Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 January	7 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mains electricity by country[edit]

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

Completing AFD for anon user who writes: "As an unregistered user, I cannot complete the full deletion process, but the procedure requires me to post my reasons here.

I removed much of the table some short while ago because it was largely unreferenced. The table was subsequently restored with an embeded reference in the article to the IEC website on world plugs. I note that there is sume discussion and agreement that this IEC website is incomplete and inaccurate and has been tagged as an 'unreliable source', not without any disagreement. I note that SSHamilton stated above that this article, "...does not meet the the normal standards of WP and it would be a reasonable proposal to call for its deletion." I also note that there was and still is much bickering over the interpretation of the IEC website, which has been noted above as a guide rather than any reliable reference.

I thus now propose that the article be deleted on the grounds that its content is not referenced to the standard expected of Wikipedia and the continued disgreement over the actual content is evidence that the material is controversial and doe not even have consencus for remaining. 31.52.11.70 (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)"

Completed AFD process then Keep. Article has many references. Continued disagreement over contents is not a basis for deletion. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: ITYWF that the nomination was based on the fact the vast majority of the article content is based on a single unreliable source that has been acknowledged in the article to be so. I B Wright (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly an encyclopaedic topic. Edit disputes should be resolved on the talk page and sourcing concerns by editing. I notice that the page is being actively improved. Already arguably meets WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 January 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 January 9. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Appears to have been nominated by anon as part of an intense edit war. No valid reason for deletion. Article may need full edit protection with multiple editor blocks. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep fairly referenced important list, no reason to delete. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if there are doubts over the current source, the information is easily sourceable, as many travel guides tell you what plug, voltage, etc, are used in specific countries (certainly Lonely Planet does). Disputes over content can be handled in other ways. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--->The following Comments copied from Article Talk page.<---

On the fence: Although I cannot fault the logic, the article is in the main largely correct (in my opinion which I accept does not have any credence in the reliable reference stakes). It is just a matter of finding the right references which would be a better result. It has been tagged for some time as requiring references and these have been slowly appearing. However, there is a very long way to go. If this article must be deleted, it would be preferable if it could be moved to a temporary location so that the references can be added as required. I feel that there must be someone who has access to the necessary standards to populate this article and maybe even correct the inaccuracies and omissions. I am aware that generally, elsewhere than the US, organisations charge ridiculously large sums of money to access both national and European wide standards on anything. I B Wright (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is too much work here to simply throw it away. Would it be an acceptable solution to go ahead and use the questionable sources, but document the problems with them? Jeh (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added: Per WP:SURMOUNTABLE: "If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." There is good, eventually sourceable content, and development and improvement is in process. The ongoing discussions about the quality of sources are a matter for dispute resolution, not deletion. Jeh (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This article has been vastly improved in the past week, mostly due to the efforts of SSHamilton (whose quote the anonymous proposer takes completely out of context as it dates back to November, several weeks before the improvements were started). Where the sources are imperfect that has been highlighted and the reasons given. Deucharman (talk) 13:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This article still needs a lot of work, but it has been improving recently, thanks to the help of several editors (even when they don't completely agree with one another all the time). The topic is inherently difficult to reference to the highest Wikipedia standards because of restricted access to official standards documents, but the editors are making a valiant effort and the topic is worthwhile. Reify-tech (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I hope that it is obvious that I am doing my best to improve this article, despite the childish antics of some editors. Many thanks to those who are supporting the effort, I have not yet finished, but it would help if more editors would contribute good references. SSHamilton (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Your efforts to improve the referencing in this article are commendable. The observation that I have, is that even though I did not really support 31.52.11.70's AfD, I am now rather glad that I took a neutral stance. Even though it is clear that the AfD is almost certain to be defeated, it has had the effect of galvanising improvement to the article's referencing, so the AfD has had a positive effect. I don't know whether the refencing will ever become perfect. I have my own views of the standards of referencing in articles such as this and some other types where proper referencing is all but impossible, but unfortunately they do not square with the standards required by policy and enforced by the admins. Now all we need to do is get the childish editor to stop trying to incorporate fringe theories about what he thinks doesn't exist (and can't positively prove that it doesn't).

--->End of comments copied from talk page**<--- I B Wright (talk) 17:39, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Prusak[edit]

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

Was only briefly notable for one event, according to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event Ruby Murray 23:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 06:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 06:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because something goes viral doesn't mean that Wikipedia is obligated to have an article on it. I agree with the nominator that this is basically a case of WP:BLP1E. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Coverage in sources are all in regard to one event that the subject was involved in. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, obviously notable for only single event. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indeed seems to run into problems with WP:BLP1E --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:00, 12 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Noble[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non-notable individual. Not only is this the sole contribution to the project of Italgeo, he went one step further and submitted biographies of the same subject to fr.wiki and it.wiki, again his only contribution to those projects.

Content-wise, we have three "sources", one of which appears to mention the subject not at all, while the other two barely do so in passing. As for the subject fulfilling the "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" standard, or any subsidiary of WP:BIO, not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyvio of this page on the subject's website (and, looking at the other languages in which this page is available, I would guess that the same applies for the fr.wikipedia and it.wikipedia articles), in the total absence of any indication that copying is allowed under a suitable licence. Having said that, though, deletion should be without prejudice to creation of an independent and properly-sourced article on the subject - if she doesn't currently pass WP:NMUSIC, she comes close. PWilkinson (talk) 14:14, 12 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam mechanics[edit]

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

This is an overly in-depth list of plot elements that are not critical to the understanding of Mobile Suit Gundam. It lacks any real world information from reliable, third party sources to establish overall notability for the topic, so this is something better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy WP:LISTN. Way too overly detailed to be merged into the main article, and anything merged would probably be removed for lack of citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources that would prove notability of this list, as per WP:LISTN. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:09, 9 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 no consensus. There seems to be agreement that he doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC, but there is no consensus on the inherently subjective question of whether he meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Pearce (philosopher)[edit]

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

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}}.

David is in no way notable in terms of his academic qualifications or academic publications to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. This is despite a loyal group of friends that continually revert his entry to reference primary-sourced citations, often linked his own collection of websites listed at BLTC Research domains. Reasons: Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources flyingkiwiguy (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics):

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. FAIL

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. FAIL

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE). FAIL

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. FAIL

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). FAIL

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. FAIL

7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. FAIL

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area. FAIL

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC. FAIL
flyingkiwiguy (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above Delete vote is by the nominator (whose nomination is typically to stand in for a delete vote in itself). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that. My understanding was that the decision is not based on a tally of votes, but on discussion and final consensus. flyingkiwiguy (talk) 09:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because notability is suggested by third-party coverage in mainstream media, including Vanity Fair (referenced in the article at present), and The Economist (see previous deletion suggestion). Whilst the nominator, above, has gone through a specifically academic notability checklist, we should also consider that this person is notable for other reasons too including (ironically) his internet empire — the previous deletion nomination describes him as "one of the most prolific spamdexers ever". – Kieran T ^(talk) 10:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see sufficient evidence of notability. He fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BASIC. The only source that helps establish notability is the Dazed & Confused story, which isn't hugely detailed but has some info.[1] The link to German Vanity Fair is purely an interview, so it doesn't count as a secondary source. Ditto the io9 interview (io9 editorial is reliable but not interviews). Other coverage seems to be from very obscure transhumanist publications. As to other notability guidelines, there are no notable books by this person; he's not employed by any academic institution or recipient of anything (awards, fellowships, state honors, etc) to show his significance. So we'd need either more press/media coverage about him (i.e. not interviews) in multiple sources, or credible, referenced statements about his importance as a philosopher. He seems to be someone with mildly interesting ideas who's got a small amount of press coverage but who doesn't quite meet our notability requirements, so I wouldn't be opposed to merging or mentioning him in articles on relevant topics if there are suitable articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the case for deleting this article rests on the erroneous assumption that David Pearce is an academic. He isn't, so the fact that he fails to meet all those criteria is irrelevant. The pertinent considerations for and against deleting this entry have already been covered in previous deletion nominations, and the consensus was that the entry should be kept. Sir Paul (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then please tell us what other notability guideline he meets. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He's a public intellectual and proponent/activist/proselytizer of transhumanism, and in transhumanism he easily meets the criterion of having made a significant impact. He co-founded the World Transhumanist Association, now known as H+, probably the best known transhumanist publication/organization. That he has written and been interviewed for many top tier sorts of publications, regardless of how you would weigh an interview as primary/secondary source, certainly speaks to his importance and impact on these fields (and in reverse, how many non-notable philosophers are the subject of a feature interview in Vanity Fair?). I see many citations of his work on Google Scholar, but I don't think that should even be a necessary metric in this case. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see huge amounts of citations to David Pearce the economist. Where do you see citations to this David Pearce? Just curious. --Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See e.g. here. Note that, as I mention in my vote above, David Pearce is notable primarily as a public intellectual/promoter of transhumanism, not as an academic, so this is irrelevant for the current debate anyway. Sir Paul (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for being a bit dense, but the citations that I see are to publications by N. Bostrom, B. Hibbard, M. Walker, etc. Not a single one of those publications is by Pearce. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link above looks to be a list of citations of Pearce's book. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, than that is woefully insufficient. We usually need hundreds of such citations to establish notability (of course, that is if you want to show that someone meets WP:ACADEMIC; for WP:GNG these kind of citations are even more trivial). --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citations were provided because you requested them ("Where do you see citations to this David Pearce?"), not to establish academic notability, which --to repeat myself once more-- is irrelevant in the present context.Sir Paul (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As well as being featured in many significant places, such as http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b037v4gd , his contribution to transhumanism is enormous Ruairí Donnelly (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that "notability" has nothing to do with "merit", so having contributed to transhumanism or anything else is only relevant if that is supported by in-depth independent reliable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is incorporating these types of sources in the article - not that those sources don't exist. They do, I've added some and I can add more. I've even found a philosophy textbook, written by a group of academics, that credits David Pearce with founding the idea of transhumanism itself. So if anything, if we're relying just on these sources we could credit him with far more than the article currently does. -03:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep: In addition to what has been said by others, I'll add that Pearce contributed to the Springer volume on Singularity Hypotheses (chapter 11) and helped write its overview. He is also regularly interviewed as an authority on transhumanism and veganism, such as on Singularity 1 on 1 and ARZone. He is routinely invited for lectures at conferences like Humanity+ and Science, Technology, and the Future. I agree with Sir Paul that David is not a conventional academic, but he is undoubtedly a significant public intellectual. Brian Tomasik (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:ACADEMIC argument. Again, just having contributed a book chapter and an overview is absolutely trivial. The same goes for conference invitations. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + improve the sourcing. Doesn't appear to pass WP:NACADEMICS as his "science" doesn't meet the criteria, but passes GNG with significant coverage in the media. Moreover, he has been a subject of multiple third party analysis, so the article should stay. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Given then that he doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC - out of the 11 sources cited in the article: 3, 6 and 8 (the latter only available on archive.org) are links to David's own websites, 4 and 7 are from the website of an organisation David co-founded, and 10 is a disingenuous partial copy of 3, so all six are WP:BLPSPS. WP:BASIC explicitly states that "primary sources do not contribute towards the notability of an article". There has been no progress at providing non-primary sources, despite repeated requests on the talk page over the span of a number of years. flyingkiwiguy (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added a line at the end of the first paragraph providing evidence of notability. Sir Paul (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be agreement here that Pearce does not meet WP:ACADEMIC (whether or not that guideline is applicable is not relevant), the question therefore is whether there are enough sources to pass WP:GNG directly. Like flyingkiwiguy, I don't really see the necessary coverage for that. --Randykitty (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's relevant because the nominator put up the AfD on the basis of failing WP:ACADEMIC. If it's not applicable, then it's not a valid reason for deletion. I mean, he fails WP:Notability (numbers), too. (OF course, this isn't to say I'd be naive enough to think that made for a speedy keep). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 13:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant what the nom said. We're not in a court of law here where a case gets thrown out because the plaintiff made an error when formulating the complaint. As far as I am concerned, the nom could have cited WP:ASTRONAUT or another inapplicable guideline. Whatever the nom says, it's our task here to establish notability, regardless under which guideline. Deletion does not follow from failing one guideline, it follows from failing any guideline. If a subject passes one guideline, the article is kept, regardless of whether it simultaneously fails other guidelines. In any case, some above have put forward the argument that the subject is cited in Google Scholar, which is an argument under WP:ACADEMIC, not GNG or something else, so noting that the subject fails ACADEMIC is relevant, although it of course is not sufficient to arrive at a "delete" !vote (which is why I also mentioned GNG). Hope this doesn't sound too muddled... --Randykitty (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I may be making a mountain out of a molehill with this response, because nothing particularly egregious has transpired here, but how can you say it's irrelevant? If that's what some of the delete votes rest upon, and it's not applicable, then it's quite relevant. I acknowledged in my previous comment that I understand that some fault in the nominator's argument doesn't mean speedy keep. The point is, it was relevant enough for you to bring up as the very first statement of your deletion argument, granting it some credence with "Whether or not that guideline is applicable." The effect is a red herring (i.e. it creates the false impression that the article in question may run into trouble with all sorts of norms/policies). To be clear, I'm not trying to be accusatory -- just a procedural gripe that whether or not it's intended, arguing that something may or may not be true and then following it with "but it's irrelevant" makes it relevant, with rhetorical consequences. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I approached this AfD nomination from the basis of WP:ACADEMIC owing to the fact that the article explicitly presents David as a philosopher. The article specifically includes a reference to his alma mater Brasenose College, but significantly no information on his educational achievements. The Wikipedia definition of a philosopher states: "A generally accepted interpretation in academia is that a philosopher is one who has attained a Ph.D. in philosophy, teaches philosophy, and has published literature in a field of philosophy or is widely accepted by other philosophers as a philosopher". Therefore the consensus that David does not meet WP:ACADEMIC notability directly implies that he also does not meet Wikipedia's stated requirements to be described as a "philosopher". David's only remaining secondary-sourced contribution that is notable is his co-founding of Humanity+. This fact is in turn already more than sufficiently documented in Wikipedia. Finally, David is almost always mentioned in secondary relation with Nick Bostrom who in comparison is incontrovertibly a philosopher, as per the above definition. flyingkiwiguy (talk) 08:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire case for the claim that Pearce is an academic rests on an invalid inference. Being a philosopher doesn't imply being an academic. If this is not clear enough to you, then I'm happy to edit the article to state that Pearce is an independent philosopher. Sir Paul (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Paul, @Keystroke I agree that if the final consensus is "keep", then as per the reference in the Telegraph blog kindly provided below, the article should be updated to describe David as a "maverick independent philosopher", so as to clearly distinguish him from an "academically educated and recognised philosopher", such as Nick Bostrom. David looks to be riding the coattails of Nick. -- flyingkiwiguy (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the description to 'independent philosopher', as I indicated. I don't think the word "maverick" is appropriate, nor do I think he is not academically educated or recognized. Philosophers of the highest distinction, such as David Chalmers, have spoken favorably of Pearce. Your claim that Pearce is "riding the coattails" of Bostrom is also unwarranted. It seems to me that you are making a number of claims about this person without being sufficiently familiar with his work or public reception. Sir Paul (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Yes, I do think that you're making a mountain out of a small molehill. Let me try to re-state my position: in an AFD it is most important which guidelines are passed, not which ones are failed. However, you should also realize that special guidelines like WP:ACADEMIC were designed to make it easier for some persons to pass our notability hurdles. It happens, but is not all that frequent that someone passes WP:GNG while failing a possibly applicable guideline. Apart from that, I agree with flyingkiwiguy that given how the article is written, WP:ACADEMIC had to be addressed. (I don't necessarily agree that failing ACADEMIC means we can't call him a philosopher, but that really is irrelevant here). --Randykitty (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. I don't think the wikipedia article for philosophers has much to do with whether someone can be called that, especially when the definition starts "generally accepted interpretation in academia..." (what about outside of academia?), but that's a subject for the article talk page. I mean, look, if he were an academic I think there's a good argument for impact on a field (of transhumanism or whatever other label you want to put on this nebulous grouping of positions/topics). But since he's not -- and therefore cannot be passed according to wp:academic -- my gripe above is just that it shouldn't be repeated over and over that he fails it. Because while this process isn't about a vote tally (and this is also responding to flyingwikiguy's comment at the top), consensus is what's most important and often determined by votes on either side (i.e. one well-presented keep vote among 50 weak delete votes will not result in a keep decision but 5 compelling keep votes among 6 delete votes may result in keep). This, as well as the unfortunate fact that a list of existing positions creates a baseline on which additional parties cast their own opinions, is my molehillmountain. I'll leave it there, though, because it's getting too far away from the actual subject of this discussion. Apologies for the tangent. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another recent source: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100246226/hangovers-and-the-abolition-of-suffering/ Keystroke (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another in-passing mention on the journal's blog, not even their main pages... --Randykitty (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper blogs are staffed by the same reporters and editors as write any of the other articles - that makes no difference as to notability, accuracy or reliability. --Gloriamarie (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the case may be, it doesn't change the fact that it's just an in-passing mention. --Randykitty (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks to me like it's two entire paragraphs about David Pearce. Unless an entire article is about someone, that's pretty decent coverage.--Gloriamarie (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:GNG with the media attention he has received. Inks.LWC (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I wrote quite a bit of this article at one point but have not monitored it, and therefore I believe the problem is the watering down and vandalization/blanking/removal of information that was once in the article rather than a lack of notability of its subject (who clearly qualifies by WP:GNG) - for example, I just did a search for his book in Google Books and found close to 500 citations of it in other books. That would take me hours to sift through if I were to try to add information from them to this article. Anyone commenting on here is free to do so themselves, but they cannot honestly make the argument that he is not notable. I added some information to the article to make that clearer. He does, however, have a lot of people who for whatever reason get riled up by his ideas and don't want anyone to hear them - the recent article history even includes death threats to Pearce. Nonetheless, Pearce has ideas that have been featured in books and articles by numerous third-party sources, and "The Hedonistic Imperative" is on college syllabi. Very clear keep. -Gloriamarie (talk) 03:45, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ofori Antwi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to a Ghanaian Premier League club. However, since he is yet to actually play for them, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more sources have now been found showing he meets NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving. Giant Snowman 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, a case of WP:TOOSOON by the looks of things as has not played in fully professional league or senior international team. Fenix down (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Work below by Nfitz indicates he has made appearances in a fully professional league. Article now needs improvement to bring it up to GNG standards. Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete the player is relatively young, still doesn't play in a fully professional league, per WP:TOOSOON, and WP:NFOOTBALL. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources have now been provided; now meets the criteria. Alex^{discussion ★} 17:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the issue as far as I understand it is that he hasn't played for Amidaus Professionals which do play in a fully professional league. However his wiki page does claim he has one appearance. Other sources such as [2] show more appearances. So he does meet WP:FOOTYN after all. Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument would be valid if supported by a reliable source. Transfermarkt is user edited, making it no more reliable than Wikipedia itself, and has been used on several occasions to add false information to Wikipedia. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be real. A local radio station recently noted that his play in the league has attracted interest from other teams [3]. He's mentioned in various match reports [4] [5]. There's a report about a Premier League game being stopped so he could urinate - [6]. There's a match report from goal.com [7] There's another local site with a match report - [8]. They seem to match information at Transfermarkt. Nfitz (talk) 06:51, 12 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mesika elastic loops[edit]

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

Unsourced and no evidence of notbility. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 19:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely non notable, maybe even A11. buff bills 7701 02:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Two pages of webhits, all of which seem to say in one way or another that there's no sch thing. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Something made out. Google Search turned no reliable results. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator Note I have declined the speedy, as to be honest I found quite a few hits on Google and demonstrations on Youtube so it's not a WP:MADEUP. Pedro : Chat 11:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or failing that Redirect possibly to Invisible thread. I can't quite tell, but this looks like a proprietary type of invisible thread - see [9]. Might be an implausible redirect however, and of course there's not exactly much to merge. It certainly doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG in terms of needing a stand alone article. Pedro : Chat 11:41, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Night of Carmilla[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. - Mr X 19:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability, either in general or for films. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Kristof[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player; fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played in junior leagues and currently in Mestis, which is a second highest league in Finland. Stryn (talk) 18:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY, fails WP:GNG. Reso lute 01:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Absent any evidence he meets the GNG, the subject would have to have two more seasons of play at the level of the Mestis to qualify under NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 00:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant web coverage to meet the GNG, possibly too early for an article, and doesn't pass WP:NHOCKEY. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets Criteria #4 as a First Team All-Star of the Jr. A SM-Liiga, which is at the same skill level of the lower level leagues listed at WP:NHOCKEY/LA. Dolovis (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major Junior league" has a specific definition, and junior hockey in Finland doesn't meet it. Regardless, even if we take your comment at face value, please demonstrate the existence of multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources that demonstrate notability. As you are aware, having been told at least 100 times in the past month, NHOCKEY only presumes notability, it does not establish it. You need to demonstrate a GNG pass. Reso lute 23:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Dolovis (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The list of leagues which are considered to meet Criterion #4 is listed at NHOCKEY/LA. The junior SM-liiga is not on that list. Ravenswing 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Well this is not a junior SM-liiga. We have SM-liiga, Mestis and nuorten SM-liiga (juniors). --Stryn (talk) 05:51, 14 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wargame: Red Dragon[edit]

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

Upcoming computer game. Deprodded by the User:Callanecc who thinks there's enough coverage to make this notable. I still disagree - there are few mentions but outside [10] not much is really mainstream - but we could userfy this and restore after release. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. The thing is, it's going to be notable. But, strictly speaking, it currently fails WP:GNG with no multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources. There are no reviews or critical commentary, because the game is not released yet. Its preview content has gotten mentions, but mostly due to the topic. Most other stuff is interviews, press releases, teasers -- your usual PR hype. Yes, it has "lots of hits", but none of that is in-depth as it can very rarely be in principle for an unreleased product. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:39, 6 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) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:39, 8 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitium Sancti Ioanni Elemosinarii[edit]

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

Deprodded by creator. A charity that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I don't see any coverage in mainstream, reliable sources on Google. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe even under the A7. No reliable sources, no significant web coverage, lacks any reasonable claim of notability. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly not eligible for speedy deletion, since it makes credible claims of significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it may exist, there are very few sources online for which to make even a decent stub. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Hürzeler[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Non-notable footballer who is yet to play in a fully-professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Applicable guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. If anyone can comment on whether this individual passes it or not, ping me and I'll revise my comment into a vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. @Piotrus: what you have linked above is not the applicable guideline. Giant Snowman 18:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above, a case of WP:TOOSOON by the looks of things as has not played in fully professional league or senior international team. Fenix down (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, no significant media coverage, so fails to qualify under the GNG, hadn't play in fully pro league per WP:FPL, and so fails WP:NSPORTS as well. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:26, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lolley[edit]

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

Hasnt played league football Telfordbuck (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Applicable guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability. If anyone can comment on whether this individual passes it or not, ping me and I'll revise my comment into a vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. @Piotrus: what you have linked above is not the applicable guideline. Giant Snowman 19:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as has not played in fully professional league or senior international team. Fenix down (talk) 12:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails to meet the GNG, as there's no significant media coverage in the form of reliable sources, and also fails under the NSPORTS as he hadn't play in a fully pro league, per WP:FPL. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He is playing in the top level semi professional league in England and has been linked with professional clubs. Rjbarre1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjbarre1 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment - @Rjbarre1:, please indicate how your comments are supported by relevant consensus at WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The article can be recreated if he plays a first-team game for a league side. The Whispering Wind (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:FOOTYN requires that the player has played for "Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure.". Kidderminster Harriers is a fully professional club at a national level. While not all teams in Conference National are professional, many, if not most, are. Nfitz (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Nfitz:, please re-read WP:FOOTYN where you will clearly see that that essay has been superceded by WP:NFOOTY which states that a player must have played in a fully professional league to have passed NFOOTY. The conference is not regarded as such. Fenix down (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've maintained for years that Conference National is mostly professional, and is close enough. Even top level teams at the highest level, don't always have 100% professionals. Top tier North American teams have started amateurs before in competitive games. Do you suggest we remove MLS? I also don't see indication that FOOTYN trumps NFOOTY, or that there is consensus on this. He's a professional player, on a fully professional team. Common sense dictates that this is good enough. That all aside, he meets WP:GNG with numerous non-routing articles such as [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] among others. Nfitz (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nfitz does not understand that WP:NFOOTY is the guideline, not WP:FOOTYN, which is an essay. The guideline states that a player must have played in "a fully professional league", not for a fully-professional club. The Conference is not fully professional (or even close at the moment), so he fails it. Number 5 7

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herminio Brau del Toro[edit]

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

Biography of a nice guy that lived a beautiful life. But his notability is not established at all. damiens.rf 17:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:PROF (I see only a few cites on Google Scholar), but I'll ping User:Randykitty for a second opinion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was president of the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, that in itself carries notability. Also he was president of Puerto Rico Distillers on of the largest Rum distilleries of the time. He was a notable industrialist. El Johnson (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides being a notable industrialist, he was also a notable engineer and a notable lawyer. Suggestion is to do a search for "Herminio Brau" so that you can see the vast amount of literature where he is mentioned in many different facets: Google search with the terms 'Herminio Brau'. This is one of those cases where it will be difficult to find online biographies about the subject simply because of the era in which he lived. Suggestion is to contact the Puerto Rico National Library, the Puerto Rico Manufacturers Association, the National Foundation for Popular Culture, or the University of Puerto Rico where they will have literature about him for sure in their conventional non-digitalized libraries. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two PhD's, another degree in Law, president of the Puerto Rico Distillers Association, several publicatiosn to his name, more than three WP:RS about the guy. Notability has been established. Mercy11 (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the provided reliable sources qualifies him under the WP:BASIC and GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 09:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a look at this article in reaction to the ping by Piotrus. I see nothing that makes Brau pass WP:ACADEMIC. Having degrees (even multiple ones) or having published does not establish notability either. The "Puerto Rico Distillers Association" does not seem to be the kind of organization where every president is automatically notable. As for the four sources currently in the article, I have no access to the first one, but for the sake of the argument, let's assume that this gives a more than in-passing treatment. Reference 2 is just a simple list of presidents of a fraternity. Reference 3 is just an in-passing mention on a source that may or may not be an RS. Reference 4 is a type-written list of (rather minor) scholarships. In sum, I see at most one RS (assuming ref. is gives substantial treatment to the subject, but the contents of the other three references don't make me too optimistic), which is not enough for WP:GNG. I see no other guideline that might be applicable. --Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on at least one point. GNG does not in absolute terms require multiple sources. It only says they are "generally"(ie normally) expected. To give an extreme example, a 200 page book on a topic would clearly be significant coverage of that topic (as long as it wasn't full of rubbish), even if it was the only (idependent, reliable and secondary) source that dealt with that topic. James500 (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But given the foregoing, I don't think that the one book reference here would be enough to satisfy GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then why not just mark it {{bio-stub}} and move on? Mercy11 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

????? What do you mean? WP:GNG is not applicable to stubs or something like that? --Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an influential local figure is not enough for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

How are you defining "local"? Mercy11 (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, subject seems to be covered by multiple independent and reliable sources, thus meets WP:GNG. Only a weak !vote as the sources are in Spanish and my ability with that language is weak. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The subject is an influential figure in Pueto Rico and sources in the article are enough to establish GNG. --Jmundo (talk) 15:12, 14 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michał Safianik[edit]

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

I prodded this recently with "The subject fails WP:GNG, a case of WP:TOOSOON, perhaps?". The creator deprodded it without comment; the only addition to the article since was a malformatted Twitter account link. I stand by my original assessment - this fails WP:BIO as a not-yet notable politician/bureaucrat. PS. Pl wiki deletion discussion started: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2014:01:06:Michał Safianik. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Straightforward PR bio of a relatively minor official. I am not able to analyze properly the references, but I rely on Piotrus to have done so. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 9 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 Sports-related_curses#San_Diego_sports_curse. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego sports curse[edit]

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

WHere to start? Try WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article probably has its start from this[16] which was one of the article's original EL. One person's opinion could well be the basis for this. As for the curse , it is a hodgepodge of events and people. Even though there is supposedly a curse on San Diego, this thing makes note of plenty of San Diego natives who are successfully. Like Maureen Connolly who won 9 Grand Slam Tennis events but the curse led to her horseback accident that ended her career. Sure.... ...William 15:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions....William 13:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions....William 13:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How can you be "cursed" when it's 70-80 degrees and sunny every day? Seriously though, this is an OR/SYNTH disaster. This article gets the closest to forming this as an actual, notable "thing", but they simply discuss how SD is the largest city without a "Big 4" title, which is of course in part impacted by not currently having an NBA team or ever having an NHL team. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Not seeing any reliable sources using this term. Unless they are presented (ping me if that happens), I will lean towards delete. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as borderline nonsense with absurd statements such as "John Carney was the placekicker for the Chargers for eleven seasons (1990–2000) and is the team's all-time leading scorer. Later, while working as a kicking consultant for the New Orleans Saints (between two stints as one of their active placekickers), he helped the team to win Super Bowl XLIV." Book definition of no original research. Secret ^account 03:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I also enjoyed the sentences: "Like the original Sockers of indoor soccer, NASCAR driver Jimmie Johnson (from San Diego suburb El Cajon), skateboarder Tony Hawk, and snowboarder/skateboarder Shaun White appear to have been exempted from the curse. No explanation has been offered." – Muboshgu (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The original research doesn't extend to the LPGA Tour. Otherwise that sentence would have included San Diego native Mickey Wright, winner of the career grand slam, 13-time major champion, and winner of 82 LPGA Tour titles the second most of any player on that tour. That's unless Mickey was cursed by not being allowed to be the winningest golfer in LPGA history....William 13:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this bloated mass of Original Research to Sports-related curses. San Diego has a paragraph there and that is all this nonsense deserves. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Redirect to Sports-related curses#San Diego sports curse as suggested by Bagumba. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Agree with those above who note that this is a WP:OR and WP:SYNTH disaster, with little sourcing to support a general "curse" to describe the list of bad stuff that happened to San Diego sports teams/individuals. I can see redirecting to the relevant section of Sports-related curses, per MelanieN, but since that section is itself unsourced I am not convinced that the relevant section ought to remain that article. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources to the potential redirect target.—Bagumba (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Sports-related curses per MelanieN. At least a few of this article's footnotes (e.g. [17][18]) are legitimate evidence that the "curse" is visible enough to warrant inclusion in that collection. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sports-related curses - appears to be simply a huge WP:OR and WP:SYNTH mess, and considering the info is also available in the aforementioned page, a merge is reasonable. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 21:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sports-related curses#San Diego sports curse. In addition to sources noted above by Arxiloxos, there's more:[19][20][21] Really, there is enough sources to meet WP:GNG and keep, but the reality is that there is way too much original research to clean up from the existing article. The more realistic route is to redirect to the cleaner version, and then possibly recreate a standalone article if someone expands it more (without the synthesis).—Bagumba (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone read the redirect target? It says 'the curse also includes the eight deaths of members of the 1994 Chargers team before the age of 45'. So storing hazardous materials improperly and putting them on passenger aircraft is a sign of a curse? No it's criminal negligence that caused the death of Rodney Culver. The target for the redirect is flawed so the redirect isn't a solution....William 23:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I just added the deaths there due to this AfD. It is tied to the curse by the source FWIW.—Bagumba (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just further proof the whole curse is rubbish. A few people write complete nonsense and all of a sudden you have an encyclopedia article?...William 01:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever said all readers need to believe in the curse, just that the concept of one exists among multiple soures, and the details are verifiable and neutral. There's plenty of precedent at Category:Curses.—Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... The amount of material at the location that Bagumba references above is more than enough for this thing... Not a probably search term so no need to redirect. Spanneraol (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your decision to delete due to "references above is more than enough for this thing". Usually deletes are due to less than enough references. Also, 5 sources have been identified that refer to a curse in San Diego sports, so I'm curious what you believe is the minimum threshold for a probable search term to warrant a redirect.—Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new from the article needs to be moved to the sports curse article is what i meant by that... the amount of text on it there is more than sufficient. Also, the "sources" you and others have provided are either fan blogs or local writers complaining about how their team hasn't won in so long... Having a bunch of sucky teams doesn't mean you are cursed. Spanneraol (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe there is a real "curse" either, but sources show the concept of one exists. Afterall, Curse of the Bambino isnt deleted just because the Boston Red Sox finally won a championship. I think your characerization of the sources being "fan blogs or local writers" is inaccurate, when the sources are a diverse group of Yahoo! Sports (who back the online magazine thepostgame.com), U-T San Diego, ABC News, Sports Illustrated, and San Diego Reader, which are all typically considered reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sports-related curses as a mess since I would have nominated this for deletion since the Chargers had only one AFL championship and no super bowl champions and the Padres had no world series champions and had couple of National League pennants. JJ98 (Talk) 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a shambles. It contains far too much original research. These type of "fantasy" articles give Wikipedia a bad name, which is a shame, because there are many very good editors on Wikipedia who just want to adhere to the guidelines of providing well-sourced verifiable encyclopedic content that people can trust. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 22:05, 8 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intergalactic Computer Network[edit]

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

~~This article just seems ridiculous. Not only is it a concept that's only been mentioned a few times, it'll probably never even be a reality. Tractor Tyres (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)~~ Keep or merge to History of the Internet. Tractor Tyres (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I still think it should be deleted, I just saw the Interplanetary Internet article, which is actually plausible and is a potential candidate for this article being merged into. Tractor Tyres (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Interplanetary Internet; probably not notable as stand alone but seems good enough to be incorporated as a section of that article. Also, I expect this will be a reality, one day. Few decades ago people would tell you that Wikipedia is ridiculous... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Agyle. Having reread the article, I stand corrected - s/he is right. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't feel strongly about deleting or keeping this article, but the "Intergalactic Computer Network" isn't ridiculous. It is an important footnote from the early days of computer networking, the creation of the ARPANET and what would eventually develop into the Internet of today. J.C.R. Linklider's 1963 memo^[1] is mentioned in the History of the Internet, ARPANET, and J. C. R. Licklider articles. You need to know some of that history before making any decisions about deleting this article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Licklider, J. C. R. (23 April 1963). "Topics for Discussion at the Forthcoming Meeting, Memorandum For: Members and Affiliates of the Intergalactic Computer Network". Washington, D.C.: Advanced Research Projects Agency, via KurzweilAI.net. Retrieved 2013-01-26.

Redirect and Merge to History of the Internet; the paper is discussed there but strangely does not appear to be included as a reference.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Failing that, Redirect/Merge with History of the Internet. The topic clearly meets notability; it's covered in numerous books. The topic could fit within History of the Internet, but there is more information available from reliable sources, and the topic could be expanded. (Although admittedly it could be merged and then resplit if it outgrows the History article.) Tractor Tyres and Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus both seemed to think that the term referred to a current or future planned extraterrestrial network, when it it refers to a term used in the 1960s to refer to a precursor of the modern Internet. Their complete misunderstanding of the article's topic should invalidate their current judgments on this matter, and Tyres' misunderstanding shows that the article was improperly listed for deletion in the first place (see WP:BEFORE). “Seeming ridiculous” would not be grounds for deletion even if the Internet were completely infeasible. --Agyle (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to change my indecisive comment above to a keep. I'd also like to thank User talk:Agyle for recent changes to the article that should reduce the chance of misunderstandings in the future. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:15, 8 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. Created by banned user Yunshui 雲‍水 14:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abusive Aussie Husband/Battered Southern Wife[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources to prove that this concept exists. Google search gives nothing: [22], [23]. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete I only checked the second phrase but even that got me no hits that had anything to do with Australia. No citations, no examples: it could just as well be a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 14:42, 6 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. consensus is to keep, plus nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PNY Technologies[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable, badly sourced, written like an advertisement Tractor Tyres (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PNY not notable? I don't know how to even respond to that. They've been a major player in the market since the 1980s. They may not be a household name like Apple and IBM, but it astounds me that someone would call them non-notable. If it's truly necessary, then I'll dig up a dozen references, but it seems like a waste of time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can find sources that establishes notability. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 15:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been added to support this passing WP:ORG. Ping me if this changes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't believe I'm being forced to do this, but... OK, fine. Here: New York Times, New York Daily News, NorthJersey.com, Maximum PC, CNET, CNET, etc. Do I really have to sit here for an hour and copy every result from Google? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now passes WP:GNG and WP:BURDEN which requires actual inline cites in order to prevent deletion. Delete - Has no RS refs showing notability. Will change to keep if the article reaches WP:GNG. As I have been forced to do numerous times, saving an article like this means doing the required work. Personally, I think this shows a major flaw with AfDs. That is, this company is obviously notable but instead of being fixed with a little work, its article was AfDed. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No... a topic only needs to be notable. The status of the article is immaterial. Regardless, I have fixed the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the article also needs to pass WP:BURDEN. Thanks for fixing the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major manufacturer and seller of flash drives, flash memory and RAM. Nominator's attempt to nom United Flight 93 strikes me as someone who's WP:NOTHERE and who didn't do any WP:BEFORE on PNY whatsoever. Nate • (chatter) 03:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Please note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, rather than whether or not they're present in Wikipedia articles. However, User:NinjaRobotPirate has graciously donated their time to add sources to the article despite this. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good that it is being fixed. My concern is that if the refs were not actually added now, then we would be faced with another AfD later. In any case, the article could still have been validly deleted per WP:BURDEN which does require actual inline cites in order to be kept. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there is no requirement of inline refs for the article to be kept. AfD is not a substitute for tagging the article with {{inline}} Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is fairly clear ("All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.") that anything lacking cited sources can be deleted although it is proper practice to allow time for cites to be added. It would have been completely improper to allow the AfD to fail if the article continued to fail WP:V given that the article's contents had been challenged per WP:V for an extended period of time prior to the AfD. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: The subject is now proven to be notable and doesn't rely only on primary sources. Tractor Tyres (talk) 16:33, 7 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 deleted by User:Rmhermen per CSD G12,"Unambiguous copyright infringement". (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nickola Shreli[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Not notable, have no significant roles in notable films to his credit Cheers AKS 13:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:35, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Circumnavigate play area[edit]

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

Seems to be a made-up term. I didn't find "Circumnavigate play area" used in any sources. I also asked the article creator for sources with no reply. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video games-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism. The wraparound concept has a few synonyms and related concepts, but they aren't independently notable. In this context, basically either a delibarate mechanic or a consequence of a glitch/bug in the game engine. Definitely no WP:GNG sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Words and phrases don't fall under A7.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. I meant it in context of "no indication of significance" before notability is even concerned. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as WP:NEO. The correct term is Wraparound (video games). Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood tarot deck[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced from the outset and, though this Tarot deck is out-of-print, bordering on advertising (the wiki article about its author is even more self promotional). From an internet search I can see the Greenwood tarot deck existed but I can find hardly anything in the form of reliable coverage (books, news articles, reviews). The bect I can find is a short explanation of the product's history by Ryan himself in a book. Is this Tarot deck remarkable or important enough for this lengthy (or any) Wikipedia profile? Can it be merged elsewhere or redirected to Mark Ryan's article? Sionk (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I too get nothing; in particular GBooks seems to return nothing but spurious hits in other tarot decks. Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 6 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) 19:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kiley Gaffney[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. suspiciously created by user k.gaffney. I found that she is a university lecturer http://staff.qut.edu.au/staff/gaffneyk/ but she doesn't meet WP:PROF either. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep - she did in fact achieve passing noteworthiness at the time and the sources exist, but the article needs them actually added - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which actual notability criterion does she meet? LibStar (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The two major label albums would pass WP:NMUSIC. There's a short Allmusic bio and coverage in the book Pig City: From the Saints to Savage Garden ([30]). When the Google News archives comes back up I suspect more coverage would be found. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think that she meets criteria #5 of WP:MUSIC by virtue of having two albums on major labels. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:50, 11 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Genova[edit]

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

prod was declined, this gentleman may well exist, but he doesn't seem notable to me Ϣere SpielChequers 11:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was one of the original prodders, with this rationale: "I am unable to find significant discussion of the subject in multiple reliable sources. Google search results in lots of forum discussion of his videos, but nothing that meets WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE." "Quite the online following" is sort of a meaningless description, and not in itself one of the conditions of notability. Apparently this guy did some bodybuilding videos, and other guys are making fun of him for it. This article appears to be an extension of the trollery. ... discospinster _talk 14:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The "references" are all to user-generated content, nothing even close to reliable. It's also worth noting that everything he's listed as winning is redlinked. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with above opinions Utterly does not meet WP:GNG. ~~Was dePRODed by one of the many anons who use the article as a play ground.~~ that was not correct(Sort through the dif's, especially prior to and just after my edits to full savor the true flavor.) The only contest win was for a local gym. Once you realize the non notable nature of the contest win, you may feel an urge to CSD. It was originally tagged as a hoax, but the subject is real. Dloh cierekim 22:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. concur. Student7 (talk) 23:49, 9 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 Almighty Black P. Stone Nation. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Black Stones[edit]

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

No evidence for or claim of notability. DBaK (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Almighty Black P. Stone Nation. Neelix (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect back to Almighty Black P. Stone Nation. This is a non-notable self-published title. I wish the author well, but the book just doesn't pass WP:NBOOK right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might could be speedied as copyvio since part of the article is taken directly from the synopsis from the Amazon page. A light reason to speedy, but a way to close this early and make the re-direct. I'm just worried that if we leave the history intact it might encourage someone to un-redirect it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Almighty Black P. Stone Nation per Tokyogirl79. No RS coverage found for the book. Some found for the gang. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 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 (A10: Insulating concrete form in Persian). Yngvadottir (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

سیستم سایت این استان[edit]

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

Written in language other than English Cheers AKS 09:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:45, 6 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. Blatant advertising. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kisna Diamond Jewellery[edit]

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

Company not notable and the article has been written like an advertisement; with direct mention such as...has enabled us to create a... Cheers AKS 09:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam and now tagged G11. Peridon (talk) 10:50, 6 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. Either WP:MADEUP or a WP:HOAX; speedy deleted per G3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf pack Lachs[edit]

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

There is no record of any wolfpack named Lachs. It is not listed in the source given. A wolfpack named Luchs was formed on 27 September 1942 however, the day wolfpack Lachs was supposedly disbanded. This is probably some sort of mix-up. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 09:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:21, 6 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 merge to Yahoo! Games. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Chess[edit]

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

Not enough material to justify an article. Could be merged with Yahoo! Games. MaxBrowne (talk) 08:03, 6 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) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Yahoo! Games. Seems like the most obvious solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yahoo! Games. Can't find any substantial source coverage. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Yahoo! Games (WP:PRESERVE). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 7 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 WLW. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

America's Trucking Network[edit]

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

Local radio show airing in Cincinnati. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Formerly simulcast over one of Clear Channel's leased XM channels (not particularly unique) -- XM has not aired show since Clear Channel sold its stake in the satellite company. ~~Despite "network" name, unable to verify show ever aired in other local markets (as article claims).~~ Very little coverage online, mostly in passing and centered around exit of former host in 2004, or former host's death in 2012. This show, which has always aired overnights out of WLW/Cincinnati, was formerly known as The Truckin' Bozo (1984–2004) -- please do not confuse w/ The Truckin' Bozo show which aired afternoons exclusively on satellite radio (2004–2012). Open to redirecting to WLW. Levdr1lp / talk 07:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the Truckin' Bozo version of this overnight show (pre-2004) aired on "about a dozen affiliates". Show does not currently syndicate, however, and I still cannot verify show ever aired in other markets during the post-Bozo period. Levdr1lp / talk 07:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lp / talk 07:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and redirect to WLW at this point. I wrote this article when the show still had a couple of terrestrial affiliates and was still on XM. Since then the show's profile has diminished to the point where its notability only comes for being on WLW and being the continuation of Dale Sommers's show. The pertinent details can be put in those locations. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:49, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Ebadi[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Claim to fame is the invention of a "Laser Engine"; however, unable to find non-trivial support for creation. The same "press release" seems to be quoted verbatim in all the articles. Appears to fail WP:BIO. The subject of the article appears to have been involved in the creation and editing of the article. reddogsix (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:51, 11 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 Army of Me (band). Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rise (EP)[edit]

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

No references MarioNovi (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to artist's article. Entirely non notable album. Safiel (talk) 17:23, 6 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) 01:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Scheinfeld[edit]

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

Not notable, just another employee going about routine job. Fails WP:BLP. Cheers AKS 06:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would say that the head of a major department in one of America's largest cities is notable by virtue of her position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Echoing Necrothesp's comments above, this article represents the current holder of a major appointed position in the Government of Chicago. To nominate it for deletion 2.5 hours after creation seems premature. -- Mindfrieze (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scheinfeld is the head of a massive government agency and her decisions determine how people get around the third largest city in the US. Nothing in the article has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 00:43, 7 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 (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Hartley (computer scientist)[edit]

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

Persona not notable. Not widely covered, held and constitutional post or recipient of any award / honour. Cheers AKS 06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he's in Who's Who [31], and Debretts [32] and is the Director of the National Museum of Computing. Also FBCS, CITP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That first honor is meaningless. See this. --Calton | Talk 02:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

another editor who confuses the British and American Who's Whos. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Strong keep. Is this nomination some kind of joke? Fellow of the British Computer Society is an automatic pass of WP:PROF#C3, never mind everything else. -- 101.119.29.9 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clear above. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof and WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep. The subject of this article meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria in general terms as mentioned above. It also meets the additional criteria for a biography because he has made widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record in his field of computing, namely:
- Development of Autocode for EDSAC 2
- Development of CPL
- Director of the University of Cambridge Computing Service
- Chief Executive of UKERNA, the body that provides the United Kingdom Joint Academic Network (JANET)
- Member of the Computer Board for Universities and Research Councils
- Member of the Prime Minister's Information Technology Advisory Panel
- Twice a Board Member of the British Computer Society
- President of the British Computer Society

and is currently Museum Director of The National Museum of Computing.

--TedColes (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And I second Xxanthippe's advice to the nominator. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep It is a WP:BLP violation to falsely suggest that such a prominent person is not notable. Andrew (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to TedColes' list of achievements, here are a couple cites beyond what's already in the article, which refer to those achievements (lest anyone think we're just his fan club): InfoWorld July 27, 1992 lists numerous landmarks while (sort of) calling him the world's first IS manager; bio in A History of International Research Networking, under "the people who made it happen"; a sampling of papers and references on Google Scholar. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sometimes, when editors have made a mistaken nomination, they have the grace to withdraw it to save the time of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Stark[edit]

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

Article has only eight words including name and no reasons as to why is it notable. Only claim is that the person is a General Manager with CNBC. Cheers AKS 06:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The size of the article is not really an issue for AfD, nor what the article claims (unless that claim is false). Perhaps if you search a bit, sources can be found and instead of spending your time to take this to AfD, you could use it to expand the article. Whatever your inclination, though, you have repeatedly been pointed to WP:BEFORE. Hence, please tell us what efforts you have made to determine whether or not this person is notable or not and what the results of those efforts were. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I searched, and could not find, any indication of this person's notability per WP:GNG. She seems to be just another executive, of which there are many - but I didn't find any news articles in RS that give a detailed profile of her, she is only mentioned in passing. Being head of an organization does not mean you are notable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:03, 9 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 merge to Celibacy. There's absolutely no way to close this that will make everyone pleased with the outcome. After reading, and re-reading the below discussion here's what I can gather: Those requesting this article's removal have two main concerns, (a) that the term is not an actual condition, (b) that there is a lack of significant coverage and secondary sources that use this terminology, indicating that this is not a widespread term in medicine, psychology etc. To the first point, it's important to note that it is not within our purview to decide whether a term is valid or not, we depend on reliable secondary sourcing to do so for us and we then reference this material (I say this as some of these comments did not point to a lack of sourcing for their reasoning, but instead came from a personal POV). However, the second concern is quite valid per our aforementioned processes. Those asking for the preservation of this article have been pointing to a rather limited amount of sources to base their argument for inclusion. Additionally, quite a few editors have stated there are "thousands" or "plenty" of sources available to show that this article's subject merits an entry here, but disappointingly these editors have failed to actively produce any sourcing to back up their statements (I like to call this "drive-by !voting", and it's not helpful in producing an actual consensus from these discussions). The sourcing provided by Atethnekos (which was also pointed to by a few editors) is also inconclusive to backing the inclusion of this article, as most of those sources do not actually use the term "Involuntary celibacy", but instead describe the apparent phenomenon in conjunction with other terms like "sexlessness". The few sources that do use this term seem to be the primary source from which the term has been derived, those being Donnelly, Burgess and Abbott... and those particular papers do not seem to have gained widespread traction, use or review (at least no one has produced any evidence of such in this discussion). Therefore, the argument stating that this term is a possible neologism has a good deal of weight, but not enough to warrant deletion. With all of this taken into consideration, the best possible course of action here (per the discussion) is to merge this into the celibacy article, until the time comes (if it comes) when enough reliable secondary sources are present to warrant a full separate article. Furthermore, celibacy, not abstinence, is the clear choice here, as the term “involuntary celibacy” itself indicates celibacy can be both voluntary and involuntary. Arguments pointing out that the celibacy article doesn’t currently hold a place for involuntary celibacy (or that the celibacy article refers to a historical context), bear zero weight as this isn’t a paper encyclopedia and the concept of a merge requires the newly merged article be changed. Which also makes the arguments for full preservation on a similar anti-merge basis bear little to no weight. Again, when there are more reliable secondary sources, the articles can be split. But until that time, it is clear that the community does not have a clear consensus for this term having its own article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Involuntary celibacy[edit]

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

Scratching my head (again) what to do here. Feasibly, could be some mention at celibacy or a page on sexual activity or in some medical or psychological condition it can be equated to or be a symptom of (as long as this can be shown in a secondary source). In the absence of this, however, I feel it has no place here as it is currently described as some form or legitimate stand-alone psychological condition or syndrome. For this it would optimally need to be categorised (or even mentioned) in ICD10 or DSM 5, or failing that receive some sort of detailed discussion in (hopefully) more than one secondary source. One exists, but the article says this shouldn't be the case (OR??). Google search shows three studies by Donnelly and colleagues who seem to have coined the term. If sources can be provided, then this deletion debate can be reconsidered. Otherwise, as it stands it appears to be the reification of an adjective and noun into a use that has not been taken up by the psychological/medical community and thus to have an article on it is misrepresenting its acceptance. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - from the (lack of) sourcing it is evident this is not a solid notable concept with a good breadth and depth of scholarly treatment; the result is that the article is largely constructing this concept itself (a species of OR), and tending towards containing material which is tangential / coat-rackish. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) - whoops, JSTOR had logged me out and so the zero hits I got from it wasn't a true reflection of its holding! Will reconsider ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep This term has, in fact, a considerable trail across books and scholarly literature. I'm also not seeing what the big problem is with the article, and contrary to statements above I don't see an implication in the article that this is a psychological disorder (which is what would get it listed in the DSM). Of course I could have missed something in the article but still I see nothing wrong here that cannot be fixed by normal editing on a notable subject. Mangoe (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do see the problem with the article, and I don't see how to fix it without merging it into the larger item. It's taking an everyday phenomenon and dressing it up in academic language. It might help if you ran through the article thinking "Involuntary non-homeowners", who really want to own a single-family home, but for some reason just haven't found the right situation. Some of them can't afford it, and some of them previously owned homes, but for many of them, it's just circumstances, e.g., you can't live in your own home if you're required to live on an army base, or you just moved to a new area and are still looking. We could talk about the percentage of people who can't afford one and the percentage of people who previously did own a home, and contrast them with people who don't want to own a home, and with people who do own a home, and we could talk about people who are famous for being unable to buy a house, and so forth—just like this article does for people who haven't been able to have sex for a while and who have turned this into a self-identity—but it just doesn't amount to a "thing" in the mainstream sources. That's why there are so few proper secondary sources (like review articles, not "one study found" peer-reviewed articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to celibacy. I Agree with WAID, merge and redirect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now been through all the sources, and attempted to clean up the article. As mentioned in analysis below by others, there is enough mention that this is a notable concept (although almost off of it traces to one author, Donnelly), and it is certainly different from abstinence in several ways, including apparently being mostly undesired. But as of now, there is not enough to be said about this that couldn't be said as a section in celibacy. Should additional publications cover the topic in more depth, then the article can be re-instated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - In your "cleaning up" you axed a huge portion of the articles sources, most of which were completely relevant. A WebMD article on the positive benefits of sex was removed because it doesn't mention involuntary celibacy? A comment about the stigmatization of virgins in movies such as "40 Year Old Virgin" was removed because it doesn't mention the term involuntary celibacy? What the heck is wrong with you? I'll let someone else clean up your mess. --99.245.191.227 (talk) 14:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please review Wikipedia's policy on original research; none of those sources mentioned the term. Also, on Wikipedia, it is preferred that one comments on the content, not the contributor-- so you won't get to find out "what the heck is wrong with me". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was easily able to find thousands of results among searches for secondary sources. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you could highlight or add some that would be helpful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really helpful. Google News gives me just three bare mentions: four copies of a freelancer's self-promoting blurb, in which she states that she broke up with her boyfriend over a text message, one from a Nigerian newspaper(?) article on how to guess whether a "girl" is a virgin, in the middle of a paragraph on psychologists saying that "girls" only claim that sex is immoral or anti-feminist if they (the "girls", not the psychologists) are too ugly to attract a man, and one from an online magazine about "why you're not getting laid". Zero of them contain any actual information about the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems reasonable. Provides additional context. JFW | T@lk 23:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, this one is aligned with the "love shyness" parade.http://www.involuntarycelibacy (dot)com/about.htmlJFW | T@lk 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where the main editor was blocked on January 6 AT 16:15. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, perhaps to Sexual abstinence, as the celibacy article seems to deal mainly with celibacy in a historical context.--LT910001 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this term has no actual scientific base, and is a slang term invented by those who need an excuse for their inability to get a date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MysteryBug (talk • contribs) 21:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— MysteryBug (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is blatantly untrue. An incel person can go on dates and still be involuntary celibate if they fail. No definition of incel indicated an inability to get dates themselves. These kinds of poor, blatantly incorrect arguments are used by people with a feminist/liberal agenda bent on harming involuntary celibate men.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, please note that I am not familiar with all the rules of Wikipedia so these are just my thoughts as somebody interested in this issue. Involuntary celibacy was never described as nor was it supposed to be a medical or psychological condition. It describes a specific situation suffered by many people and frankly comparing something like a lack of romantic relationships and sex (the definition which includes just sex is also problematic but that's another story) to not owning a home is both deeply demented and insulting. To relegate this to part of celibacy article would be highly problematic and would mean a loss of additional, much needed context and quality. Talking about involuntary celibacy in context or a bigger article on sexual abstinence would not dilute this but would place it in a context that it is not yet agreed upon - there are those who mention a lack of a romantic relationship in context of incel despite its semantic meaning. By merging it with sexual abstinence you would effectively decide its meaning when it is not yet clearly decided upon - what would in that case be the word for involuntarily single? Also, incel is a term not just used in scientific papers but in many online communities.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See blog post.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it will be noted that the post you linked to has nothing to do with canvassing - it is mostly just repeating the opinion I presented here MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is an unpleasant situation - however online communities are not reliable sources. And research into sociaological and psychological phenomena veers right into medical territory with its comcomitant issues in sourcing, which is why it needs secondary sources. Unfortunately also we only reflect sources and terms and do not come up with our own here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't think I am saying that online communities are the only source on this problem. It is mentioned in several studies and, what I think is more important, it is a very imaginable concept suffered by many people. Also, I once again repeat that there was never a claim by any doctor or a scientist that incel is a psychological/medical condition. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It is my concern of the suffering that drives me to delete this - folks who are having difficulties initiating relationships could be doing so for a whole host of reasons - anxiety/depression/interpersonal issues - it is essential that they be given information that is helpful and shown but a consensus (i.e. secondary sources) to reflect current thinking. What I would consider a bigger tragedy is that someone reads an article like this and considers themself to have this condition (unverified by the medical or psychological community in general) rather than see a therapist and find it is part of a larger problem and get appropriate effective treatment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I am not entirely familiar with rules of Wikipedia but I am quite certain that being "concerned about somebody's suffering or reaction" isn't grounds for any deletion.

That being said, you're once again repeating the same incorrect statements about anybody claiming that incel is a medical condition. As for the topic of therapy and incel, that is another matter but in my experience therapy is utterly useless when it comes to resolving this condition and simply insisting that therapy is the solution or that incel is always a part of the larger problem for it is dogmatic and bullheaded. Also, there's something I forgot to point out before - since incel denotes a situation and not a psychological disorder anybody who would believe to have this problem as some kind of a disorder and thus become somehow discouraged from seeking therapy is not a very reasonable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk • contribs) 08:06, January 8, 2014

Keep or Merge. Note that the article on celibacy identifies that its standard use is only for voluntary reasons (religious vows notwithstanding, depending on how voluntary you perceive entering the seminary to be.) Would grudgingly support a merge with sexual abstinence but worry again about the unique context of involuntary celibacy. --02:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.191.227 (talk)
I feel celibacy and sexual abstinence have such as strong voluntary aspect that there is a problem merging there (In fact I wonder if we shouldn't merge these two!). Still trying to think about a target article on that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how our articles handle it, but celibacy is technically not getting married, rather than not having sex. One could be celibate and unchaste, just like one could be chaste and non-celibate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merging the Celibacy and Sexual abstinence articles is a bad idea. As for the definition of celibacy, our Wikipedia article states "the state of being unmarried and sexually abstinent, usually in association with the role of a religious official or devotee," and I would assert that this (having the unmarried and sexually abstinent aspects combined) appears to be the way that celibacy is generally defined in sources. But some sources give the sexual activity aspect first, with an "especially for religious reasons" qualifier, and the "one who is unmarried" aspect second. See here, here and here for examples. However, notice that this Oxford University Press source combines the sexual activity and unmarried aspects, stating "abstaining from marriage and sexual relations, typically for religious reasons," and Merriam-Webster lists "the state of not being married" aspect first and the sexual activity aspect second. Below that, it cites the Concise Encyclopedia, which states, "The deliberate abstinence from sexual activity, usually in connection with a religious role or practice." Macmillan simply states, "a state of not having sex for a period of time, or never having sex. Their priests take a vow of celibacy (=promise to not have sex)." These (with the exception of any cited encyclopedia, such as the Concise Encyclopedia) are all dictionary definitions, though. Looking at such sources as the ones found on Google Books on this topic can help better determine how celibacy is generally defined. Flyer22 (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at least in the Latin rite, single clerics take a vow of celibacy, which is a vow not to get married; the vow of chastity is implied rather than sworn. Married clerics take a vow of chastity, which is a vow not to have sex outside of the existing marriage, including not re-marrying, even if the current wife dies. (I once had an interesting conversation with a cleric whose sideline was canon law for the Catholic Church. I can't remember what he said about how their system compares to the Eastern rites and the Orthodox, but if you need to get stuck in a bus for a couple of hours, I can recommend him as a seatmate.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this entire term is pseudo-scientific garbage that originates from the teachings of one Brian G. Gilmartin. It is related to this "loveshy\nice guy" syndrome he invented that holds zero scientific value or credibility. At most it could be merged into the celibacy page but it does not merit it's own seperate article in any way, shape or form (in my own opinion) judging from the questionable source material. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. An easily imaginable situation that affects millions of people is hardly pseudoscientific garbage. 2. Gilmartin or other researchers ever never wrote about any "nice guy syndrome" nor did Gilmartin invent the word incel 3. As for love-shyness, nobody ever claimed it is the only cause of incel. MalleusMaleficarum1486
So it is easily imaginable, does that fact alone make this article worthwhile to keep? I don't think any term has even gotten an article just because it deals with something a reader might find "easily imaginable". And loveshyness does not even exist, it is just more pseudo-scientific garbage not supported by any serious research or papers. Just like this "incel" gibberish. It mostly originates from a variety of online forums dedicated to lonely virgins, whom I seriously suspect have been campaigning for this article to be kept (hence the sudden imput from newly registered users such as yourself and several users posting from IP-adresses for the first time). Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incel being easily imaginable was hardly my only argument so you're being very dishonest here, especially considering the fact that your claims on Gilmartin inventing some kind of non-existent nice guy syndrome or the term incel are incorrect. When using the term love-shyness I used it as Gilmartin's concept, which does exist (a phobia of approaching members of the opposite sex), even if it doesn't warrant an article. I used other arguments as to why incel is hardly gibberish and you chose to ignore all of them, including those that it is used in scientific studies. As for other people campaigning I myself am a part of some incel communities but that is hardly relevant here as I am presenting arguments that have nothing to do with that and you have no proof for any other people doing that. Using such "argumentation" I might say that you're a member of some feminist/atheist group that despises incels and wants to sweep the term under the rug because of utterly dogmatic and unscientific purposes. MalleusMaleficarum1486

Yes I am a member of some feminist atheist group that despises incels and wants to sweep your term under the rug for utterly dogmatic and unscientific purposes. Gilmartin's term is not in any way, shape or form notable and the article has therefore also been swept under that rug. This one will soon follow. It is original research largely based on false claims and faulty findings done by biased researchers. None of this has any form of broad acceptance in the scientific community and these are non-existant conditions. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If your claim about being a member of such group is true you are likely in violation of rule SandyGeorgia warned me about. That being said, you're again repeating the old tired misconceptions. I used Gilmartin's term simply to describe the kind of fear I mentioned and you're once again lying that me or anybody else said that incel is a medical condition. If you claim that it is a non-existent condition as in situation altogether that is quite odd and akin to claiming that homelessness or poverty aren't real. Also, you provide no proof of false claims or that original research was done by biased researchers.

The fact you're convinced that this article will be deleted is worrying and says much about your agenda. MalleusMaleficarum1486 —Preceding undated comment added 08:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think you caught my sarcasm there. You seem to be under the impression feminist or atheist groups have it out for you but I am not too sure about that. Personally, I am neither. As for the medical condition: it is claimed to be a mental condition rather then one of a medical one. or, rather: "a situation many men are in" or something along those lines. Then you come and compare a fictional, made-up term popular almost exclusively on online forums for virgins, to real genuine issues such as poverty or homelessness. And go on to accuse me of having some sort of hidden agenda, to boot. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm of not, these groups really are against this term and I have plenty of evidence for that which I can provide if you're interested. Members of these groups are widely known for the kind of nonsensical arguments you're providing here. Mental conditions are also medical conditions so your statement makes no sense while the situation isn't a mental condition so I don't understand why these should be equated. You next attempt of an argument is even worse - what do you mean by a fictional term? That this situation somehow doesn't exist, that it is not happening to anybody? That is obviously not so and many people are in this situation. What do you mean by a made-up term? All terms are ultimately made-up. Lastly, you're somehow implying that this isn't a real or a genuine issue- what do you base this on if there is both original research and people in this situation? MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a "condition" and the situation is not a real one. If you have sources of atheists and feminists being "out to get you" and actively campaigning against the use of the word "incel", by all means share those sources so we can all see them! I am most curious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythic Writerlord (talk • contribs) 09:11, January 8, 2014

Yes this situation dos not exist, it is a fictional nonsensical term that is not happening to anybody. It is merely an excuse for people unsuccesful in the dating game who have become frustrated enough to vent about their misfortunes online, and looking for excuses in society when the problem lays within themselves.

It is not a real or genuine issue, no. Yes there is original research supporting it; yours, apparantly. And many more frustrated men have similar findings, and share them online. One even went as far as to create a syndrome for it; Gilmartin. As for this "original research" from "people in this situation", it holds no weight whatsoever in whether or not this article should be kept. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're repeating the old debunked arguments and adding quite unbelievable statements which should disqualify you from any rational discussion. The situation of not being able to have sex or find a relationship against your will isn't real? That's a stupefyingly bizzare claim similar to the claim that the situation of not getting clean water or enough money to pay your bills isn't real. To claim that this "isn't happening to anybody" denotes you as either a delusional person or somebody with a poorly thought-out agenda.

You have nothing to back up the claim that is in an excuse or any evidence that the problem is always within themselves nor is this relevant for this discussion at all.

I never said it is a condition nor does the article or anybody writing about it claim it is. I am not a researcher I don't have any research on this so idea that I have original research on this is also quite nonsensical.

Gilmartin created a term for a phobia that didn't stick - this has nothing to do with this term and mentioning him here does nothing to enhance your disastrous attempts of argumentation. You have no evidence that scientists (who, btw, didn't include Gilmartin) making studies listed in the article on incel did that because of their personal frustrations.

Also, saying that incel, a situation of deprivation, is nothing but an excuse for some other behavior makes no sense. It is akin to saying that the state of not drinking water for 2 days is nothing but an excuse for talking about being thirsty. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where is your evidence then of hidden agendas and the evidence of feminist and atheist groups being out to get you, as you claimed earlier? It all reeks of victim and persecution complexes to me. The situation in which one is celibate against their will does not in itself merit it's own article. Celibacy is what it is, and this should be included in an article for the general term if anything. Incel is not a scientifically accepted term. It is a nonsense term accepted by online communities and used as an excuse for their overall incompetence. It has no place being on wikipedia. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of providing this evidence for you since you're for deletion anyway. I'd present it to a neutral editor if one is interested. In any case, you are continuing to make unsupported statements as if they're facts. The term is present in a number studies and they were not written by Gilmartin. Online communities didn' write these studies. As for the excuse part, I will repeat what I said above- Also, saying that incel, a situation of deprivation, is nothing but an excuse for some other behavior makes no sense. It is akin to saying that the state of not drinking water for 2 days is nothing but an excuse for talking about being thirsty. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious for your evidence that's all, and would love to see it so I can form my opinion on it. One might otherwise suggest said evidence is non-existant like involuntary celibacy. So by all means, enlighten me! Show me the light! Perhaps your marvelous sources can sway my opinion in your direction? Least you could do is try. And no online communities may not have written studies but they are the driving force between their prevalance in articles such as this, and in bringing up studies that'd otherwise be forgotten. Up until recently, loveshyness too had a long article of it's own, which I believe is quite telling for the problem at hand and people's delusions. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in proving such evidence, for people who make the kind of bizzare statements you do for they are either incapable of understanding basic logic or have a very malicious agenda. If you able to be unreasonable enough to constantly deny a term that describes a certain kind of deprivation that is not only easily imaginable but described in books and studies, as well as felt my me and thousands of people I have encountered on websites and in real life, visiting websites that generally agree with your nonsensical opinion won't sway you but make your irrational beliefs even stronger.

As for your opinion on studies and online communities other editors have already mentioned that there are many secondary sources and you have no evidence that online communities have either invented the term or are the only ones using it. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence against latter. Having online communities discussing something and identifying themselves as something isn't a detriment to its existence or the need of it existing on Wikipedia per se. As for love-shyness, the length of its article has nothing to do with its validity and this kind of a failed argument is a red herring. The article on love-shyness was deleted because there only research was from a one person, not because the kind of phobia Gilmartin describes isn't something that is happening. What you're trying to do is to deny both the sources on incel (all without arguments) and deny that the factual situation might exist (which, as I said, as as bizzare as trying to deny that homelessness or poverty exists in the real world - you're essentially denying a deprivation but you never explain why it doesn't exist or can't exist). MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no recognized, formal definition for this term. What very few book sources exist (e.g. Abbott 2001, Hawes 2001) use the phrase "involuntary celibacy" in discussion of celibacy in particular contexts; but "involuntary celibacy" as a specific reified topic does not exist. Using them to imply so is both synthesis and misrepresenting the content of the sources. We shouldn't dignify this made-up term by maintaining it as a redirect. — Scott • talk 18:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there is at least one study with this term in its title and various other studies using the term. This, along with the fact that the term is widely used by many people should be enough for the article to stay. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep There's plenty of citations, both primary and secondary sources. ScienceApe (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merging any useful content, to celibacy; involuntary celibacy is close enough to the parent concept that they can be covered together. Anything with 20000+ Google hits (barring misspellings and the like) should be a bluelink if possible, since it's a likely search target even if not a good article topic. Nyttend (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - While not getting any is the subject of teen romps from Fast Times at Ridgemont High to American Pie, it isn't a scientific thing; this is armchair pseudosciences at its worst. Redirect the name to a sub-section of celibacy if it would be deemed useful to the reader. Tarc (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while there are debates even on the definition of celibacy you claim that involuntary celibacy" is just "not getting any". This kind of attitude is what I am warning against - a tendency of attempting to diminish a very serious and real problem. This tendency tends to spill over where it shouldn't. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Original research (e.g. "The single chapter... bears little similarity to current use of the term." is sourced to the book; speculation based on fruit fly studies) with no evidence of notability to support an article. Google hit counts for an adjective-noun sequence do not indicate a singular topic.Novangelis (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fruit fly study is just one source among over 15, it's not the basis of the article. As for Google hit counts, Google results on first pages all talk about the same issue. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to celibacy. Enough work has been done such that starting from scratch is no longer easier. That said, there is still far too much emphasis on a single study of one small group. Novangelis (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rather than original research or mere armchair pseudoscience, involuntary celibacy has sufficient reliable sources to satisfy notability and verifiability requirements so as to justify a stand-alone article. It is amazing that some seem to question its very existence. It does not look like the suggested merge targets are related closely enough to the present topic for a merger to be appropriate. If O.R. has crept into the article, then editing rather than deletion is the solution. Edison (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; rewrite if the content is problematic as it is. Some good sources for establishing notability: Baunach, Dawn Michelle, "Celibacy" in Sex and Society, Volume 1 (Cavendish Square Publishing, 2010), p. 111; Blaylock, Kay J., "Celibacy" in Hawes and Shores (eds.), The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 1 (ABC-CLIO, 2001); Abbott, Elizabeth, "Coerced Celibacy", chapter 9 in A History of Celibacy (Da Capo Press, 2001), p. 303; Anne, Kristin, "Celibacy" in O'Brien, Jody (ed.), Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1 (SAGE, 2009), p. 120. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some other sources: Donnelly, Denise et al, "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis", The Journal of Sex Research Vol. 38, No. 2 (May 2001), pp. 159–169; Burgess, Elizabeth O. et al, "Surfing for sex: Studying involuntary celibacy using the internet", Sexuality and Culture Vol. 5, No. 3 (Summer 2001), pp 5–30; Donnelly, Denise and Burgess, Elizabeth O., "The Decision to Remain in an Involuntarily Celibate Relationship", Journal of Marriage and Family Vol. 70, No. 2 (May 2008), pp. 519–535. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denise Donnelly was/is the author or co-author of all the papers I'd seen online. She is also an author of the chapter cited above. Hence appears to be an entity derived from the work of a single researcher. I have no problem with that as obviously research needs to start somewhere, but I haven't seen it taken up in independent secondary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Abbott 2001? Another source: Kim et al., "Sexlessness among Married Chinese Adults in Hong Kong: Prevalence and Associated Factors", The Journal of Sexual Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 11 (November 2009), pp. 2997–3007 --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott here talks about it in terms of societal or environmental reasons solely, which is completely different to the way it is defined and discussed in the article as an intrapsychic phenomenon. The Family in America at least covers both (both Donnelly's research and societal factors rendering people unable to find partners). So we have two groups which are identified by a descriptor, one of which is primary sources by a single author (Donnelly) and cited in 1-2 sources, and a different understanding of societal factors causing it - the only thing in common is a name/endpoint. I still think this is better covered in a broader article without being reified here into an artificial unitary entity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this 100%, Cas Liber. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Donnelly et al. also talks about in terms of societal of environmental reasons, indeed Abbott and Donnelly are talking about the same thing; that's why Donnelly cites Abbott. The fact that this article treats the topic poorly is not a reason to delete the article (unless there really is no way of salvaging it—but there is, just reflect the information in Donnelly et al., and Abbott, etc.). The Donnelly et al. is cited by at least 7 independent articles, according to the Taylor & Francis tracker [33], and 26 according to Google scholar.

Other independent sources: Avna and Waltz, Celibate Wives: Breaking the Silence (Lowell House, 1992)

Kiernan, Kathleen, "Who remains celibate?", Journal of Biosocial Science, Vol. 20, No. 3 (July 1988), pp. 253-63. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 07:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Kiernan using "incel", "involuntary" or similar terms [34]. Probably a good reason why this study belong in the main article not celibacy, but not in this sub-topic. Avna and Waltz seems to be a soapboxing/self-help book: "The authors, former celibate wives, share the information they've gathered from interviews with celibate wives from every walk of life to point the way toward healing." Besides, from that summary, you'd have to WP:OR that "celibate wives" is the same as "incel". Another summary [35] says: "Every woman in this book expected frequent and fulfilling sex in her marriage. But now they have been in sexless marriages for 5, 10, even 20 years. Some drifted into celibacy, others chose it [emphasis mine] suddenly in reaction to a husband's infidelity or for another reason." So not all "celibate wives" are "incel", according to that. Besides, we already have an article for sexless marriage, which seems to cover 100% of that book, unlike "incel". Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Different understanding of societal factors causing it but describing the same phenomenon in terms of deprivation. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...aaand now I notice it's listed as a factor in Christine Chubbuck's suicide and 2009 Collier Township shooting, which I think highlights my concerns about it distracting from other intrapsychic issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But how are such worries relevant for the validity of the subject itself? Should Wikipedia not write about some murderer due to concern for his victims or their friends or families? Or not depict images of some disease because it might "trigger" some people? Also, I once again repeat that there was no claim that involuntary celibacy is a mental illness. It's listed as factor there because those two people talked and wrote about this issue causing them immense pain and ultimately leading them to end their lives the way it did. it wasn't any other issue. You yourself claim that it is a unpleasant situation. It is much more than unpleasant -it is often life throttling. Gilmartin's research done on those love-shy men (who were also involuntary celibate due to that shyness) concluded that 40 percent of them considered suicide. Maslow's hierarchy of needs ranks all these needs very high. So the fact that this issues is listed as a cause there is not an argument against this deserving an article but an argument for it. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because by reifying and focusing on their situation as a condition means that other conditions such as anxiety, depression, avoidant personality disorder, possible post-traumatic issues or any other conditions which may be associated with intimacy problems all may not be looked for or ignored - all of these are very real and very treatable. What research has been presented has been unsophisticated and not gelled with the main paradigms and theories of psychology - which is indicative of its lack of development and review, and why it is validly an area of research but not a topic of generally accepted material for an encyclopedia. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to sexual abstinence, a more appropriately neutral term for this sort of lack-of-activity. The term used in the nominated article has too much of a connotation of entitlement and someone-else's-fault. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely untrue that the term involuntary celibate denotes a connotation of entitlement and someone-else's-fault. There is no evidence for that. Incel is deprivation like any other. It's akin to saying that water or air deprivation denotes such connotations. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 10:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to either celibacy or sexual abstinence. A couple of researchers tried to carve out a subdiscipline here, but it clearly has not gained wider acceptance. - MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the extensive list of sources provided by Atethnekos above. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references are sufficient to show it as a distinct subject. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:DGG, I'm always uncomfortable opposing anything that you say is sourced, so I looked at one of those sources at random: Baunach, Dawn Michelle, "Celibacy" in Sex and Society, Volume 1 (Cavendish Square Publishing, 2010), p. 111. It's a page about how people are more likely to engage in casual sex on vacation. Neither the words nor the concept of not being able to engage in sex appear anywhere on that page. Have you actually looked at the sources listed? Is this the only ghost reference in the list? And if there is more, is there actually enough to write an article, i.e., paragraphs and paragraphs about it, not just a one-sentence definition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind the ones list above by Atethnekos. What I'm not sure of, is the proper title of the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that neither you nor Atethnekos have actually read even a summary of those sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scott Martin a.o. Also may I note the term "incel" is a bit of a clusterfuck that has been adopted by entire online communities consisting of bitter virgins such as wizardchan.org and the loveshy forums, among many others. They justify their fringe theories with articles such as these. At most this should be merged, redirect. Ideally it would be deleted. I wonder why this was even written in the first place. Excuse me for voting as an IP. 94.212.191.160 (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Terms like "clusterfuck" and "bitter virgins" don't sound academic or convincing at all nor has this editor provided any proof for that. Just like the editor fails to provide proof about any of these people creating their own theories, fringe or not. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Involuntary Celibacy" simply translates to 'not being able to attract a lover'. It is a term that manifests itself in communities that pride their social ineptitude, like wizardchan.org or love-shy.com. The condition is not recognized by any reputable medical resources, it is a term used by niche groups, and it is nothing more than a condition that manifests as a result of other issues like autism. --71.34.77.73 (talk) 11:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect that involuntary celibacy is translated to not being able to attract a lover - common sense would tell us that some people can be involuntary celibate for other reasons, like shyness to the point of not being able to reciprocate other's romantic advances. In fact, it was proven here that the problem, which the editor erroneously refers to as a condition, has been talked about in reputable resources, which don't necessarily have to be medical at all as nobody ever claimed this was a medical condition. It is a term used by more than just niche groups as it is widely accepted almost on many websites. Editor provides no proof that it manifests as a result of other issues and once again makes an error of calling it a condition (though I am not sure if it was meant as a medical condition but judging by the fact that he mentions medicine before it almost certainly is). MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That a person could dismiss the possibility of a psychological cause of a person's inability to have an intimate relationship I as a health professional find alarming. It is a key aspect of psychological functioning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand my points at all. I never said that a person should dismiss the possibility of a psychological cause of a person's inability to have an intimate relationship. That article doesn't depict involuntary celibacy as a mental illness at all. It doesn't preclude anybody from a belief that the causes of the deprivation aren't possibly of psychological nature at all. It just lists certain reasons some of which might not necessarily be connected to a mental illness or a syndrome but other life circumstances. You keep saying that you are worried that somebody might see the article and think that he has this mental illness now and therefore not seek the help of psychiatrist or a psychologist. But that's not what the article is saying at all - it doesn't claim incel is a mental illness. And even if it did say that (which it doesn't), for example in a context of a theory, what matters is is sources and notability, not how somebody would react. Hence my sort of clumsy comparison with articles on murderers - it's not the most precise comparison but it sort of has a point - I don't see why should the job of Wikipedia be to influence the behavior and thinking of its readers in any way. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Could someone explain what exactly caused the dramatic swing in opinion between now and the first nomination? Or how the rationales suddenly changed from the previous nomination? Peter Stalin (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how you classify the article. wikipedia has much stricter rules WRT medical information - i.e. a subject needs to be covered in detail in >2 reliable independent secondary sources - for medical/psychological articles this means Review articles and some textbooks really. For me, this topic veers right into that territory, especially if you consider why psychologically someone may be unable to have sexual relationships for whatever reason. The term was coined by a researcher (Denise Donnelly and colleagues) and has got a minor mention in one secondary source but has two meanings (social and psychological). I feel this is misleading as it hasn't gained traction in the literature even to the point of secondary journals discussing it (see my reasons above for problems with misleading psychological information). If you see this as a general article then yes it has mention elsewhere I guess. I'd also consider a merge - just found we have an article on sexual frustration too....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd venture a quick guess that a major reason for the difference is that Wikipedia is twice the age it was at the first nomination. Once-available niches have been filled. The problem here is more of article scopes than content, this article offering no salvageable content to merge (in my opinion), since the text does not follow the sources. There is no single ideal redirect target. The two word phrase could become an article, but probably won't. (I would suggest that "non-elective" would be a better adjective.) There are disparate concepts that fit this nebulous two word phrase. There are examples found in other articles (e.g. sexless marriage). Deployment of married military personnel, incarceration, homosexuals in intolerant environments, and counties with skewed gender ratios all fit, but the sociologies are very different. For now, this article offers nothing. Thanks especially to @Atethnekos:, this deletion discussion is far better resource for future development. I'll admit to a heavy finger, but I still say "Nuke it from orbit." Novangelis (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is not notable. There's a dictionary definition on involuntary celibacy, and even without looking at the dictionary, this is just a juxtaposition of two words. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously the article should not make unsupportable medical claims, such as presenting the situation as some kind of medical syndrome, but it is an important social phenomenon. All the arguments made so far, about the lack of scientific basis, "just being a combination of two words", and supposed infiltration by people affiliated with some organization - these all apply to clerical celibacy. Would you argue to delete that also? (And don't even start with the 'otherstuffexists' nonsense - I'm asking if you have a problem with it existing, and if not, what's the difference?) Wnt (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt: - anyone who knows me knows I'm an arch-inclusionist and I'll argue for keeping everything including the kitchen sink here, but as a doctor I get annoyed by articles which perpetuate misinformation, and I feel that this article by its existence does. it illustrates one of the reasons medical articles are much stricter with sourcing. Several posts of mine on this page highlight my problem more specifically - can link if need be. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a couple of sentences that could use rewording because of the appearance of some sort of clinical implication, but that's no reason to delete. I see no reason why you don't just go after whatever words bother you there, rather than trying to delete the whole thing. There really is a science of anthropology that is not and should not be interpreted as medicine. Wnt (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I propose a redirect to "not getting any", and using the first American Pie movie as a reference? I believe this shows the term's significance quite clearly. 94.212.191.160 (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt: - ok, but then that would be better included more holistically at some larger article on sexual activity or marriage even, and discuss environmental and sociological barriers to coupling there, rather than have a page at this somewhat unusual term. Would you not agree that having this page's subject matter somewhat bipartite with general sociological mixed with intrapsychic is a bit misleading? Especially as there is no need for the former to be at this subject?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a clear partition. Also, the medical aspect you complain about is not reason to lump it in with something else, but a reason to expand the article: namely, if a psychiatrist given this observation is going to suspect some medically defined situation, we should be able to review how he would do his analysis. Just because someone hasn't done it, or because a few people here don't want to or don't feel qualified to do it right now, is no reason to delete a GNG-compliant article because it doesn't adequately explore that question. Wnt (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are once again making some incorrect assumptions. One of the reason why it should neither be merged with sexual activity or marriage is because there is not yet agreement on what involuntary celibacy entails, due to insufficiently precise terms for states like sexless marriage against somebody's will or the state of having only paid sex due against your will. But those are not the arguments for the article to be scrapped because while the term does include several states all of them amount to very similar problems with romantic and sexual intimacy. I don't see why some general sociological content shouldn't be in the article and, again, the article doesn't claim that this is a medical problem. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See how the article currently explains involuntary celibacy in relation to chronic (medicine) in its first sentence? By use of the word chronic, that first line is currently claiming that involuntary celibacy is a medical problem. That word should be removed; its removal will also make that first sentence flow better. Flyer22 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that and am baffled to how somebody could write it that way. The word "chronic" in medical context has no place there. You are absolutely right, I just didn't notice this before. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you removed the link, but left the word; that's fine, since the word chronic is not always used in a medical context, as seen by this and this dictionary source. Someone might re-link it to the medical aspect, though, since there is currently no appropriate Wikipedia article for the word chronic as it's now applied in the context of the Involuntary celibacy article; see the Chronic disambiguation page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wnt:, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - in my opinion, the article is not compliant with medical notability as the term has not been taken up to the point of being so. The other issues are heterogeneous to the point of being better discussed on other pages. I agree that these sort of problems are often multifactorial, and that individual cases may have several factors involved. And now even the proponent of keeping the article states above that there " is not yet agreement on what involuntary celibacy entails" ...so..umm, what is the scope of the article again? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the emphasis on it lacking medical notability - of course its lacking it since it is not classified as a disorder nor did any of these researches tried to do so. The problem with the lack of agreement on what involuntary celibacy entails is connected to the idea of merging it with sexual activity or marriage articles. It seems that these researchers agree that involuntary celibacy means a lack of sexual relations. But such lack almost always carries with it a lack of romantic relationships as well so it would be too narrow to merge the article with sexual activity. Unfortunately, this is often forgotten and most people focus on the issue of sexual acts while ignoring the inability to obtain romantic relationships which usually accompanies it. Hence the confusion of what involuntary celibacy entails- it usually entails both but there is a tendency to focus on one issue only. As for the marriage idea, that would be quite a mistake, as it would mean that this situation usually or always happens in a marriage - in fact, it usually happens outside of it, as marriage usually means that spouses are sexually available to each other. Also, my point was that there are, unfortunately, no terms which would clarify some situations like sexual deprivation in marriage or use of prostitutes but inability to obtain unpaid sex or romantic relationships. These would help clarify the picture a bit.MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Term appears to be used in literature (may hits on GBooks), and neither the nom's rationale, nor some comments I scanned explain why this is beyond rescue. If there's a reply to my comment here please echo me. If there are factual errors, we have article and inline tags and other less nuclear options. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Except most such sources don't medicalize the condition in the way done in this article. It's actually hard to find anything in depth in GB, most sources used the terms as mere juxtaposition, and don't provide any definition. One in-depth coverage [36] is nothing like this article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that book is already cited in the article, actually. Basically the O'Donell papers and this book chapter are the only in-depth(ish) sources that can be found. A little thin to justify a separate article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:A certain editor claimed that it is suspicious how some IPs are voting to keep the article. Yet, he is obviously not telling the truth, as no unregistered user voted to keep the article and I am the least prominent one to vote to keep it. On the other hand, three IPs voted for deletion, producing almost no arguments. Now I learn that an influential feminist blog on Tumblr is recruiting its readers to vote for deletion. MalleusMaleficarum1486 (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge:This page does not contain any information under the "incel" label that cannot be found under other, more notable sources, not to mention that academic mentions of this "phenomenon" are limited at best. 72.69.203.153 (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note There have been comments made at the talkpage of this AFD debate that should prove interesting to the closing administrator. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the blogger who runs theroguefeminist. I am requesting the link to my blog be taken down. I have deleted all my posts relating to this topic. This is my personal blog and I don't want it linked here. I have received harassment and have blocked access to my blog (which is why you get a white screen when you click the link now). There are no comments on this discussion that look like they were made from anyone who follows my blog. Please remove the link. I am done with this debate and since I'm deleting all the posts relating to it, there's no reason to keep a link to my blog up. I can provide you with links to threatening and insulting messages I have received because I am putting them on private view, so no more of my followers will be led here, but i have it saved as evidence if you need it. The person who reported me to you did so to silence me--they messaged me on my blog informing me they reported me in a threatening and insulting manner. And it worked. I've been intimidated into silence and am no longer participating in this discussion. Now please remove this link. If you need proof of harassment let me know Postsocratic (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)postsocratic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postsocratic (talk • contribs) 23:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to celibacy. The article lacks secondary sources in the sense of WP:MEDRS (independent reviews of such "incel" studies etc.) Although there are numerous mentions of "involuntary celibacy" in GB, they don't necessarily agree with this definition, being rather casual juxtapositions. There are in fact few sources to cover "incel" in depth: roughly two (groups): the Donnelly papers and the chapter by Abbott. There's no agreement in the numerous sources that cover celibacy in general as to whether celibacy (without other qualifiers) is strictly voluntary; from my survey of a half-dozen sources or so, this appears to be a minority position, although my source sample is too small for a definitive conclusion. The bottom line is that I see no good reason why a separate article for "incel" is needed at the moment. Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :looks: are we Medpedia? No, this isn't that site. We're Wikipedia. There's a difference between being a medical reference encyclopedia (cf Merek Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy) and being Wikipedia. Saying that it is not a formally recognised mental disorder by the DM5 should suffice. Deletion would not provide that warning, which would be appropriate. htom (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a merge be more then sufficient in providing said warning? Without the unsourced and problematic material SandyGeorge removed, the article is short enough to serve as a sub-section of the main article on Celibacy. I see no reason why this phenomenon is notable enough to warrant it's own article when a section of a larger article would be more then enough. This way the core information of it would be saved without having to be in a (largely unsourced) page of it's own. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a merge and redirect would not be appropriate. This is not part of Celibacy which is a voluntary choice, or sexual abstinence which is also a voluntary choice. This is an involuntary (perhaps driven by unconscious psychological demand or consequence*) behavior. Merge and redirect could be considered a form of bullying -- "Here, look at these people who choose to behave like you don't want to!" The article needs to be fixed, not deleted or merged. htom (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my survey only a few religious/Catholic-oriented sources define celibacy as strictly voluntary. Most of the sources are silent on the voluntary/involuntary aspect, while a few clearly define celibacy to include involuntary cases. So this separate incel article is essentially a WP:POVFORK supported by editors that are likely misinformed about the varying definitions of celibacy, which have been in the lead of celibacy for a while now, so are presently hard to miss. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there is a separate article sub-article for clerical celibacy and even a sub-sub article Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church), which is indeed usually voluntary, (although modern sources explain it as a tradeoff) but those sub-articles are surely justified by amount of (mostly historical) material that exists for that type of celibacy. There isn't all that much material about incel and keeping this article artificially separated precludes the use of some good sources about contemporary lay celibacy, which isn't construed by all authors [and probably not by most] as "incel" because the causes lie on a spectrum (usually involve tradeoffs). Some such sources were actually given in this AfD above. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to struggle with the combination of terms "involuntary" and "celibacy". You say that neither clerical nor lay celibacy is involuntary, but seem to want to combine this article with that, or use those sources to talk about this, involuntary celibacy; that's going to be SYN, OR, or both. There may eventually be a better term; when that shows up, a move discussion would be appropriate. Involuntary chastity? Involuntary ... there are probably a dozen synonyms for celibacy, few of them relevant. We can't rename the behavior; it is called what it is called. We can't claim it's a member of a set that it's not a member of (we couldn't make that claim even if it was a member!) htom (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not proposing renaming it, but noting that it hasn't been widely taken up...and is used for a number of disparate situations. Hence the sysnthesis is grouping them altogether here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy already has a number of disparate situations, and you're proposing to add this to those 'because' this article has a number of disparate situations surrounding the involuntary failure to achieve desired sexual relationships, as opposed to the intentional failures? I'm not following that logic, unless it's putting the failures into one article. htom (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seriously guys, most of the reasons for deletion so far are irrelevant. Remove or modify the misleading medical information. Deleting the whole page seems a bit too much. Apart from that, this term is used in research, as well as culturally. Hence no point in deleting. Merging with Celibacy while it seems sensible, isn't really. Byrappa (talk · contribs) 14:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Cas. No evidence that this is anything other than a made-up term; a fringe idea of one person that hasn't received the WP:SIGCOV required for an article. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. If it or some related concept is merged into Celibacy, as some have proposed, note that the article may need some changes to encompass differences in terminology, since definitions of celibacy on its own seem to be largely restricted to the notion of being unmarried and/or sexually abstinent, and sexual abstinence is by definition voluntary (despite what an uncited statement in the lead of that article purports). --Xagg (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The same article was recently deleted from the Simple English wikipedia with overwhelming consensus, per: this discussion. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to sexual abstinence, per WP:NEO, WP:GNG and David Eppstein. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 12:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not the right solution, given that abstinence is understood as being voluntary. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 16 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 deletion (G11). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labonlaptop[edit]

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

This article reads as an advertisement. It promotes a particular website and brand and doesn't cite any references. versace1608 (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A (draft) press release. WP:NOTADVERTISING. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:42, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Claflin Pratt[edit]

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

As I've been able to research so far, I don't see how she'd pass notability. The only question is whether there's more information in the Who Was Who in American Art that might shed light on notability. I have posted a note on the Talk:Virginia Claflin Pratt page about a discrepancy with information in the main article source. CaroleHenson (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blow it up and start over - The main source for the article, AskArt, is not a reliable source, but rather a website that gathers its biographical information "from a broad range of contributors". The contributor of the information on Pratt at AskArt is the subject's granddaughter, which means that the source is non-independent as well. Another source, The Cascadia Courier, is a self-published source. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This vote seems to infer that there are reliable sources to be used instead of the sources in the article. Unfortunately, this was the best that I could find. If the sources mentioned are removed, the only current citation that seems would remain is info about one work of art at Seattle Art Museum, and there would be no biographical information. There's potentially info from Who's who and that's it, but I have no idea how much.

Are there other sources, though, that I missed to "Start over"?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E (the one thing being her piece in the Seattle Art Museum). It's noteworthy but it's not enough by itself to form the basis of an article, and also not enough by itself to meet WP:ARTIST #4(d), the notability criterion she seems most close to meeting. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:54, 9 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 keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Stone[edit]

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

I can find some information, but not much. She has exhibited at a few museums and folk art exhibitions. Some of her work shows up as sold works in AskArt, etc.

What makes her unique is that she makes folk art paintings based upon Judiasm. Very interesting works, I wish I could have found more information. CaroleHenson (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:ARTIST. I've added all the citations I could find for her, mostly in the Jewish Review. The citations are mostly regional, but the fact that she has exhibited at the Hurn Museum in Georgia does give her more weight on Wikipedia. If only we could find more references... Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon Yoninah's additions to the article and comments, I am happy to ask for this to be withdrawn.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:22, 6 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. - Vianello (Talk) 22:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery: Curiosity and seek the truth[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Mystery: Curiosity and seek the truth" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

No demonstration of any external/third party coverage or other indicators of notability per WP:Notability. Nominated for PROD previously, template deleted by article creator. Previously deleted as "Mystery Curiosity and seek the truth" and was nominated again for CSD, but as far as I can tell, CSD A7 criteria do not cover products/video games. - Vianello (Talk) 02:50, 6 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) X201 (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any source coverage. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth sources. I see a bunch of primary sources, but no secondary coverage, definitely nothing in usual VG sources (WP:VG/RS). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:25, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuan pha na dum[edit]

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

Only source I could find was a book from after the article's creation which was likely automated. The translation the article gives is way too long in Lao.The creator has only edited this page. Although there are some other scant articles on gods, they at least have sources. Could be the second oldest hoax article. If so,archive it. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Please clean up the page,I must have made a mistake.Alexschmidt711 (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I also get hoax feelings. I searched for 'axe' in Legends of the Lao, and some other books dealing with Laotian folklore, and came up with nothing related to this feature. --Soman (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment', google translate gives heavenly axe as 'tad thon laichai khong savan' in Laotian. --Soman (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The publisher of the book with the mention is LLC, which means there are no known non-mirror sources. Google cannot find any sources from before this article, although a computer discussion board's forum about Laos lists a user named kuan pha na dum from 2007. It is possible this person noticed the article while looking up Laos. Actually it's the third-oldest known hoax when detected, but it's still a great find. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It turns out that this is an alternate spelling of Kwan fa nah dum,the titular character of a '80s Lao lokarn (soap opera). The article is not a hoax,per se, but both the lokarn and the character are not notable, and the article is misleading. Unfortunately, I will have to take down the hoax tag.Alexschmidt711 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbor Avenue Films[edit]

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

This production company appears to have never produced a notable film, so I see no basis for thinking that they themselves are notable DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep small indpendent film production company that continues to be active with film productions. While they haven't had a hit, the article provides a useful compilation of their work is warranted. Several have received smaller awards and some acclaim and coverage such as here. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage of this company in reliable, independent sources. I disagree that a two sentence description of one of their films that mentions but does not discuss the company confers notability on the company. Nor does winning non-notable awards, which are abundant. Where's the "acclaim" in reliable sources? I don't see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I could find is a passing mention in a community news site.[37] Clarityfiend (talk) 03:04, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alistair Taylor (playwright)[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is his play being nominated for an award which does not seem to me to be enough to have an article. The award was actually given to a play by a different writer. Spinning Spark 03:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, simply zero coverage. Not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete created by a single purpose editor, suspected WP:AUTOBIO with no reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 21:46, 8 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College Bellhop[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The MSNBC website article is about the only acceptable source I can find. There is an amount of advertising for them about but nothing that constitutes significant coverage in secondary sources. Also of note, the creator appears to have the same name as the company's co-proprietor. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2013 (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) 03:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

V28 (band)[edit]

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

I don't think there is evidence of notability in this article or in the Norwegian-language version. Boleyn (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2013 (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) 03:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The AllMusic link isn't bad, but there's no support there for notability. Can't find anything in a Google search either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:27, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Independent Software Vendors[edit]

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

No sign of notability beyond some discussions on SlashDot (which are obviously WP:SPS). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 24 December 2013 (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) 03:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. no third party sources for almost 7 years. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 13 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Presidential Youth Inaugural Conference[edit]

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

Non-notable event. A web search turns up a few old news articles, all quite short (no in-depth coverage), all from the same period (no "coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle"), as well as a bunch of Wikipedia clones. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2013 (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) 03:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 6 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. postdlf (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kevin Spencer episodes[edit]

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

Not a very notable show and this list is incomplete. Beerest 2 talk 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:08, 23 December 2013 (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) 03:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The show ran for 8 seasons, so I find it hard to believe that it is "Not a very notable show". That the article is not yet complete is no reason to delete it, as every article has to start somewhere. See WP: UGLY.--NukeofEarl (talk) 20:32, 5 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) 02:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know it is not a valid reason to keep, but this appears to be a typical list of a TV show's episodes. It's true that most of the episodes have only a name given, but incomplete info is not a valid reason for deletion. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable WP:SPINOUT from the Kevin Spencer (TV series) article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:16, 7 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny's Worldwide Chauffeured Transportation[edit]

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

Non-notability. Only slim claim (reason given for declining csd) is coverage for a dispute between company & it's drivers. Otherwise, any claim to notability because of clients is inherited notability. Additionally, the article is close to spam. TheLongTone (talk) 13:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned in the talk page. An organization serving National & international dignitaries yet being accused of injustice with labor so it should be known. Moreover I didn't knew that there exist private such organization who actually provide those protocol cars when head of different state visit, i use to think it is provided by the host Government so there will be other users also who don't know these things, also when it says Media organization use the car to brought in studio their "special guests" I used to think it is their private owned vehicles never thought it to be a rented car, so for me it should remain in wiki-space as few knows there exists such a organization serving at such a high scale. ow@!s (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:39, 23 December 2013 (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) 03:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly speaking the criteria of "Notability" is still not fully explained by TheLongTone, The car rental category page contains articles( Here & Here) which I think have far less notability than Sunny's Worldwide Chauffeured Transportation yet i don't see any deletion tag there. ow@!s (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Having 500+ locations may establish notability for economic impact, part of which was the labor dispute. Not the best article by any means so I wouldn't miss it too much, but I think any issues are with the article itself not the underlying topic. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:17, 12 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. The only policy based arguments are for deletion Guerillero | My Talk 05:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Royante[edit]

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

Sources are not sufficient to show that this building is noteworthy according to our standards. I'm concerned that the whole thing might be an extended advert for a B&B which now occupies the building. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:11, 23 December 2013 (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) 03:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had hoped to find some reliable sources discussing its history or architectural significance. All I could find were routine bed and breakfast listings. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I looked for something, followed this discussion, and looked again, but despite thinking there should be something covering this building and especially its chapel if the description is accurate, I couldn't find anything. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -- I am not clear how much neo-Gothic architecture there is in France. We hacve rather too many redlinks for categories, but I suspect that relevant existing categories could be found, if someone tried. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 12 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abhirami Anthadhi[edit]

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

Can't find evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. It has Tamil-language article, but this is also unreferenced and does not demonstate notability. I am taking it to AfD rather than prod in case I have missed something, as this is Tamil. Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with or redirect to Abirami Pattar. I am, in fact, slightly surprised that the nominator did not do this in preference to bringing this to AfD - or alternatively (though I think wrongly) bring the article on the author to AfD along with this one, since it looks fairly certain from that article that the author's notability depends entirely on this work. However, it looks likely that the work is notable, the nominator's searches probably having failed because of problems of transliteration from Tamil - both (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) and (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) seem to work better that the article title as given, and other variants would probably give further results. Having said that, though, we probably only need one article on the work and the author taken together (I am neutral on which is the better choice of title), and the only statement in this article that is not in the author's article is that the work is an andhadhi - a poem in which the first word of each stanza repeats the last word of the previous stanza. PWilkinson (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added references this a legend about Abirami Pattar's composition or a collection of poem about a godress Abirami which took place in Amritaghateswarar-Abirami Temple,Thirukkadaiyur.There are lot of references in Tamiland it is song Carnatic music concerts . It is atleast a century old.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2013 (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) 03:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ross HillTalk to me! 04:34, 5 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) 02:10, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Who Rip[edit]

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

This is a DVD series and sells merchandise, but I can't find evidence to support it being a notable company/series. It has been tagged for notability for nearly six years, so hopefully we can now establish its notability one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 03:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though my guess is that the DVDs are probably entertaining, I could find only passing mentions in reliable sources, except for a longer "local business" type article in a Seattle newspaper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:08, 6 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) 19:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COPE Foundation[edit]

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

Local foundation with no apparent notability . Unwisely accepted from AfC. (FWIW, I'm finding these checking submissions to see what shouldn't be deleted from AfC as old G13s, and for every one I mark for rescue--or even immediate acceptance into mainspace--I seem to be finding one that should never have been accepted. ) DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Large, influential and historic foundation. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any sources to back this claim? LibStar (talk) 13:47, 5 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) 03:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: with more than 50 years in existence it seems quite notable especially being supported by a large Irish government grant. ww2censor (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. Length of existence is not relevant if no significant coverage exists, and I note none of the keep voters found any sources. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at this? I think that alone proves notabilty. ww2censor (talk) 20:12, 5 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) 02:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this coverage in the Irish Times. This article in the Irish Examiner calls the organization one of Ireland's "leading charities". This article in the West Cork Times reports that the President of Ireland is patron of the group's annual art festival. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ORGDEPTH per: [38], [39], [40]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:31, 8 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 Henri Selmer Paris. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 36[edit]

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

No sources provided which might attest to the importance of this subject. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:01, 23 December 2013 (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) 03:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Henri Selmer Paris or Henri Selmer Paris#Historical list of Selmer instruments on the manufacturer's article. There are definitely some references out there such as this mention as a "popular instrument" in an educator's guide and this review in JazzTimes magazine. But it's the tiniest of stubs in its current form and the best end-state might be a small paragraph on the Selmer page. If someone wants to have a go at creating a proper article, then let's discuss notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:08, 7 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) 19:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Le Houérou[edit]

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

Only one of these people have articles, and this person is listed as an uncited middle name. Once more people with this name have articles, I'd say re-create, but for now it should be deleted Ego White Tray (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to providing useful disambiguation the page also explains the term's origins and meaning. Deletion would make wikipedia less useful. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have removed half the persons for whom WP:BIO notability appeared unlikely. – Fayenatic London 19:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep. It's unfortunate that there are no actual articles, but there are indeed people who deserve them. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why would this family name be non-notable? A name can be notable, even if it had no particularily famous bearers. --Soman (talk) 04:47, 6 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. The only policy based arguments are for deletion Guerillero | My Talk 05:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AES International[edit]

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

Highly promotional article for a small non-notable firm with routine PER-based references. Fastest growing is meaningless in terms of notability when you're as small as this. I interpret it as a clear statement of "not yet notable" The article, just as an advertisement would, lists all their routine list of services, and listing all the execs. Firms that need advertising should post in in an appropriate place. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Economist piece on the firm and its founder is the most substantial but is still in terms of "fastest-growing ... in proportionate terms". Searching is not helped by a profusion of articles about AES Corporation but I am not seeing anything to suggest this is more than a financial advisor firm going about its routine niche business; not of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The second reference is credible in terms of the Fast Track 100 as are other online references when typing the full name of the company/searching links. I have edited out the list of services and execs listed by DGG and will attempt better referencing over the next month. Alligazy3(talk) 19:34, 05 Janaury 2014 (UTC)
Keep -- Looks to me like a major international stockbroker, possibly a re-creation of an earlier one, sold to an insurance comapny. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 5 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) 02:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks fine to me - top 50 in UK and 15 offices with some intellectual capital of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.234.6 (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC) — 91.74.234.6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: This has been edited recently to improve and remove points listed by DGG. Article specifically on the business within the Economist, mention of it by Branson and Sunday Times plus presence international presence indicate of encyclopaedic notability.XuiChen (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — XuiChen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Notable in terms of size and substance. My verdict of encyclopaedic notability Davidan123 (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Davidan123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: LibraryS (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC) — LibraryS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep:86.99.80.95 (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC) — 86.99.80.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

... a pocket full of socks? Welcome to Wikipedia! הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and have a close look at the related and similar article, Sam Instone. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 04:27, 16 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Loeb[edit]

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

Loeb seems to have had a few occupations; he's dabbled in film, politics, and most recently business. He has received a lot of secondary coverage, but almost all of it is gossip-mag sort of stuff centred around his relationship with Sofia Vergara. Notability is not inherited by being involved with someone famous, and I'm not able to find a single substantial source about Loeb that doesn't prominently have to remind the reader that he's Vergara's fiancé. I do not believe given this that Loeb meets the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of the his more serious reported contributions regarding Carbon Solutions America comes directly from his personal website, which he likely wrote. The validity and importance of such a claim are thus a bit dubious — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.170.168 (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability established by several career and personal accomplishments covered by reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think notability is clearly established by several reliable independent sources. He's made semi-notable films himself, and he appears to be notable enough that reputable news organizations follow aspects of his life. He's also dabbled in the American political scene. This is a strong keep for me.Michelchann44 (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— Michelchann44 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have reformatted some comments in this discussion for ease of reading. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 14 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Beruas Prophecy[edit]

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

No indication that there's anything special about this novel. One reader review in amazon.com is about it.[41] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no coverage other than local for book or author, amazon excepted.TheLongTone (talk) 12:23, 6 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Namshub (incantation)[edit]

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

Unsourced other than being based on a work of fiction, reads like a personal reflection, not an encylopedia article The Anome (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also a possible copyvio of [42]. Essaylike and entirely unsourced, and I think that an idea from a work of fiction needs a very strong claim beforeit becomes notable.TheLongTone (talk) 12:30, 6 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 Nomination Withdrawn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Svend-Allan Sørensen[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP user 117.199.191.163 (talk), who couldn't complete the procedure. His stated rationale on the talk page was:

I was browsing web.archive.org looking at Wikipedia as it was 10 years ago when I stumbled upon this at http://web.archive.org/web/20040123205659/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_Deletion. Stunningly, it managed to get kept with only 3 keeps out of 10 votes, with such rationales as "This guy exists and is a practicing artist. Not for us to decide if he's the next Picasso" or no rationale at all. These were the days when Wikipedia had no BLP policy, no strongly enforced notability or verifiability policy, and you could "vote" delete or keep for any reason whatsoever at "Votes for Deletion"--and still it only managed to survive by the skin of its teeth.

Even more stunningly, the article is still in Wikipedia ten years later, the one-sentence stub has received nothing but cosmetic edits, no one has added sources, and no one has ever attempted to delete it. I think this is technically not eligible for CSD or BLP-PROD due to its age and the fact it survived a deletion decision, archived at Talk:Svend-Allan Sørensen. In any case, it's an unreferenced BLP and there is no indication of notability.

I could find some articles on him (like [43] and [44]) but finding reliable, fully independent sources showing he meets WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST was beyond me. Google Books shows some promising-looking results, but not being able to view them I have no opinion on whether to delete this or not. Sideways713 (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are a few more sources than I thought? But most of those books are written by the artist in question, and the second of those articles is just a promo for an exhibition. Maybe we need someone who can speak Danish to look at the sources, since it doesn't look like there's going to be anything in English. The Danish Wikipedia by the way does not have an article on him. 117.201.186.165 (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been improved with references to reliable sources, so I withdraw my nomination. 117.203.231.131 (talk) 16:10, 9 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) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Lombardo Radice[edit]

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

Delete: dubious notability. Quis separabit? 17:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he surely passes WP:NACTOR as he had significant roles in multiple notable films, notably horror cult classics such as Umberto Lenzi's Cannibal Ferox, Ruggero Deodato's The House on the Edge of the Park, Antonio Margheriti's Cannibal Apocalypse. While researches are more difficult than usual as Google News archives does not work, however he also appears to pass WP:GNG: among the sources, the 2004 book Alternative Europe: Eurotrash and Exploitation Cinema Since 1945 has actually two whole chapters enterely focused on him ("Masochistic Cinesexuality: The Many Deaths of Giovanni Lombardo Radice" and "Male Masochism, Male Monsters: An Interview with Giovanni Lombardo Radice"). Especially the first chapter mentioned above is widely cited in books and publications. The German book Let's Talk: Im Gespräch mit acht bekannten, unbekannten Schauspielern has also a chapter about him (pp.47-61). He is among the actors interviewed in the book Il cinema italiano d'oggi, 1970-1984: raccontato dai suoi protagonisti. Basically every book about 1980s Italian horror cinema considers him as one of the most representative actors of the genre. Notably, the Journal of British Cinema and Television in the Volume of July 2012 refers to him as an "international horror star of the past" and "a cult Italian regular". Scott Aaron Stine in The gorehound's guide to splatter films of the 1980s refers to him as a "luminary Italian screen star". Cavarrone 20:14, 3 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) 02:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to pass WP:BASIC per source information provided above by User:Cavarrone. Furthermore, the subject passes point #1 of WP:NACTOR and appears to pass point #2 of WP:NACTOR per information provided above, again provided by User:Cavarrone: an "international horror star of the past" and "a cult Italian regular". Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 7 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WORDsearch[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Survived AfD in 2008, but this may simply be because it was bundled with others. Boleyn (talk) 20:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have added 3 independent citations, and consider that notability is now demonstrated. I have therefore removed the Notability banner, as well as Advert which IMHO is no longer required either. – Fayenatic London 12:35, 2 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) 02:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, covering in Baptist Press might be considered reliable and substantial enough to push this over the WP:GNG. Not sure about the credibility of "Christian Computing Magazine". Some of the sources are blogs and need to be looked at carefully. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. 1) Christian Computing Magazine has existed in print and online since 1989. It has been one of the main sources of news about the software industry serving Christian churches, primarily evangelical and U.S. 2) Preaching Magazine has existed in print and online for over 20 years serving the audience of evangelical preachers, primarily in the U.S. It is currently owned by Salem Publications, a family of Christian media companies. 3) The Austin American-Statesman is the major daily newspaper of Austin, the capital city of Texas, U.S. It has existed since 1871 (founded as the Democratic Statesman) and is now owned by Cox Enterprises. 4) Baptist Press was formed in 1946 by the Southern Baptist Convention as a news source of interest to Southern Baptists and Christians with common interests. 5) SEC filings. Not sure of Wikipedia's policy regarding reliability, but these filings are one of the few sources where you can actually go to jail for including falsehoods. - Hudson Bender (talk) 20:00, 14 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volodymyr Chernyshenko[edit]

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

A recent college grad and an even more recent (looks like 2012) PhD in biology. Certainly not notable as a biologist but does not appear to be notable as a translator either. According to the Ukrainian WP page, translated a bunch of children's books from English into Ukrainian during 2010-2013, but I could not find much coverage of him specifically. Almost nothing in GBooks and Gscholar. Does not appear to pass either of WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The article created and primarily edited by an SPA who deprodded it in December. Nsk92 (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too, too early on basis of thorough nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nominator. Note that working as a researcher at a national academy is very different than being honored by membership in a national academy; only the latter is notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too early. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it's clear from reading the article – too early. Agricola44 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ACADEMIC.LM2000 (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:52, 10 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Francisco Cevallos, Jr.[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Ecuadorian Serie A is fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ecuadorian Serie A has always been fully pro. It started as a tournament of the country's two regional professional leagues until they consolidated to form a proper league (for lack of a better description) in the late 1960s.^[1] The league never when back to amateur status. In addition, all clubs within Ecuador's league system are also affiliated with regional professional organizations. In the case of Pancho, Jr., LDU Quito is affiliated with AFNA (Asociacion de Futbol No Amateur de Pichincha; the Association of Non-Amateur Football of Pichincha). And before you question the "non-Amateur" part of that name, I believe the clubs in the third division (Segunda Categoria), who are affiliated with these regional organizations, are semi-pro.

May I suggest next time instead of proposing the deletion of a lot of articles, verify that a league is fully pro. Just because it is not listed in WP:FPL, does not mean it is not professional. It only means it is not been added. Digirami (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL as there is no evidence he has played in a WP:FPL; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL as there is no evidence he has played in a WP:FPL; also fails WP:GNG. Not currently accepted consensus that the Ecuadorean league is FPL. This is not the place for such a discussion. Were a separate discussion to establish consensus that it is then the article can easily be resurrected. Fenix down (talk) 19:05, 1 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, KTC (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:FOOTYN as Ecuadorean league is fully professional. There are no less than 5 copies of this article in other languages; I'm concerned that the very thought of whether a player for such a well known team like LDU Quito would meet WP:FOOTYN is a demonstration of WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 01:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are numerous errors with the above comment. Firstly, the Ecuadorean top division is not deemed to be a fully professional league by WP:FOOTY. There is always scope to debate this and create a new consensus, but AfD is not the correct arena. The fact that other wikis have articles on this player is not relevant as their consensuses are debated and established completely separately. Finally, notability is not inherited, simply because a club is claimed to be well known is no reason that every player who plays for them should have an article, that is the precise reason why WP:NFOOTY exists. Fenix down (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – subject doesn't meet the general notability guideline, no counter-arguements have been presented. Whether or not it meets FOOTYN is unclear but certainly not established. And since Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a reliable source, versions of the article in different languages add no reason to keep the English-language edition. C 679 14:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ http://www.ecuafutbol.org/institucion/historia.aspx

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Kristock[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested with the comment I think this one is close enough to GNG that it should have a discussion. The sources listed are routine coverage which is insufficient of for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep but notability and sourced. blaster talk! see 08:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Murry1975 (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NCOLLATH having won the Senior CLASS Award for soccer. Hack (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets notability guidelines based on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and for major award. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keepcomplies with WP:NCOLLATH guidelines as having won a national award and gained national media attention as an individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttons1992 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NCOLLATH. Article needs work to show GNG pass more clearly. Fenix down (talk) 19:03, 1 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, KTC (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The award kicks it passed WP:NCOLLATH requirements.LM2000 (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NCOLLATH ... and WP:GNG too it would appear. Nfitz (talk) 01:49, 12 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 Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This was a tricky debate to weigh up. That being said, the clear consensus when reading the discussion in full is that the best course of action is a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. I have protected the redirect and note that any re-creation of this article under another title can be deleted per CSD G4. The reason why I haven't deleted the article is to allow (if consensus allows) content to be selectively merged into the ISIL article by interested parties, per a number of comments in this discussion. Daniel (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria[edit]

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

This is a duplication/POV fork of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and no sources support the assertion on this page. Any that did would fit on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant anyway. CMD (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a state, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is a group. It's not "POV" if there are articles about the declaration of this state. For comparison, the Bangsamoro Republik and the Moro National Liberation Front have two separate articles. [Soffredo]

01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources saying it's a state, just your OR/SYNTH off a single declaration made 3 days ago. Other editors may wish to read Talk:List of sovereign states#Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, where the topic is discussed. CMD (talk) 01:19, 6 January 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 January 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources that state the Islamic State of Iraq is a state, i vote for Merge into the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page.XavierGreen (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only sentence on this page is already on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Previously this was a redirect, which I assume it would go back to. CMD (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bangsamoro Republik and the Moro Liberation Front have two separate articles, why wouldn't this? One's a state, the other's a group. [Soffredo]

13:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because as I said above, we have no sources saying it's a state (presumably there's some primary sources in Arabic published by ISIS, but we shouldn't base claims to statehood off those). Furthermore, surely the fact that we have one sentence, entirely duplicated, shows you this topic isn't nearly large enough for its own page? Wikipedia is wp:notnews, and for the moment, news is all this is. CMD (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: [45] This source refers to ISIS declaring themselves to be a state, so I think that there is sufficient third party coverage of the events to justify this as a separate article. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is already a page for ISIS/ISIL. ISIS has always considered themselves a state since it's foundation, as their name (Islamic State) shows. Gazkthul (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: keep this article since it a state and not just a organisation, but in either way an country infobox needs to exist, either here or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Ionchari (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Arabic it always called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام and it declared itself as a state since it was called Islamic state of iraq in 2006. also it controls large areas in Syria and Iraq more than that of many countries in the world. if u wanna consder it as a state just edit this page Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - No need to create another page with the same info. 3bdulelah (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but possibly rename: This is an analogous situation to what happened with the Azawadi declaration of independence in 2012. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are significant differences between this and the Azawadi declaration. The Azawadi one was made after the government had been well and truly beaten back, with clear military superiority. Post-declaration, the MNLA was able to declare a unilateral ceasefire and get down to governing (it feel apart quickly, but they had the chance to try). This is a declaration by one rebel group who have managed to seize a few areas while being surrounded by both still-fighting governments as well as other opposing rebel groups. Calling it a state similar to Azawad is wp:crystal. CMD (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" could be the "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria's" military group. Just a thought. —SPESH531Other 20:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed [Soffredo] 21:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are identical organisations...different English language media outlets translate the Arabic word Sham as either the Levant or Syria Gazkthul (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The suggestion that something fundamental has happened here is WP:OR. There is nothing, beyond the speculation of Wikipedia editors, that suggests that this needs forking, and no reason to assume that events that have taken place will pass the 10-year test. So there should be no fork. There's nothing to merge, so merging is pointless. We should delete, or if the search term is useful, redirect. Kahastok talk 21:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ten year test? Thats OR in itself. Hundreds if not thousands of States throughout history have arisen and been destroyed in less than ten years. The legnth of time a state has been in existence is meaningless in its relevancy.XavierGreen (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. See List of shortest-lived sovereign states for examples. [Soffredo] 23:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which points invalidate the WP:10 year test, to which I was referring. Kahastok talk 07:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and leave it that way until reliable third-party sources report that other sovereign states have officially recognized ISIS/ISIL as a sovereign state. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reason is ridiculous. Somaliland isn't recognized as sovereign by any another state, but it's included on the List of sovereign states. [Soffredo] 03:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And there is currently major resistance to adding this "state" to the same list, because it relies on individual editors' interpretations of the Montevideo Convention (as nobody is able to provide a source that actually says that it is a state). Kahastok talk 07:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify for the record: Article 1 of Montevideo requires that a state show, among other things, the "capacity to enter into relations with the other states." A state cannot enter into relations with other states that do not recognize it. The European Union and Switzerland are not parties to Montevideo but have adopted its statehood criteria. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The counterargument would hold that capacity is different from practical ability and that the declarative theory is explicitly independent of recognition. Regardless, no reliable source claims that this state has "capacity to enter into relations with the other states" in terms of Montevideo - this is original research by Wikipedia editors.

When people refer to a "state" here, everyone should realise quite how flimsy the evidence for this is in Wikipedia terms. Remember that there is no reliable source that comes to the conclusion that what we are talking about is a state. Rather, this entity's "statehood" was conferred by Wikipedians based on their own interpretation of the Montevideo Convention and on multiple sources that don't discuss the point.

By contrast, in the case of Somaliland it is not difficult to find detailed discussions of Somaliland's statehood (or lack thereof) explicitly in terms of Montevideo. Kahastok talk 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there is no evidence whatsoever that these are two different groups. This is just a case of different translations into English of the name of the same group (which, as pointed out by other editors, did already consider itself as a state since before). --Soman (talk) 04:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about a proclaimed state, not a second group. [Soffredo] 04:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is one of the same, the more apt correct translation is 'Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant'. You have zero references were ISIS and ISIL appear as separate entities, it's just two different ways to translate the same name. And for what it´s worth, there has been no 'declaration of independence' here. Just a misinterpretation of a single comment in one news piece. --Soman (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is only in control over this territory for a short period of time, then the article could possibly be renamed or merged into the article of the group and the conflict. However, the group "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" is distinct from the territory that it controls, regardless of whether or not the names are identical.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On the same grounds that the Second Continental Congress/Congress of the Confederation, the group in charge of the United States prior to its present constitution, has its own article? At least that one is named distinctively, with United States in Congress Assembled (its official name, which may now cause mild confusion) as a redirect. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
dont rename and merge later Bangsamoro Republik article still exists, so can this be later listed as a former state should the iraqi army take over Ionchari (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Azawad wasn't deleted, why this state?--Kohelet (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD has been linked to from a thread in /r/MapPorn. →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 08:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tend to Keep, but possibly rename, to differentiate from the establishing organization with similar name (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant).GreyShark (dibra) 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Soffredo's argumentation and to avoid double standards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is limited resources in regard to this topic, and almost all of this information can be merged into the ISIL's article itself, the current Anbar clashes or the current ISIL/Syrian-rebel infighting article. The ISIL has been fighting and claiming various emirates/caliphates for some time, why all of a sudden this "state" needs its own article is beyond me. The article is entirely misleading too by incorporating a misleading map. This does not seem like a centralized state, but more like a combination of swaths of territory of various levels of control. For example, the name of the group that took over Fallujah was given as the "Military Council of Anbar's Revolutionaries" - which would run contrary to what the creator of this article is trying to say that its a vast, centralized state. I liken the situation here as similar to the one in Yemen, where various militant groups have taken over cities and proclaimed them as independent states such as "Islamic Emirate of (insert city name here)". Using the same logic, each of these occasions would require its own state article. Using the same logic, the Taliban would have its own state article, and by extention the Syrian National Council or the Islamic Front would have their own state articles as they too have forces and hold land - and they might be even more centralized than ISIL is. At best, the ISIL should be added to the list of rebel groups that control territory. Isn't that page exactly for cases such as this? Hamas isn't written as a state, neither is Al-Shabaab. Using this logic would require a rewrite of any rebel group that controls territory. I've also outlined similar problems with the article in the articles talk page. Infernoapple (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete As the first comment says: "This is a duplication/POV fork of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." Jihadis don't talk about "Syria" -- that's a French-created state. They talk about "As-Sham", the region, the name of which goes back centuries. "Levant" is just the Western word for As-Sham. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant the name of the organization which maintains it is a state. It already has a wikipedia articl. Let's not embarrass wikipedia with a dumb mistake! --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge the Article has current historical significance, but may want to merge with similar article, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.Tonywikido (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - look carefully at the three sources given in the article; they all report that one fighter said that an "Islamic state" had been declared. None of the sources indicate what the "Islamic state" is actually called. Elsewhere in these sources there is mention of "members" of "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria", which suggests that it is the name of a group rather than a state. For example, we wouldn't say "members of the United States" - we would say "people from the United States" or "citizens of the United States". As for the examples above of unrecognized states, the main difference is that they are/were de facto states with some form of "government". All we have for this "state" is a rumour mill; the NY Times reports a witness or witnesses saying that they heard a fighter shout out about declaring an "Islamic state". Who was the fighter? Who were the witnesses? Was it a genuine declaration or just some over-exeuberant group member making declarations? Does this "state" have a government? Does it have an official declaration? Have any of its allied Al-Qaeda groups recognised this declaration? What are the borders of this "state"? By one account (VoA), they have pushed the security forces out of the city centre. Another source(Daily Star) quotes a local official as saying that "the city's outskirts were in the hands of local police". Is it possible that the Iraqi security forces will retake the city? All of these questions can be answered at our leisure because this is not Wikinews. Green Giant (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The declaration of a state does not make a state. Until reliable sourcing emerges that there is an even the barest of state institutions operating in the area under the ISIS flag this article is projecting conflict rhetoric into a yet to be seen reality. GraniteSand (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This must be merged per WP:V: The name is a mistake based on poor translation and therefore fails WP:Verifiability, a WP:Policy. These is no reason to debate its notability, and the closing Admin should not even consider notability. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a mistranslation it should be moved, but it should not be merged with Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The group is separate and distinct from the territory that it controls. If the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (group) is no longer in control of this territory, then we can debate merging it into the articles of the group and the conflict. --Tdl1060 (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It controls no significantly greater or significantly more stable territory than many militant groups in the area. We do not create articles for the everchanging patches of land different groups may or may not control at various times in this area. CMD (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moved to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant? Because that is what it is. They already call themselves a state. Let me explain this in bearded murderer; "WE KILL EVERYBODY, CALL IT SHARIA. SHARIA REQUIRES A STATE, SO GET TO KILL MORE WE HAVE TO CALL IT A STATE." Abductive (reasoning) 17:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is premature. We do not know how long ISIL will be able to keep control over this territory and if they will be able to establish some degree of de facto state order. Wikipedia is not a news platform. It should be up to date, but creating an article about a purported "state" that has only existed for a few days so far is an example of WP:Recentism, which we should avoid. For now, it is completely sufficient if the article on the group mentions the declaration of independence and the current territorial control. The article about ISIL "state" lacks (and will continue to lack) information on essential features that define a state, like geography and demographics, because it has no defined borders (not even de facto borders), because it will expand or shrink or otherwise change its shape depending on the moving frontlines between ISIL group and its enemies in the ongoing war. Conclusion: this "state" lacks a defined territory, a definded people and we do not know yet if it has any kind of state order (unlike e.g. the aforementioned Somaliland, which has a defined territory, people and de facto state order). --RJFF (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you have just said (short lived, with a poorly defined territory and population) also applies to the Bangsamoro Republik, about which we have a relatively good and informative article, even though they existed for several days, and their border fluctuated for their entire history. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Bangsamoro has had three delarations of independence (1974, 2012 and 2013) and there is at least an agreement signed with the Philippines government about creating an autonomous region sometime soon. The latest declaration was made public on 12 August 2013 but the Bangsamoro Republik article wasn't created until 19 Aug 2013. It is a world difference to news reports of witnesses saying they heard a fighter shouting about establishing a state on Friday afternoon (3 Jan) and this article being created just after midnight Sun/Mon (5/6 Jan). A week after the "declaration", and Reuters reports that "tribal leaders, clerics and local government officials agreed on Friday to form a new administration for the city, nominating a new mayor and a new local police commander" and that "the Falluja talks appear to be bearing some fruit, with the militants being forced to lie low or melt away. A black al Qaeda flag hoisted over the new Falluja bridge in the western outskirts last night was swiftly removed". It is definitely a clear case of WP:Recentism. Green Giant (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - This article is just a WP:CFORK of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Furthermore, there are no WP:RS which verify that this "state" exists in any sort of meaningful way. Yes, some rebel declared it and that may be worth mentioning in the main article, but it certainly is not WP:N enough to necessitate a separate article. If and when this "state" starts to receive significant coverage by RS (as the Bangsamoro Republik did) then we could consider creating an article for it, but until then the article is premature. TDL (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to ISIL. "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" is a mistranslation of "Sham". The article contains no valuable information or information that can be contributed to another page. Ipuvaepe (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, or Delete. This so-called state is not yet notable as one. It's not a matter of recognition by other states, it's a matter of recognition by reliable sources, which is pretty lacking. Furthermore, at present the article contains no useful information not in other articles. If the 'state' lasts long enough to be taken seriously by others, then the article can always be recreated, but right now it seems incredibly premature. The fact that other quasi-states declared by separatist groups have their own articles does not mean this one should; although for what it's worth, I'm not convinced those articles should exist either. Robofish (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - this does seem to be a content fork. Should events (and sources) indicate a separation of the two named states then the article could be reinstated in its own right. Zangar (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. Weird content fork and a glaring mistranslation to boot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This so-called state hasn't concluded any agreements with other states. It is only self-proclaimed and does not really exist.David O. Johnson (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just like Somaliland and the Bangsamoro Republik? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution is to Redirect to the ISIL page and add a country infobox there as this group now have full control over Ar-Raqqah Governorate [46]. they declared a state since 2006 but the real sole full control of Governorate in Syria only happened after their war against the Syrian opposition. so if Azawad and Bangsamoro Republik were considered De facto states the Islamic state of Iraq and the Levant or Islamic state of Iraq and al-Sham should be considered too. 3bdulelah (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a better idea than what I am proposing. Changing my vote to merge per 3bdulelah's reasoning --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It ignores the fact that no source concludes that a separate "country" or "de facto state" in fact exists, a point that is fundamental to this debate. Kahastok talk 18:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here http://books.google.com/books?id=LzFaaWCuhdQC&pg=PA570&dq=islamic+state+of+iraq+ministers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ig7LUt26OI_JsQT4vILIDA&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=islamic%20state%20of%20iraq%20ministers&f=false (description of the group's goals and government structure), here http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Jan-04/243086-more-than-100-die-as-iraq-battles-al-qaeda.ashx#axzz2oNa3sbT8 (describes the state's self-declaration) and the source mentioned above, which points out that they control Ar-Raqqah. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first uses the term "Islamic State" as a pronoun, but does not conclude that a state in fact exists. The second reports a declaration but does not claim that a state exists. The third actually makes a point of refusing to call it a state (at least in the translation I saw). Including all three sources, there is no source that concludes that a separate "country" or "de facto state" in fact exists. Kahastok talk 23:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure of the mechanics of the process, but there are enough redirect votes to do so. If someone else could do so, that would be great.David O. Johnson (talk) 05:06, 16 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. Nobody converted it into an article, and I will delete it now. If someone is still interested into rewriting this essay so that it looks like an article and incorporates reliable sources, please contact any administrator for userfication.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Online learning trends[edit]

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

This is an essay rather than an article. A new article on the topic covered under E-learning is undesirable. Any useful content and references here should be edited into E-learning. Greenmaven (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC) Greenmaven (talk) 05:20, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nomination. I think a rigorous copyedit of this article would reduce it to two or three very trite statements.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as an essay. Mangoe (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not half bad an idea, but can it be fixed so it's an article, and not an essay? Bearian (talk) 18:28, 9 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Ashby[edit]

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

Promotional, with unresolved copyright issues -- see talk page.

I do not know if we consider a Grammy for production of an album as sufficient for notability ; if not, there's no other clear notability DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the rule of thumb is generally that if they're mentioned in relation to the award, we count it. (IE, group nominations that list him on the Grammy website or in multiple RS) Otherwise it doesn't really count since a lot of people will be on the team that produced the album and we can't count every person. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hard to find notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For musicians, winning multiple Grammy Awards is a very strong indication of notability, and, with regard to Tokyogirl79's point, he is mentioned by name for at least two of them: see this search of the Grammy website, and I'm finding him listed in multiple RS for those wins as well. As for significant coverage, I think that this (which was also distributed nationally on the McClatchy-Tribune news service) and this are significant. Just on the notability question, I would suggest a "keep", but given the possible copyright issues and the promotion, I'm unsure if it would be better to start this article from scratch after a deletion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:28, 9 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idea (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song, only cited mentions are from album liner notes or artists discographies. May also contain OR in the form of description of recording.I am adding a number of similar articles by same editor to this nomination for the same reasons. A couple may have been covered by other artists, but with no chart success or critical attention. TheLongTone (talk) 09:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Gin and Whisky Dry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turn of the Century (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gena's Theme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Turning Tide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Give a Hand, Take a Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheLongTone (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TheLongTone (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. TheLongTone (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Non-notable, WP:OR, non-charting, all fail WP:NMUSIC ES &L 17:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more information including live performances, the song was covered by the Cyrkle. User talk:Sam navera, 11:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'vote' by article creatorTheLongTone (talk) 21:22, 8 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, KTC (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. There is no claim of notability that passes WP:NSONG and nothing that can't be added back into the album article. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:11, 9 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptex 09[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT: one source, a dead link to the event's website. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur or delete. Non-notable event without reliable independent sources. Novusuna ^talk 21:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of importance to meet WP:EVENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iniciativass (talk • contribs) 06:54, 7 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.

[1] Licklider, J. C. R. (23 April 1963). "Topics for Discussion at the Forthcoming Meeting, Memorandum For: Members and Affiliates of the Intergalactic Computer Network". Washington, D.C.: Advanced Research Projects Agency, via KurzweilAI.net. Retrieved 2013-01-26.

[2] ttp://www.ecuafutbol.org/institucion/historia.aspx

[1]

[1]