over the United States today in the split between the evangelical right and the more mainstream."[46] Christ Presbyterian of Edina has been the subject of extensive news coverage as a leader of the Fellowship of Presbyterians and the new Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians (ECO) [47][48][49] etc. All of these articles can be developed into good ones through collaborative editing consistent with Wikipedia's editing policy.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all clearly there is a lot of references that could be added to all articles in question. Each surpasses WP:GNG after just a quick search. There is no deadline. The state of the article is an editing issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even after this short time it's clear I suffered from premature judgment when I submitted this. I did try to conform to WP:BEFORE but seems I just need some more experience to make sure I'm doing things right. Is it possible to withdraw the AfD nom and begin work on improving these articles? Velinath (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close as withdrawn per the nominator's comment. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Bbb23 as a "blatant hoax" (WP:G3). Jinkinson talk to me 14:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CH@o$[edit]

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

I do not believe that this subject meets the notability criteria at GNG or MUSIC. A single independent digital download album released this year, and a mix-tape also released only online. There appears to be no evidence of third party coverage. G-search reveals little. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was already nom for deletion, the creator removed the tag again via an IP. I have retagged as a csd. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arsenal F.C. hat-tricks[edit]

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

Article is incomplete, very much WP:OR, there isn't any football articles like this one, no prose to detail the importance of this. 5.65.53.211 (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:List of Arsenal F.C. hat-tricks no comment about deletion from me. GB fan 12:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. List of England national football team hat-tricks, List of FIFA World Cup hat-tricks and List of Premier League hat-tricks are all featured lists. Arsenal F.C. is now part of the Premier League but predates its formation by over 100 years, so there is only recent overlap between the Premier League hat trick list and this team-specific one.
On the merits of the nom, if the list is incomplete that is something to be fixed through normal editing. Deletion will not make it complete. It can only be OR if it is unverifiable, but given that the entire list is cited to 11v11.com, "the official site of the Association of Football Statisticians" (and so what appears to be a reliable source), that claim doesn't seem credible. Presumably the "prose to detail the importance" of recording hat-tricks would be at hat-trick.
So in my view, the only meaningful question here is whether it makes sense to be listing these out by team. That the England national football team list is a featured list tells us that the community-supported answer is, at the very least, "sometimes." I don't know if there are other lists for association football teams (there doesn't appear to be any master list or category for all hat-trick lists). Some teams just appear to have aggregate statistics or records for hat-tricks, such as at List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics (listing the goal scorers with the team-record fastest hat-tricks and most hat-tricks). postdlf (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst WC / EPL hat tricks may have achieved wider coverage as a topic, I can see no evidence that hat-tricks by Arsenal players have attracted any significant reliable coverage as a subject in themselves. The charge of OR is incorrect however. Incomplete does not equal OR, plus all the hat tricks are referenced. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence this is a stand-alone topic outside of Wikipedia. C 679 13:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Deb per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caspian Telecom[edit]

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

This article was originally created under the title "Caspian Telecom" and speedy deleted three times ([50]). It was recreated by the same author two times, so after the third deletion, the title was protected ([51]). The article was than recreated under the title "Caspian Telecom LLC", speedy deleted again ([52]) and recreated again. I think that we need to have a discussion to decide what to do with this article. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wouldn't have a problem with it in its present form if references were added. Unfortunately this contributor seems to be taking an attritional approach to article creation, rather than just trying to do it properly. Deb (talk) 16:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Life of people in Okitipupa Nigeria[edit]

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

I proposed this article for deletion, bu t the author removed the tag. This is some kind of personal essay, not an encyclopedic article. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "some kind of personal essay" is a very kind description. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, essay on unencyclopedic topic.TheLongTone (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-acknowledged original research. Violates WP:NOTESSAY. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD G5) (Non-admin closure). — sparklism ^hey! 13:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mason (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Speedy deletion tag removed since has recorded with the BeeGees but since his contributions were not used (if article is to be believed) this does not cut the mustard. Songwriting career similarly unspectacular. TheLongTone (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article deleted, G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or banTheLongTone (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article was speedily deleted by JzG (talk · contribs) at 20:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G5 (non-admin closure) --Mz7 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC), revised 20:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Hits (Bee Gees album)[edit]

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

Non-notable re-release of an album, created by block-evading sock ES &L 09:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS. One of many non-charting compilations.Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The article was speedily deleted by JzG (talk · contribs) at 20:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC) per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Album[edit]

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

Non-notable album, created by block-evading sock ES &L 09:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, entirely non-notable limited distribution compilation.TheLongTone (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS. A small run non-charting compilation.Doctorhawkes (talk) 23:10, 1 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. SmartSE (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance LARP[edit]

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

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

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

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

Wholly non-notable organization - only claim of importance is uncited, and a proper ref cannot be found. This was a deleted PROD that should have stayed deleted ES &L 08:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep While I freely there are insufficient sources to maintain the article as it stands, Alliance is notable enough that I'd heard about it, as being large, as someone with connections to LRP in the UK. May be rescuable. SPACKlick (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up to say I've found a couple of sources which support some level of Notability, if only among LARPers and put them on the article's talkpage SPACKlick (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Boston Globe is definitely a reliable source. The LARPer probably isn't (linkrotted as well). Notable within the community is almost the opposite of what's wanted - but the Google Books link SPACKlick added to the talk page is just enough to put it onto the Keep side IMO. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Neonchameleon: I dont have access to the full article, but the preview does not actually mention Alliance LARP and even if it did, nothing in the preview suggests significance. What is the significant coverage from the Globe that can be included in the article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Neonchameleon. BOZ (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting that this was recently undeleted after this discussion. BOZ (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single reference from a reliable source does not notability make. We need "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" (my emphasis). ukexpat (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is not even about its purported subject, regardless of the lack of references. Maproom (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple articles and videos, from multiple sources, speaking of this organization. Here are some of them: A video from the Chaska Herald ^[1], an article referencing an exhibit at The Soap Factory in Minneapolis featuring Alliance LARP ^[2], Examiner.com's feature on Alliance LARP ^[3], ConventionScene.com detailing Alliance LARP's appearance at Wizard World Philadelphia 2013 ^[4], a convention called Geek Out! in North Carolina, featuring Alliance LARP's Crossroads chapter ^[5], an interview with the owner of Alliance LARP Denver ^[6] Brujah7783 (talk)

while you have presented a bunch of links, they do not meet what is required for a subject to have a stand alone article - that they are reliably published AND independent of the subject AND cover the subject in a significant manner. - all three things from the same source - you may have significant coverage, but it is not a reliably published source, or significant coverage, but the source is closly tied to A LARP, etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia's policies ask that we request an undeletion if a page already exists but has been previously deleted. The page has only been undeleted barely a week. Please allow us an appropriate length of time to correct the issues with the page before discussing its re-removal?97.93.28.236 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)SDzeima[reply]

you should have kept it in someones sandbox and fixed the sourcing issues first. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a couple of reliable sources that exist, but they lack significant coverage. There are plenty of non-reliable sources with significant coverage, but no reliable sources with significant coverage, which is the most basic requirement to meeting WP:GNG. That the page has "only been undeleted barely a week" is not cause to keep the article. All articles have to comply with our inclusion policies from the moment they are created; if an article is not suitable for Wikipedia it will be deleted, regardless of how new it is. This article does not meet any of the notability guidelines and doesn't warrant an article on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 13:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

African Leadership Network[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to have sufficient coverage in independent sources to warrant an article. Everything I've found in searching has either originated from the ALN itself, one of its officers, or an affiliated organisation such as the Omidyar Network - plus a few passing mentions in business books. I'm happy to withdraw this on the appearance of a couple of decent independent sources, but I'm not convinced they're likely to be forthcoming. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Not directly relevant, since I didn't cite the promotional nature of the text as part of my argument, but !voters may want to consider that my attempt to restore some neutrality to the page was promptly reverted by the page's creator (which appears to be a single purpose account). Yunshui 雲‍水 12:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: my own search for sources turned up very little and certainly there is a promotional intent from key contributors. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like advertising and name dropping to me. The Banner talk 12:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information The article was originally entitled "Africa awards for entrepreneurship" but then re-named to "African Leadership Network" which (according to the article) now organizes these awards, "African awards for entrepreneurship" has 463,000 Google matches, including a Guardian article compared to 261,000 for "African Leadership Network". Given that, rightly or wrongly, the AAE is included in this article I think there may be sufficient RSs. Arjayay (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does look as though the awards themselves would be worth having an article on - however, it would need to be about the awards, not the organisation behind them. Since there's little salvageable content here, I'd support a merge of what decent material is available in the current article to a new page about the African Award for Entrepreneurship, and the conversion of the existing title into a redirect. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian article is "sponsored content", i.e. an advert, and not a good reliable source. --LukeSurl^{t c} 00:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really care one way or the other. BlueSalix (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. 3er40 (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough independent sources to establish notability; many seemingly okay citations are PR rewrites.94.194.24.46 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: The article was considerably modified after most of the opinions were left here; please re-evaluate if appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 B roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#3 digits. None of the "delete" comments seem to object to the possibility of a redirect. 28bytes (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B490 road[edit]

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

The short road in this article has no special claim to fame, and the article does not assert notability, or supply any citations to claim such. While places generally have a presumption of notability, this does not apply to every minor road. And even being in the fine district of Chiswick does not guarantee notability... Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not need an article about every minor road. If anything was notable about it that could be covered in locality articles.--Charles (talk) 09:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a good example of why we have WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTDIR. Completely unnotable road, no indication of notability in the article itself either. Shadowjams (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another clogged London street.TheLongTone (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was planning to say keep for this but having had a look the route is very minor with no particular history or notability, so we don't need the article. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 18:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual roads are not inherently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need for articles on minor roads!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to B roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#3 digits. I'm dissapointed that nobody above apparently even considered looking to see if there was an appropriate list to redirect to - because there is, and it took all of ten seconds to find. Redirects are cheap (and, while it isn't a concern, actually take less server space than deletion does), avoid tempting "oh, that doesn't exist!" for potential recreators, and provide an actual, useful service to the Wikipedia reader. Note that most 'B### road/B#### road' pages already redirect there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need a list of B roads in Zone 4 why? Wikipedia is not a road atlas.--Charles (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it is part of the Five Pillars that Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and lists of roads are appropriate content for such. Also, the list of roads is a sub-list of List of B roads in Great Britain, which is an appropriate and notable list for an encyclopedia; there is no requirement that the contents of a list be themselves notable (in fact it is explicitly said that none of them need be). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to B roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#3 digits. No particular notability for this road, but there's also no reason not to send readers to the appropriate list article. BryanG (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above and also delete navigation template Template:B490.--DavidCane (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and have it go to B roads in Zone 4 of the Great Britain numbering scheme#3 digits. All that it is is a minor road.Whitescorp34 (talk) 20:57, 9 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, Boston (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Links on page do not meet criteria at WP:DPAGE. There is no need for a disambiguation page under this title. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete: per nom. I also question whether the SPA who created this -- whose contributions seem to be in creating these disambiguation pages for several "Chinatowns" around the United States, and which likewise bear examination -- has any idea what he's talking about. In this particular case, for instance, I'm a native and longtime resident of Quincy and have lived in Malden, and neither city has a "Chinatown" -- they have a relatively high percentage of Chinese immigrants, but no concentrated district of Chinese businesses Ravenswing 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a proper disambiguation page. It lists two articles that are properly about the subject, namely Chinatown, Boston and Chinatown (MBTA station), but they do not need disambiguation. The other items listed are not in any way disambiguations of "Chinatown, Boston". In addition, it was completely inappropriate for the user to put the "Chinatowns" template on a DAB page. Somebody (somebody who is more versed in DAB policy than I am) please explain things to this new user, because they have created a half dozen of these inappropriate DAB pages about various Chinatowns. --MelanieN (talk) 03:30, 2 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinatown, Los Angeles (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Links on page do not meet criteria at WP:DPAGE. There is no need for a disambiguation page under this title. –Dream out loud (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll leave it to the specialists to determine if this is, or could be edited to be, compliant with DAB-page rules, but speaking strictly on a pragmatic basis, I do think it's fair to say that the term "Chinatown", as used in the Los Angeles area, is indeed ambiguous, and most of the links on this page are plausible destinations for someone searching the term. Maybe the general Chinatown (disambiguation) provides enough guidance, maybe it doesn't. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Chinatown, Los Angeles" would not refer to articles such as Chinese massacre of 1871 for example. The point of a disambiguation page is not to show related articles by topic, but topics with similar titles. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is actually a listing of topics which may be related to Chinese settlements in and around Los Angeles; it is not a DAB page by any stretch of the imagination. There are only two article titles which properly belong here, Chinatown, Los Angeles and Chinatown (Los Angeles Metro station), and they do not need disambiguation. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I notice that the same (brand-new) user who created this page also created disambiguation pages for half a dozen other major city Chinatowns - and they are just as inappropriate as this one. Somebody ought to take a look at them, and somebody ought to explain to this new user what DAB pages are actually for. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utterly fails WP:DABTOPIC, as the uses are not unrelated. Also, as noted above, things on the page like "Chinese massacre of 1871" would not be referred to as "Chinatown, Los Angeles". bd2412 T 13:16, 6 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Cruz Zen Center[edit]

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

absolutely no indication of notability -- or even significance -- for this local zen center. The refs are just local announcements.

That didnt stop it from getting accepted at AfC . DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find only passing mentions. Routine announcements of the appointment of one zen master or the death of another do not confer notability. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with previous comments. Possibly merge into the San Francisco Zen Center article? Paviliolive (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 28bytes (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of Mortality Salience on 2004 Presidential Elections[edit]

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

VERY long synopsis of non-notable article. Orange Mike | Talk 04:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article recapitulates the journal article in excessive detail, but provides no evidence whatsoever that the journal article itself is notable. No reviews, no citations in later research, no discussion of the findings in books. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per Cullen328, well put. ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poet-diplomat[edit]

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

While certainly there have been people in history who have been both poets and diplomats, I'm not sure I see how the fact of having held both of those occupations combines into a concept of "poet-diplomat" that is notable in its own right as a unified thing — as near as I can tell, this can never actually be much more than a "list of people who happen to have been both X and Y", rather than an article about a genuinely notable cultural phenomenon. Delete unless somebody can provide much more evidence of notability than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, to my everlasting surprise. There's The Chaucer Review article "Chaucer's Envoys and the Poet-Diplomat" and Abhay Kumar's musings in "Poetry and Diplomacy", plus a scattering of mentions elsewhere.[53][54][55] Clarityfiend (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a look at Google and Google Scholar show that this term is not a neologism and is more notable than much of the ***** I come across here. Given time this article could develop into something more than a list of names.--Derek Andrews (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, there is a strong connection between a poet and a diplomat. 7 diplomats have won the Nobel prize for literature for poetry so far. There are several articles on the Internet on this. This article could be further developed. Kalhause (talk) 17:38, 4 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. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trilogy_(company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Trilogy (company)

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

Not notable. Only 1 valid ref. 2 other refs are from paid PR sites, resulting in biased editing, which violates WP policy: What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion InfinityBird (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- The Rolling Stone ref is valid significant coverage - here's a link [56], and the Harvard Business Review is also RS. My concern is that both sources focus heavily on the company's recruitment practices, and the company's notability seems to rest almost solely on that.Dialectric (talk) 08:51, 1 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. Michig (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University Presbyterian Church (Seattle, Washington)[edit]

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

does not meet the WP:N/WP:GNG guidelines for organizations, largely unsourced ColonelHenry (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It does not appear that WP:BEFORE has been followed. This is clearly a megachurch, and as such as significant coverage. Loads of results in Google Books, a couple of which I will add to the article. St Anselm (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Mere size is unimpressive, and I'm afraid that I'm not finding anything much about the congregation or building beyond routine coverage which may be found about many churches. It doesn't seem to have attracted much in the way to notice for being as big as it is. Mangoe (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really call this "routine coverage"? St Anselm (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StAnselm. Many potential sources at GBooks discuss this church, its influential 1980s pastor Bruce Larson, the church's extensive mission focus [57][58], etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos. Extensive coverage in GBooks. -- 101.119.28.31 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article could be improved. But that's editing and not deletion. WP:SOFIXIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revans University[edit]

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

This article's subject may fail both of the following:

The general notability guidelines WP:N.
The more-specific notability guidelines for schools and universities WP:NSCHOOL.

Specifically, information about this organisation and its activies cannot be verified by multiple third-party independent reliable sources. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a second source - The Times Educational Supplement - which means the article may now pass WP:NSCHOOL: it's existence and activities are now attested to by both TES and the Distance Education and Training Council. I do have concerns that the article seems rather non-WP:NPOV now, though it does seem a fair reflection of the sources available. The Parson's Cat (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - IMO as the school meets notability WP:N and provides a reference source, this article would be very useful for readers. Especially as this article provides a link to the UK based International Management Centres Association (IMCA). Audit Guy (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I originally nominated this page for deletion. I now support a "keep" if others agree that the page now satisfies at least one of WP:N and WP:NSCHOOL. The Parson's Cat (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Audit Guy and Parsonscat .Passes WP:NSCHOOL. Further it is one few education institutions in the small island of Vanuatu. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:34, 4 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hold 'Em (Windows)[edit]

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

Is already covered at Windows Ultimate Extras, making this stub article unnecessary The ChampionMan 1234 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unreferenced microstub. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Nothing to merge, really. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, obviously no prejudice against recreation provided reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wendal, His Cat, and the Progress of Man[edit]

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

No references since 2009, no notability. Gaba ^(talk) 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this was ever really notable. I was initially thinking that it was a self-published book via a vanity press, but Longstreet Press was apparently a legit publisher in its day. In any case, it seems to have received no actual coverage or media attention at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero claim to notability. Zero references. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of Japan in Chennai[edit]

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

embassies are not always notable, and consulates even less so. info in Consulate-General_of_Japan_in_Chennai#Japanese_in_the_region should be in India-Japan relations. otherwise the article confirms the consulate's existence. also nominating:

All these articles contain routine coverage of name of consul general, what a consulate does (Eg issue visa). LibStar (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see some of the consulate articles are filled with rich info (Consulate General of the United States in Chennai, for instance), which can be developed to good article level. They do not only give information about the political entity, but also indicate the cultural, historical and economical significance of the city/region. They also have superlatives (the U.S. consulate in Chennai, for instance, is said to be the one of America's biggest adjudication posts in the world and a global topper in processing employment-based visas). As the economy and bilateral relations between the countries grow, they gain more significance (the recent Japanese visit to India and the subsequent Chennai-Bangalore Industrial Corridor, for instance). Even any unfortunate downturn in the relations adds significance, negatively though. It should be noted that some of the info available in these article are not "readily" available in Google (e.g., list of deputy high commissioners of United Kingdom, year of Japan Consulate's formation, etc.). It's quite hard to find the list of consulate generals of U.S. consulate in Chennai on the Internet (yet to add in the Wiki article). These information are subtle, they indeed fill in the city's historical and economical facets, the contents are informative and encyclopaedic, and the articles are sure to grow in the near future. Having said these, I feel they can be kept. However, these are just my opinion, and please go ahead if you still feel they should be deleted. Rasnaboy (talk)

this AfD is not about the US consulate. Articles growing in the future is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see any harm in keeping these articles. In fact, these are well-written articles. They are unbiased, notable and with all the needed references. I see no reason for deleting these. I strongly support keeping these articles. {{— Preceding unsigned comment added by Challengethelimits (talk • contribs)

WP:NOHARM is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG, seems more than enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

do all articles listed in this AfD satisfy WP:GNG. have you even looked at them all? LibStar (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per reasons given above. - Boneyard90 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Rasnaboy and passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:47, 5 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Camner[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three of her exhibitions have been reviewed in Svenska Dagbladet, one of the two major daily newspapers in Sweden. There is also a relatively long article in the same newspaper about young Swedish artists including Camner. All these are listed in the article; there are no footnotes yet, but that is easily fixable. In addition there are reviews in two art magazines, and also a piece about her in the tabloid Expressen, which admittedly does not make for a notability claim on its own, however, given the articles in Svenska Dagbladet, I believe WP:GNG is met. --bonadea contributions talk 08:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Footnotes, and some text about notable solo exhibitions, added. --bonadea contributions talk 15:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Bonadeas reasonings. and added footnotes.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bonadeas. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:13, 6 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.

^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6onlEmjIO8o
^ http://www.soapfactory.org/exhibit.php?content_id=328
^ http://www.examiner.com/article/larp-spotlight-alliance-larp
^ http://www.conventionscene.com/2013/05/02/wizard-world-welcomes-fan-groups-to-philadelphia-comic-con-2013/
^ http://geekoutavl.org/live-action-role-playing/
^ http://www.petriesgames.com/2013/07/an-interview-with-alliance-denvers-jesse-grabowski/

[1] ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6onlEmjIO8o

[2] ttp://www.soapfactory.org/exhibit.php?content_id=328

[3] ttp://www.examiner.com/article/larp-spotlight-alliance-larp

[4] ttp://www.conventionscene.com/2013/05/02/wizard-world-welcomes-fan-groups-to-philadelphia-comic-con-2013/

[5] ttp://geekoutavl.org/live-action-role-playing/

[6] ttp://www.petriesgames.com/2013/07/an-interview-with-alliance-denvers-jesse-grabowski/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]