Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 July	12 July >

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 redirect to Rathfarnham. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Mary's National School (boys)[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rathfarnham per established consensus for non-notable primary schools. A new "Schools" section can be created at the redirect target. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Philg88 & per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there are a number of WP:HEY rationalized "keep" votes, that essay isn't as persuasive as the other policy based rationales for deletion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wani (caste)[edit]

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

Delete because it fails verification in a reliable source. Additionally, it fails WP:GNG because it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. There appear to be no reliable modern Indian sources that identify and significantly describe this caste and British Raj sources have been deemed unreliable. They were not reliable in their own time (like Tod) and they ain't reliable now. editor Sitush at Talk:Gairola#Sarola subgroup of the Brahmin caste. Also, some modern sources rely on earlier British Raj sources, see for example, Kolenda's "Toward a Model of the Hindu Jajmani System". Therefore, great care needs to be taken that a source is actually reliable. --Bejnar (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is now verified in a reliable source, so I withdraw that basis for deletion; however, it still fails to meet the general notability guidelines for significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article Wani (caste) is a notable subject in India, specially in the Kashmir and Maharashtra region of India. The content of the article needs to be rewritten to meet the layout guidelines. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 09:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Bejnar: I have reorganized and removed the unreferenced contents from the article, please have a look again. See how easy it is to restructure a article rather nominating it. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 10:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem remains. I see that two reliable sources have been added: one, the official Other Backward Classes (OBC) list of Maharashtra, which lists: Kathar, Kathar-Wani, Kanthhar Wani, Vaishya Wani, Kulwant Wani, and Nevi (Lingayat Wani or excluding Ladwani); and the second (The Times of India) reports a change in the official list mentioning the subcaste Ladshakhiya Wani being shifted from Other Backward Classes (OBC) to Nomadic Tribes (NT). I see no discussion of the Wani caste in those sources, much less "significant coverage". In addition there is now a citation to a "message" entry from genealogy.com, which does provide a thumbnail sketch of the Wani, but which does not qualify as a reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Bejnar: That article is referenced from official govt. website including one from times of india, earlier the content was mismatched with the published source maybe that's why I supported it with two references, please help me with unreliable references I will happily remove the content or references. I would also like to mention that, I have no personal interest in that I am supporting on the bases of knowledge as well as the census report which was done in the year 1891 and was published on the page no. 167 of so called 1891 Census of India but unfortunately after doing a lot of research I am unable to find the original publication online maybe because of copyrights issues. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 16:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cutest Penguin: I realize that you have only been on Wikipedia as an editor for less than a month. Maybe this will help. Among the fundamental principles at Wikipedia:Five pillars it says All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources. It goes on to say Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong. It is not particularly meaningful to say in a Article for Deletion discussion that "X is notable in India". Wikipedia has its own explicit guidelines for notability. You might want to take a look at the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. I do realize that there is the acknowledged problem of systemic bias in the Wikipedia, and I have tried to channel more of my editorial work in unrepresented areas. This can be a problem, as electronic and paper resources are often scare. However, that is not an excuse for relaxing editorial policy. --Bejnar (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Census of India 1891, copies are not widely held. It was published in multiple volumes, mostly by region. For example Volume 23 dealt with Hyderabad. So, you will need to have a volume number to go with the page number. Unfortunately, while I may be able to accept that as a reliable source showing the existence of such a caste, other's have objected to British Raj sources on the basis of reliability, particularly with regard to caste, see above. And the 1891 census does not really discuss specific castes in the volumes that I have looked at in the past. Like volume 23, it may give population figures and literacy rates, but nothing else. I note that in Volume 23, Chapter VIII, on page 72, Wani is included in a list of other languages. --Bejnar (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: I am unable to find the original publication because of two main reasons,1 the book is not published online and 2 the one I found was not in English. Please wait until the AfD outcome or you can withdraw the nomination if you think that this article fills wikipedia guidelines . I would like to apologize... if it was my mistake in expending that article, contesting tha Afd as well as urging you for AGF. HEY should also be considered. Thank you! CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 20:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To encapsulate what I said about about the Census of 1891, it is unlikely to have significant information about the Wani, and even were it to have such information, other editor's such as Sitush above would challenge its reliability. --Bejnar (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As to the HEY standard, to change my opinion I would have to see significant coverage in at least two reliable published sources. So far, despite the additional footnotes, there is no significant coverage and only one reliable source that actually mentions the Wani, see my analysis of the footnotes below. I don't have a copy of the Encyclopaedia of Indian Castes, Races and Tribes (2009) and I don't know if it is reliable, although I would hope so, since the author, Dr. Gyanendra Yadav, is a reader in the Dep't of Sociology, Commerce College, Patna University. But that would be a good place to start looking. --Bejnar (talk)

Keep per WP:HEY - it's now properly sourced. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: It is now verified, by one source with a single descriptive sentence: The Wanis are in a small way the chief traders and money-lenders, and in their latter capacity they have obtained a hold over much valuable land. FN2 (Struck as source is not reliable, see Sitush comment below.) The only other source that mentions the Wani is the blog at genealogy.com. There are two sources that relate to the OBC and NT listings but they don't mention the Wani directly. The remaining four "sources" are bios of people with Wani as a last name. How does that relate to being "properly sourced"? and how does that meet the prong 2 WP:GNG? --Bejnar (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: How can you say that this article does not meet the criteria of GNG? If you have noticed the section People with similar surname in the article which fulfills the first criteria of General notability guideline which says "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. As well as genealogy.com is not a bogging site, its different think that some content cannot be taken from all the sources. I would also like to have a look of the book which you have found and the one which was taking about that it is a language may be this could be useful. I am curious to know that why people would like to use a language as their surname. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 20:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

genealogy.com is many things, in this case the citation provided is to a message posted by user Bilal Rathur on January 11, 2008 to the "Wain Family Genealogy Forum". That is not a reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What relation does People with similar surname have to the article topic? It does not discuss the caste, the citations do not even mention the caste. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - It is has been reduced to stub and even the referenced text have been removed by overzealous editors. Nestwiki (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nestwiki: Yes, they were overzealous, but WP:HEY does not apply because the sources were not good. One source from the British Raj with a single descriptive sentence: The Wanis are in a small way the chief traders and money-lenders, and in their latter capacity they have obtained a hold over much valuable land. former FN2 The only other source that mentions the Wani was the blog at genealogy.com. There were two sources that related to the OBC and NT listings but they didn't mention the Wani directly. The remaining four "sources" were bios of people with Wani as a last name. Nothing met WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - National Commission for Scheduled Castes, Govt. of India and Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment published a

50 pages report on the official website NIC, considering Wahi so called Vahi as ANUSUCHIT JATI VANI i.e. OBC http://ncsc.nic.in/files/ncsc/patrika/189.pdf CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 21:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the document is a journal entitled in English Scheduled Caste Speech, and so far as I can tell does not mention the Wani caste. --Bejnar (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just stubbed the article again. It consisted of unreliable sources from the Raj era, original research, synthesis and a useless article from The Times of India that was not only referring to a different community but also contradicted itself. I've left a page request for the remaining source and I'll see what I can dig up in the next day or so. - Sitush (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per WP:NPOV and of course WP:HEY when it is properly scoured and notable at least in India. Intellectual Bookworm (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Intellectual Bookworm: what on earth does NPOV have to do with it? And, for that matter, why are people going mad about this weird WP:HEY thing that I've never seen in any previous AfD in which I've participated. It is bizarre and seems designed primarily to please inclusionists by providing a way to keep pretty much everything. We need sources that discuss the community and those are what I - something of a caste specialist here - am trying to find. If you, me and everyone else fail to find such reliable sources then the article should go; if we do find some then HEY is irrelevant. I don't think it is even a policy and as such it probably isn't worth much at AfD. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, I've dug around both online and offline. As far as I can see, there are communities that include "Wani" in their name and their names may or may not be synonymous (this basically comes from the government caste lists, which are notoriously ambiguous and contradictory). Aside from those listings and some very poor Raj sources, I can find nothing but passing mentions of the community. Since GNG requires decent coverage in multiple reliable sources, this article fails the test. If at some point in the future this situation should change - perhaps, if an academic anthropologist takes an interest - then there is no problem with recreating the article. As said above, I don't really see the point of WP:HEY but the very fact that articles can be recreated if new information arises should cover it. - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the sources in the long version of the article (permalink), and they are extremely unclear. The only reference with (weak) information on the topic is the genealogy.com forum post which has correctly been removed because it does not satisfy WP:RS. AfD is pretty simple—there is no evidence that the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" so the article should be deleted until such sources are available. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I think we need to be very careful when it comes to British Raj sources, which were often distorted to provide cover for the ruling authorities of the time. I can find very little to support this article that isn't based upon that, especially the possibly contentious claim that they are originally of Hindu origin. I think the article needs to go because it doesn't meet the WP:GNG, and because of verifiability issues. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Templeogue. Davewild (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Pius X National School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does the phrase "absent a level of coverage not present here" actually mean, please? — O'Dea (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it is quite evident I would think. This doesn't even have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please do not delete until question denoted Question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scoil Lorcáin is resolved. — O'Dea (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need -- because one editor has just now discovered how primary school AfDs are generally handled ... for years now ... to put on hold the AfD process until the editor in question is satisfied with the practice. It has been going on for years now, involving a good number of editors -- it is in fact because of that already "resolved," though the editor may not approve of the process. He is of course free to seek, at OUTCOMES or elsewhere, to seek to change the process. Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epeefleche, you present yourself as one who knows about policy in this matter so please point me to the discussion of this policy. I want to see it. My questions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scoil Lorcáin remain unanswered. Another editor pointed out that these deletions are not based on policy or guidelines but on some "consensus". I simply want to see this alleged consensus, that is all. It is a reasonable request. After all, many articles are being swept away on the basis of it, it seems. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Templeogue per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 11:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Bancorp[edit]

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

Cannot find any evidence of notability, per WP:ORG. Biglulu (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found this, this, and this. --Jakob (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of coverage, for an in depth article see Kelley, Brian (1993). "Rebuilding rural America: the Southern Development Bancorporation". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 529: 113–127. doi:10.1177/0002716293529001011.. --Bejnar (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is rough (just added categories) but the underlying subject is notable. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the other comments here. CorporateM (Talk) 08:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 11:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MGM-Pathé Communications[edit]

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

According to WP:ORG, not a notable company. Biglulu (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, of which is was a short-lived incarnation, with no prejudice against re-creation, or Keep since there seem to be abundant sources. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite the sorry state of the current article, the short-lived entity MGM-Pathé Communications meets WP:GNG in spades. IE: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] and many more.[8][9][10] The current stub could be expanded and sourced or the information could be included and sourced in several different places. WP:NTEMP anyone? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or expand): Good research by MichaelQSchmidt. If someone wants to take it upon him/herself to make a proper stub out of the article, that seems fine. If not, the article should be redirected without any prejudice for an actual re-creation, as per Rich's reasoning. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent work by MichaelQSchmidt! Needless to say, the article should be kept now. Well referenced, obviously notable. Hint: @Biglulu If you happen to agree, maybe withdrawing the nomination would make sense? Just an idea. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 09:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it did not look notable but MichaelQSchmidt found a lot of sources. Shabratha (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ORG and per WP:NTEMP and per multiple topic sources suitable for building and sourcing an article on this company's rise and fall:LOTS of them. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The 8-day-old new 315 characters (51 words) stub that was nominated, has been 10x expanded and sourced per my own researches to become a decent 3224 characters (508 words) multiple sourced start class article ready for a DYK. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable company, observed by multiple .edu sources and been in news. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nominator, I do not know your level of WP:BEFORE prior to you bringing this article to AFD but, according to WP:ORG, this short-lived company is a notable topic. There is no shame is admitting your concerns were addressed and withdrawing before someone closes this early as a "keep" per WP:OUTCOMES or WP:SNOW. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of this information was present in the MGM article. I am still concerned that the story of this company (like many others) is not told clearly in terms of the predecessor and successor enterprises. That does not affect my preveious !vote of "redirect or keep". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC).

Thanks Rich. The topic of MGM-Pathé is certainly intertwined with those of MGM, UA, Cannon and others, and certainly Kirk Kerkorian was buying and selling MGM over and over again, and Giancarlo Parretti fell into legal issues with his own dealings... but despite that intertwining, when one does a search for MGM-Pathé, scads of significant coverage dealing with the facts of that company comes forth. So much about this ill-fated company would over burden the already overlarge article on MGM, and no matter its history being part of other organizations, WP:ORG is met. What surprised me is the nominator not finding any of the dozens of available sources and somehow implying that something passing WP:GNG failed WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rich That article is very big if anything from here is transferred it is going to be removed per WP:UNDUE. If not, it is going to take a long time. But first of all, this subject has been specifically covered by number of notable observers. So probably it is going to have its own article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be heading to "snow" territory. Our other concerns are important, but don't affect the outcome here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC).

Keep I agree that it is SNOW, but I don;t want to close it because I;ve dealt with it previously. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NTEMP stands here. Short lived . . . it still did live. It is a stepping stone in the path of information. Trackinfo (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

California spirituality[edit]

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

This appears to be a neologism; none of the cited sources show that there is a generally recognized movement called "California spirituality". This further appears to be the author's synthesis of existing research, in violation of WP:NOR. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References Existing Work Only - Multiple books have been published on the subject by reputable authors (such as Dr. Wade Clark Roof, the J.F. Rowny Professor of Religion and Society and director of the Walter H. Capps Center for the Study of Ethics, Religion, and Public Life at the University of California at Santa Barbara) over the last 15 years, including, but not limited to:

Extended content

1. Spiritual Marketplace: Baby Boomers and the Remaking of American Religion. By Wade Clark Roof. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999

2. Religion and Public Life in the Pacific Region: Fluid Identities (Religion by Region). Phillip E. Hammond, George Tanabe, Susan Frankiel, Douglas Firth Anderson, David Machacek, Edited Wade Clark Roof & Mark Silk. AltaMira Press, 2005, page 119 ("It is possible to gain some insight by turning to what may be the best snapshot of contemporary California spirituality available...")

3. THE VISIONARY STATE: A JOURNEY THROUGH CALIFORNIA'S SPIRITUAL LANDSCAPE. By Erik Davis (Photographs by Michael Rauner). Chronicle Books, June 2006

4. Gordon Kennedy: Children of the Sun: A Pictorial Anthology From Germany To California 1883–1949. Nivaria Press (1998), 192 pp., ISBN 0-9668898-0-0

Mentions of, and reference to, California Spirituality occurs in various places in the literary world & blogosphere, including, but not limited to the following essays, blogs, and websites :

Extended content

1. "Esoteric California: Visionary State at the Philosophical Research Society," narrated by Erik Davis, delivered to the Philosophical Research Society, March 15, 2009. http://www.techgnosis.com/chunkshow-single.php?chunk=chunkfrom-2009-04-21-1840-0.txt

2. "Erik Davis Speaks...Interview with Erik Davis," by Jon Hanna, Winter 2006, The Entheogen Review, https://www.erowid.org/culture/characters/davis_erik/davis_erik_interview1.shtml

3. "The Altered State: California's Spiritual Frontiers," a four-week seminar, Feb 17, 24 March 2, March 16, 2004. California Institute of Integral Studies, San Francisco.

4. "New Age Mush," by Charlotte Allen, First Things magazine, June 1992. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1992/06/002-new-age-mush

5. "Manly P. Hall and California Spirituality," Seminar deliver by The Gnostic Society, July 24, 2009. http://gnosis.org/gnostsoc/gnostsoc.htm

6. "Can Good Literature be Gamified? How do we extend our literary traditions into the Digital Age?" by George Davis, Psychology Today, September 15, 2013. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/modern-melting-pot/201309/can-good-literature-be-gamified

7. "PROFILE: JACK KORNFIELD, 'Wise Heart,'" Shambhala Sun magazine, November 2010.http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3599&Itemid=0

8. "Visionary State: California Spirituality," Seminar delivered at The Esalen Institute, May 12-14, 2006. http://www.esalen.org/sites/default/files/resource_attachments/2006_Jan.pdf

9. "The Democratic Personality," by Caleb Crain, The New Yorker magazine, published online January 8, 2014. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/01/more-egalitarian-than-thou.html

10. "Chasing the Divine: Huston Smith and the seekers of Trabuco Canyon," By Don Lattin, California magazine, Published by UC Berkeley, Spring 2011. http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/spring-2011-articles-faith/chasing-divine

RasBull (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay. Carrite (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - Not original work, please SEE REFERENCE SECTION OF ARTICLE. RasBull

Delete, original research and thesis. the article that needs to be written is Religion in California, which would be much greater than the scope of this essay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not original work, PLEASE SEE REFERENCE SECTION OF ARTICLE. RasBull

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) JayJay^{What did I do?} 02:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Scott & Second Wind[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 20:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND - "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." Sources to verify this nomination were easy to find. I added a some more stuff while I was at it. A search for sources should come before a deletion nomination. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. A Grammy nomination and sufficient coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Grammy nomination establishes at least a presumption of notability, and the unreasoned nomination provides no contrary analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I added the sources after the nomination... —Anne Delong (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much - withdrawn.--Laun chba ller 01:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia notability guideline: "nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy" --Jersey92 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SNOW. Grammy nomination along with Anne Delong's additions to the article demonstrate the subject meets WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 21:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Bruce[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BASIC. A Google did not yield enough to ring the notability bell. Nominating for deletion at the request of IP 184.147.140.76. However I concur and !vote to Delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. In my opinion should have been deleted without coming here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per A7. Getting published is not an assertion of notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:26, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NetTradeX[edit]

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

No indication of notability. every reference I could find is either directly from the company , or obvious PR, usually marked as such. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

a) This article is an analog of other articles about similar programs and platforms: WinChart, Qtstalker, TradeStation and etc. And it is better many of them (IMHO) - you can see it yourself.

b) NetTradeX supports synthetic financial instruments, for example. And it is marked in the article. Do others trading platforms exist that do it? To my mind, it's unique and notable feature.

c) Maybe it's really difficult to find references about NetTradeX without PR, because it is doing by our partners. Unless it: [11] or [12], but I'm not sure, that these links are without PR...

d) I would be grateful to you, if you helped me to improve the article. For instance, I can add internal links on others similar programs and platforms. Or delete that fragments, which you are considering as PR (but this artical has created as neutral). DVL333

Delete: I am unable to find significant (read:any) in depth coverage in reliable sources to show this product is notable per WP:GNG. BethNaught (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: A WP:SPA re-creation of an article deleted at AfD less than 3 months ago. No evidence of notability, whether as a firm or as its software, no reason to overturn previous decision. AllyD (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think, it's a mistake. It can't be a re-creation of a deleted article because an autor of this document (me) even haven't seen one. Moreover, I don't know who did it (although I saw that somebody had created previously article with a such name when I began to create this article). I'm sure, both articles are absolutely different. DVL333
Delete Per nom. and above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Libyan Arabic words and their Classical Arabic counterparts[edit]

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

Just a few examples of pronunciation differences. Duplicated in main article Libyan Arabic. Has not been significantly modified since creation. trespassers william (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is Delete. A list of words is a dictionary. WP is not a dictionary. Kitfoxxe (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Danny said, the list is already in Libyan Arabic, and it doesn't have sources to warrant a standalone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obviously borderline, and like with many borderline articles, I see no consensus here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert F. Gallun[edit]

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

He owned a house, he testified in court and he died. Nothing to indicate notability fails WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Recent additions have confirmed the notability of his business, but per WP:INHERIT, that does not make the owner of the business notable. John from Idegon (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Business meets WP:GNG owner does not. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 21:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The business is notable, and the founder of the company and its president and successive presidents who are related to the father are also notable. There is more than enough coverage to indicate so.

Additionally, this nomination is harassment. I have made reasonable contributions to the website regarding notable people that are significant to Milwaukee and the Midwest and the United States and your constant nagging is discouraging. I have no idea who you are or why you continue to follow me around. I don't understand your fascination with me and my contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilkweedPods (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted above comment to fall within AFD norms. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

Comment The efforts by other editors to help submissions meet Wikipedia standards is in no way intended as harassment. We appreciate efforts by you to help improve the encyclopedia, but those efforts should follow guidelines the community has set up in order to make the project as streamlined and painless as possible. I have left you a message with several useful resources to help improve this article and others, and as I mentioned on your talk page, I am more than happy to mentor you and guide you through the Wikipedia maze as it were. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks multiple reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason notability should be presumed in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sorry, MilkweedPods, this AfD is not harassment. I can see that you're a relatively new editor so you may not have realized that we use a technical definition of notability here on WP. It's not enough that a subject should seem notable, others have to have actually taken note and they have to do it in reliable sources. We don't have that here. Msnicki (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please define and quantify "multiple independent secondary sources." Also make sure you edit your wiki link stuff to specifically include that verbiage so as to never confuse anybody ever again. The entire world will then understand. "Notability" on wikipedia means "X" number of links from "X" number of "a certain kind of source" that you need to clearly define.

(Personal attack removed)

Personal attack removed.♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through all of it, and there was nothing to indicate that this person should not be considered notable. Except to a certain small number of people who have nothing better to do with their time than to be discouraging and that for some reason enjoy removing content.

Exactly how many do you want? Nowhere in your user generated guidelines of best practices is there a specifically indicated quantified amount of sources stated. Your technical definition of notability is user-generated.

I have made a considerable amount of effort to include extremely notable people from Wisconsin, less one article about a spouse which I really don't give a shit about at this point, and this site has done absolutely nothing to encourage me to continue. nothing.

The guy was the president of one of the largest leather manufacturers in the entire united states, if not the entire world in his time.

What more do you want? How many more references do I need to add?

I look forward to your answer, and I also look forward to your answer being immediately transferred/incorporated into your guidelines that you all love to cite so often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilkweedPods (talk • contribs)

Reformatted above comment to align with AFD formatting. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

Answer At Wikipedia we specifically look for reliable secondary sources. Generally, newspapers, major published works, academic journals, etc. This is done so the subject can be covered neutrally stictly based on verifiable facts written in another location.

As for the actual inclusion of a biographical article, the biographical standard for articles states:

The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.

The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.^[1]

What this means is that a certain level of notability has to be established before a subject is included. Not every local leader and/or minor company president gets an article just because of their position. If you have any further questions feel free to ask. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, everything you typed is just citing user-generated bullshit. There is no wikipedia "law" of requiring a significant award or having been written about by several independent biographers to be considered notable. You are linking to a wikipedia page for a wikiproject and are citing "tips". I'm not part of a "focused collaboration" nor do I have to be. Quite frankly, after everything I have experienced the last few days, I would never ever desire to be part of a "collaborative effort" if this is how you all interact.

The content I created isn't part of the wikiproject on autobiographies, and that doesn't make my content invalid. Long term users shouldn't go around bullying new users by nominating their content for deletion because they feel like it. Especially when the content is legitimate and there was no reason to assume bad faith on my part. Long term users nominating my content for deletion because they think my structure is disjointed, and assuming I have a language barrier is bizarre. The continued obsession over the content I have added here, is truly creepy. Again, the focus should be on encouraging people, not being discouraging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilkweedPods (talk • contribs) 05:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formatted above comment to align with AFD

Response The guidelines I have listed apply to all biographies not just autobiographies. Wikipedia has set policies for inclusion of content. The nominations for deletion have been in line with the deletion policy. I am happy to help you learn that and other policies and guidelines. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was the president of a major business. He also made significant contributions to the general development of Milwaukie and its environs. We have multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wow! thank you! finally! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MilkweedPods (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted above comment and signed. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀}

Keep He is detailed in the "Shoe and Leather Reporter, Volume 48", "History of Milwaukee, City and County, Volume 3", and "The Milwaukee Journal - Aug 27, 1942". That's 2 books and 1 major newspaper which is multiple reliable sources. He is notable as a junior partner and later President of a major tannery firm which was huge back in his day. Another component to his notability is his testimony and leadership to advance his community to village status. Advice to MilkweedPods: if you want to avoid deletion discussions and people watching your actions, then you need to find at least 3 very solid sources before you even start an article. Otherwise Wikipedia will be a stressful place for you. It's hard to be a new editor now compared to what it was when most of us started many years ago. Everyone else knows how the website runs and uses it against you. Having someone with lots of experience to help mentor you for the first few articles would be invaluable to you. Perhaps Milwaukeean User:Orangemike who's very strict and rigorous about sources and often nominates / comments to delete articles might be willing to help you?? I hope this advice helps. Royal broil 11:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for finding those sources, Royalbroil, but upon inspecting the two books at google books, there isn't enough there to be considered discussion in detail. Shoe & Leather just mentions he arrived from Europe. History of Milwaulkee has a few passing mentions of him and a somewhat detailed blurb on Albert H. Gallun. Couldn't access the newspaper article. So, sorry, but I still just don't see it. Notable business, perhaps some local notability, but not enough to warrant a bio here. John from Idegon (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and reluctant delete - unless you can find more substantial coverage of the younger A.F. Gallun. I think you'd be better off trying to expand and improve the presently sketchy article on the senior A.F., August F. Gallun, which is pretty minimal right now. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Royalbroil and John Pack Lambert. I think there's enough notability demonstrated in the article. He was notable enough regionally for UPI news wire notices to appear on page one of the Wisconsin State Journal and smaller papers throughout Wisconsin such as the Stevens Point Daily and Appleton Post Crescent, not paid obits, news wire reports. His obit was in the Milwaukee Sentinel with a photo on the page and also appeared in the Milwaukee Journal, two large papers in a major US city. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 21:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leadfinger[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NBAND. Not enough independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep RS are out there:

According to McFarlane:
1. Stewart "Leadfinger" Cunningham, was a member of Asteroid B-612 from 1994 to 1996, then he was in Challenger 7 during 1997, while continuing with Brother Brick (with two Tumbleweed alumni), which issued an album in 1999, A Portable Altamount. 1
2. Cunningham was still a member of Challenger 7 in 1998 and had been in Proton Energy Pills, Asteroid B-612, and Brother Brick. The latter also issued three singles.2
3. Proton Energy Pills formed in ca. 1989 with Cunningham; they became Tumbleweed sans Cunningham in October 1990.3
According to Holmgren: Tumbleweed contained three ex-Proton Energy Pills members and one future member of Brother Brick.4
According to APRA: Leadfinger has performed at least 64 works with the vast majority written by Stewart Cunningham, about 5 or so are co-written by Cunningham with band mates, and 2 or 3 are cover versions by other artists.5 Note: with the APRA ref you may have to undertake a search. If so, click on 'Search again' tab and at 'Performer:' enter Leadfinger. Then do the same for Proton Energy Pills, Brother Brick, and Challenger 7.
Leadfinger album/band reviews:
1. No Room at the Inn Sydney Morning Herald
2. "Tek and Leadfinger" The Age
3. No Room at the Inn themusic.com.au
4. "Deniz Tek and Leadfinger", No Room at the Inn TheDwarf
5. "Leadfinger Writing Real Songs About Life" The Illawara Mercury
6. "Leadfinger" ToneDeaf

The band/individual are notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 12:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further Edit acknowledgement

I don't have time to complete further addition of Reliable Sources and Notability to the article at the moment but I will commence asap. Thank you shaidar cuebiyar for your referencing work. I am obviously a Wiki 'newbie' but acknowledge the article in question needs further refinement and editing. Chris Troutman, I am working to improve independent reliable resources, I believe the subject is notable but not having been through this process previously I appreciate your patience and any advice as I work to resolve issues you raised. Soot68 (talk — Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shaidar. Album on notable label jumped out at me at first glance, for instance - David Gerard (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Shaidar cuebiyar's comments there are sufficient independent reliable references establishing notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mie Sonozaki[edit]

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

I cannot find a single reliable source that discusses this person. There are plenty of websites that list these roles, but IMDB and Anime News Network (with its user-submitted content no better than us) are not reliable sources. Most importantly, WP:ENT requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and there is nothing in these articles or their sources (well...) to suggest that these roles were significant--setting aside the fact that a lot of the credited productions may not be notable in the first place, even though they have a Wikipedia article (look at the sources for Diamond Daydreams). So, "significance" is not established and neither, of course, are the other two points, "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"; "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

This type of article is, of course, rampant in our project: many of those voice actor articles are nothing but lists (really, resumes). But that's a side note. This one, not notable--existence does not equate to notability. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Drmies. I searched 11 SERP pages, only found one fairly solid reference, and that wasn't an in-depth citation. Clearly she is a hard-working voice actress, long list of credits, just not much real media attention other than lists, or mentions that she did this role on this project, and so forth. Somewhat surprising, however, is she averages 35 pageviews per day, so what is the interest? Can only guess about that.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Undecided based on comments below; still would like to see somebody who can read Japanese and (hopefully) knows about this subject comment on this discussion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A search for the precise string brings 187,000 ghits. I'd rush to agree that the great majority of ghits are worthless; still, this is rather more than the couple of hundred that lots of people here get. If her page gets 35 pageviews per day, who knows ... maybe people into this kind of thing like her voice? ¶ No vote ("!vote") (yet) as I know nothing of voice acting and have no appetite for searching among what may or may not be references. ¶ I note that the reliably potty ja:Wikipedia gives her an article that specifies the type of blood that she has, and her height (important in recording one's voice?) to the nearest millimetre. -- Hoary (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If somebody who can read Japanese would care to look over that search string, to try to identify sources, and then pinpoint them with links here on this page, I'll reconsider.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Such information is freely given out by the individual or their agencies and typically given in any interview or coverage of them in Japanese media (and on some occasions in English language coverage) including their personal or agency websites. For some reason they have no problem giving out the month and day of birth, blood type and the "three sizes" but are oddly reluctant to give their age sometimes. It doesn't surprise me Ja.Wiki has this information, I'd be more surprised if it didn't.SephyTheThird (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Me too: ja:Wikipedia seems to contain megabytes of mindless credulity (whether or not in the service of poppycock). -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do wonder to which extent we are used as a combination fan site/resume deposit. But I've only had one cup of coffee this morning. Drmies (talk) 12:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try "List of Star Wars air, aquatic, and ground vehicles". -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being unable to read Japanese, I'm not much help... a cursory glance at the sheer number of hits for her name in Japanese lettering seems to give an indication there is probably something out there but google translate is a pain to use when I have no clue which pages to read. It takes long enough to sort through rubbish when looking for english references. What I found in english is this at AnimeNewsNetwork and this at Joystiq which notes she is the voice of Eve in the japanese translation of WALL-E. I wouldn't be surprised to find more in japanese sources. JTdale ^Talk 15:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:ENT. Anime news network is user edited HOWEVER the news sections are not and are edited by staff so those sections can be used as reliable sources. Given the ANN source though it mostly focuses about her divorce. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply would a roll in a major film as the official voice of the 2nd most important character in a major translation count towards ENT #1, i.e. playing EVE in WALL-E? JTdale ^Talk 07:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep per Calathan's argument below. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the article about her divorce on Anime News Network, Hitoshi Doi's seiyuu database lists a few interviews or articles about her in magazines like Newtype and Dengeki G's [13]. She seems to have been a part of the main cast of a few notable works such as Strike Witches, Sakura Wars: So Long, My Love, and Comic Party (Hitoshi Doi's database can be used to verify her role in some of these, since it is normally considered reliable, though I assume there must be official sites somewhere for those series that could also be used to verify the cast). She also seems to have a fan following based on the coverage vast number of Google hits someone mentions above, and the various events Hitoshi Doi's database lists (which occurred over a 15 year time period). I would say that she perhaps just barely meets WP:GNG (depending on what exactly the magazine coverage is), and also probably meets WP:ENT #1 and #2, which in total is enough to keep the article. Also, as a reply to Drmies initial deletion rationale, the coverage in the Diamond Daydreams article (reviews by two reliable sources and coverage by a third) seems sufficient to pass the notability guidelines. The other works I mentioned above also have articles with sufficient sources to pass the notability guidelines. I think your suggestion that the works she has appeared in are non-notable is clearly incorrect. Calathan (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I clicked on many of the links in the previous post; mostly, they were Wikipedia articles which did not mention her name. Wondering if there are specific links, to specific RS sources, even in Japanese (which we can look at roughly using the google translate feature)? That would be most helpful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the magazine articles listed on Hitoshi Doi's page aren't available online as far as I know. The Anime News Network news story about her divorce is at [14]. For the Wikipedia articles not always listing her name, that is because they have separate character pages (e.g., List of Strike Witches characters, List of Sakura Wars characters#New York Kagekidan (New York Combat Revue). Calathan (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Calathan. She passes WP:ENT easily with her notable roles. Dream Focus 15:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mecate (band)[edit]

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

No indication at all of notability, does not meet WP:BAND, no references since 2008. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. A Google search instantly found three articles from El Diario de Hoy (a high circulation national newspaper) ([15], [16], [17]), and Gbooks found Encyclopedia of Latin America Popular Music, Central America Newspak, ISLA, El Salvador in the Aftermath of Peace: Crime, Uncertainty, and the Transition to Democracy (covered over three pages), HighBeam has an article from the Chicago Sun-Times on the banned single. --Michig (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article is in an absolutely dreadful state at the moment, but, with effort, it could be cleaned up using the sources that Michig provided. Deletion is no substitute for a bit of elbow grease. CtP (t • c) 02:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Most google links appear to be wikipedia mirror sites. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones, though? None of the links provided above by Michig seem to be mirror sites to me. CtP (t • c) 16:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7. no valid claim to notability

Alex Munoz[edit]

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

PROD removed hence taking this AfD. There is no evidence whatsoever that he meets either the inclusion criteria for biographies in general or the inclusion criteria for creative professionals. All sources are self-written profiles of the subject, a guest blog post by the subject, and a YouTube video of him talking about himself, and I can find nothing better. Not that it has a direct bearing on whether or not it should be kept, but this has all the hallmarks of a "paid for" article from the same stable that brought us Matthew Knowles (actor), Barbara Amaya, Tejune Kang, and Ron Shimshilashvili (actor). – Voceditenore (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Considering that he has began taking photographs at the age of 6, he has not been able to gather enough media attention in 35 years. Not notable photographer. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Danskina[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. No references. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it for speedy delete as CSD G11 and CSD G12. BethNaught (talk) 17:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York Model Management[edit]

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

No indication of notability nor any independent reliable source in the article as it stands. Yes, I've just slimmed it down by reverting a number of COI edits by paid editor Trident13 (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#LA Models), but there weren't any independent sources before that either. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability or verifiable source is seen. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 09:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No in-depth coverage in independent sources, thus the company is not notable for an article at this time. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, and difficult to source, stub. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Axelle Despiegelaere[edit]

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

She was "discovered" at the world cup, signed a contract with L'Oreal and they ended it 3 days later. She's not notable. Not yet anyway. Redirect to 2014 FIFA World Cup or L'Oréal. Fails WP:NMODEL. Any sourecs about her are just about her signing a contract with L'Oreal. That's it, nothing about her, just the contract. I don't find that note worthy. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But passes WP:GNG which has primacy I believe? Certainly widespread, if misplaced in my belief, coverage. Perhaps she is not notable as a model, but as an internet viral phenomenon. Brigade Piron (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are other examples of "internet viral phenomenon" with their own Wikipedia article? LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her "fame" is a one-time event. WP is not a news agency or a newspaper specialized on magazine news. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She just got recruited with a contact. If this goes somewhere, she might eventually pass notability, but she does not at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her page should be deleted, she is not a Belgian model, she is just a student who got her picture in the media by chance, L'oreal stopped its contract with her before it even started. If every time someone goes viral they get a wikipedia page, it will end up full of people with their 15 minutes of fame and that kind of information is not relevant at all in my opinion. KenzaLynn (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Perhaps the incident can be a footnote in the 2014 World Cup article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article but don't remove content: I agree with the others this isn't notable enough. However, the information in this article shouldn't be deleted altogether either. It is quite useful content that should be included in another related article, perhaps 2014 FIFA World Cup. --Kimberlylambert (talk) 09:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I wouldn't be surprised to see her parlay this publicity into modeling work for other (lesser) companies, but as of right now, this person is just a student involved in a bit of one-time World Cup trivia. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 15:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She's beautiful, but not news worthy. Her contract was ended after 13 days. Though I do not agree it should have been ended, the fact reminds, it was ended. If she reappears in the media or on the world stage, then she might deserve a page. But not right now.Jonathon The Impaler (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY as an example of WP:BLP1E. --Jersey92 (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Brief contract and no evidence of any lasting notability. Hergilei (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point, clearly WP:1E. If she goes on to do more, an article can be warranted, but as of now, doesn't meet WP:NPEOPLE. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete have you SEEN the hits this article has gotten?? use the wikipedia article traffic counter - Axelle Despiegelaere has like one-million-percent more hits than 99 percent of all Wikipedia articles!! if people like this -and READ this-, what's the big deal?? what are you gonna do - tell people they SHOULDN'T read articles like this? you tell me how you're gonna put a stop to this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.58.81 (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — 96.231.58.81 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Come on, seriously? Use this to promote WP? This is just shameless self promotion, this girl is not encyclopedic material, is paparazzi magazine material. Gabriel A. Zorrilla (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 3-day long "contract" with L'Oreal terminated, the girl is no longer a model; could become a funny meme though, but those do fail WP:NOTABILITY. ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 22:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite huge pageview attention in July, maybe the article could be reinstated if she models for a firm that sells hunting apparel.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HTTPhotos[edit]

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

Non notable piece of software, with no detailed coverage in reliable sources beyond a c-net review. This must have been one of the first articles I passed through Articles for Creation, and looking back now, I've got no idea why I did. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ritchie333. The article has remained at stub status since creation. It has had a template / tag on it for two years. The article is not being maintained and services no purpose. I gently disagree about "notable" - this is the only free desktop photo gallery software listed on the 'comparison of photo gallry software' page. (I have no idea if my comment is in correct place, please refactor if it isn't 31.55.15.178 (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references; refs provided are to download sites which are not considered independent as they provide the software. A search found other download sites, but did not turn up any significant RS coverage apart from this (possibly RS) german magazine com-magazin.de review, which on its own is not sufficient to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: download sites' editors' reviews are not exactly independent, so they don't contribute to subject's notability. "com!" magazine, if it is RS at all, is obviously not sufficient. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The NPOV tag was set in July 2012 because "the referenced cnet article also reported problems with the installer, which were not referenced in the article". In July 2013, an edit was made to the article to include this issue but no reply was provided and NPOV tag remains there. Also an internet search with "httphotos" keyword shows many websites built with this tool which in my opinion is enough to make this tool notable. Here are some independent reviews:
- youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sya34vR4vf8
- Chapter 32 (Free web publishing software) from "Digital Photography for Next to Nothing" written by John Lewell
- reviewed by COM! magazine http://www.com-magazin.de/news/software/httphotos-3.0-erstellt-dynamische-galerien-220196.html
- reviewed by Computer Easy magazine http://www.computereasy.nl/tips-en-tools/internet/thumbnails-en-galerij-maken/3183/
- reviewed by CNET http://download.cnet.com/HTTPhotos/3000-13455_4-75126139.html
- reviewed Findmysoft http://httphotos.findmysoft.com/
- reviewed Nonags http://www.nonags.com/freeware-httphotos_4256.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 22:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources are unreliable. the COM! and Computer Easy reviews are the only real ones that carry any weight. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A source like CNET contains a publisher description but also an Editor (CNET staff) review. Could you please tell how such a review is Self Publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 20:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CNET source is okay, sorry, I assumed since I'd mentioned it at the top of the AfD I wasn't including it in my assessment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, CNET is not OK: it distributes this software, so it is nowhere close to being independent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment, because although CNET distributes any software under the sun, some random person can't just make up an editor review, so it comes with good standing. I wouldn't expect a non-independent source to say "The program doesn't come with much in the way of documentation". For me it falls down on not being particularly significant coverage, merely being a brief product description. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we say the CNET editor's review is "not being particularly significant coverage" then I would be curious to be shown a significant reference for, let's say, Picasa. Picasa is for sure a very well known application since Google acquisition but if you look at the wikipedia references on Picasa and you ignore all the references from google.com, then can you find something significant? In addition, I encourage the reading of CNET policy ^[2] were you can conclude that not just any software is published by CNET. CNET is independent on deciding if they publish or not the software. Then, not all software are reviewed and rated by CNET. For this reason, I don't understand why COM Magazin or Computer Easy would be more relevant than CNET, they are all different significant sources. Finally, if you run this query on google ^[3] you will verify that about 1,650,000 web pages have been built using the freeware HTTPhotos, which in my opinion is significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage for Picasa: PC World, PC Magazine, New York Times, Wired, et cetera, et cetera. Narrowing the search to the data Google acquired the service and rolled it out would provide several more in-depth stories. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage can be found on the web about Picasa, I was only surprised not to see any significant wikipedia references attached to the Picasa article. Two weights, two measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 09:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Of course CNET's editors' reviews are reliable sources. Still, they host a lot of software downloads, and their reviews are written to promote software they host, thus promoting services. The problem here is not with their bias, but with the fact that they host indiscriminate collection of software and review random pieces without making reusable notability assessment, which WP:GNG is all about. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNET do discriminate, please refer CNET policy. I also imagine it would be difficult to get an Hello world published on CNET. I also understand your concern on the fact that CNET also distributes the software but they would not distribute it if they believe the software will bring no attention. FromSpace (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything do discriminate somehow. And basically everything discriminates more then CNET. Basically, only software with no downloads and known malware can't make to CNET. So CNET is practically indiscriminate. And again, it offers downloads of software it reviews, which means it is not independent. Any of these is enough to disqualify CNET for WP:N use, regardless the fact that editor's reviews from CNET are absolutely OK for WP:V purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 18:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Not enough in the way of WP:RS to meet WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"in the way of" doesn't provide any precise arguments, could you please justify against WP:RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FromSpace (talk • contribs) 10:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're asking for. The applicable notability criterion at WP:NSOFT reads "The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field." That's not the case here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 10:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To sum-up current situation: The initial complaint was: "Non notable piece of software, with no detailed coverage in reliable sources beyond a c-net review". We are still discussing whether or not CNET is a reliable source (I believe it is because of initial CNET acceptance to publish and additional CNET review). I've pointed the following press sources: COM! - Das Computer Magazin, Computer Easy Magazine and I'm now adding this one Báo điện tử một thế giới. There is also a book mentioning the tool. There are some tutorials written by people from different countries (see article references). There is a significant usage of this tool (see google query) allowing people to make an independent photo gallery for free. If I check at Notability it says "Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction." I would say HTTPhotos is worthy of notice, especially when it is the only freeware desktop application in Comparison of photo gallery software. Now, it is a lot less popular as Google Picasa software, but I don't think notable means popular. FromSpace (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FromSpace:, I assume you've had a chance to read WP:NSOFT by now. Reliability isn't a binary characteristic: the less (potentially) controversial the claim, the weaker the source is allowed to be. CNet is perfectly reliable in establishing that the software exists, but it doesn't take much to get CNet to host your software. I'm not seeing any sources, though, that attest to the software's significance. I've never heard of this piece of software before, and I don't use photo software, so what source can you point me to that will reassure me that this this particular photo software stands out from the many others that have existed to the point where we can write a good article about it? The gold standard here is in-depth reviews. Tutorials, blog posts, and directory entries can all exist for non-notable software, so pointing out that they exist here doesn't help us in understanding what notability exists. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very inaccurate summary. All of the sources that were presented are either too short to demonstrate significant coverage, unreliable or not independent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nukkad. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nukkad characters[edit]

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

Non-notable list of fictional characters fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. I tried redirecting to the main article from where the content was copied and then removed, but a determined IP editor reverted the redirect. - Mr X 16:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Nukkad, which currently lacks any character list and is certainly short enough to incorporate this. Problem editors undoing that can be dealt with through normal channels. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nukkad as article fails GNG policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappu Guptah (talk • contribs) 09:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Pappu Guptah is a sock puppet of User:TekkenJinKazama, this article could be deleted or redirected as WP:G5. Given Jin's past history, if a redirect is created that it be protected for a fairly long period. Jin is a prolific sock master who does not respect consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that the article meets the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky)[edit]

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

Article lacks multiple, independent, reliable sources. It fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TM 15:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The notablity of this 120+ year old congregation, the only Orthodox congregation left in Kentucky, is established by the sources already present in the article. It is not a benefit to Wikipedia to engage in the erasure of content about significant and historic American Jewish institutions. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:N or more specifically WP:ORG. Being "the only" something in a state or "120 years old" are not sufficient. There is no shortcut to notability for any particular religious faith. Edison (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep ~~and Improve~~. Being the only orthodox synagogue in the state, especially given its age, makes it notable enough. Of course, the article needs to back that up with a specific inline citation. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: When I say "specific", I mean that we need to know on what pages (and other appropriate related details) of the referenced encyclopedia does one find the information. It also would be good to have a much more recent source to add as a second reference. Finally, these refs need to be inline citations next to the initial claim in the lead. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dispute your claim that being "the only" something in some geographic region, or that merely being modestly "old" (a hundred and something years) grants inherent notability. Please cite the policy or guideline. Otherwise the administrator closing this AFD should disregard that Keep argument and any similar ones as being mere "ILIKEIT" arguments. Edison (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I don't find this comment to be constructive. Secondly, I think I made it clear (given all that I say past the first sentence) that this aspect, if backed up well by secondary sources, is what assures notability, not the naked fact. My full statement next to my vote corresponds to the notability guideline. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed @Stevietheman: because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Also, on WP there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the subjective importance essay says. IZAK (talk) 06:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. I expanded the content with reliable sources and formatted the unclear refs. Yoninah (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this is WP:N and the article has many WP:V & WP:RS to prove it. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Nominator, User Namiba (talk · contribs) aka "TM", seems to have started an arbitrary process of eliminating articles about Orthodox Judaism synagogues from Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States, he is requested to stop this process of mass nominations for deletions without further discussions and requests for improvement of the articles. So far he has nominated for deletion these articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) that looks like its heading for mass deletions in this area. The nominator is requested to consider WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE and to please start a discussion or a WP:RFC if he feels such articles are not up to snuff at a venue of his choosing, or at WP:TALKJUDAISM that would make the most sense. Quite frankly this is not the best time to start a move to delete any synagogue articles given that the current Israel-Gaza conflict is now so hot that it is spilling over into attacks on synagogues in France, see Protesters scuffle with police at Paris synagogues (AP, July 13, 2014), and the problem is growing, so it behooves any editor undertaking such deletions to proceed with great care in order to avoid any semblance of impropriety until the temperature surrounding the role and place of synagogues as current flashpoints of conflict stops. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment: An RfC that concerns this AfD has been opened. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Community input has been requested, see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Trying to avoid WP:WAR over spate of AfDs and PRODs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Sources added since the nomination demonstrate notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The only orthodox congregation in the 28th most populous city in the United States? Obviously notable – if there isn't a guideline that makes this clear, there should be. Being around for 120 years, half the history of the country, also seems notable on its face. How many other institutions can make this claim? Additionally, and unsurprisingly, sources have now been found. (edited) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Midwestern US city synagogue with a history of over 120 years. This is not common, and is enough distinction to justify an article. (I am not certain of the general question of whether they all are.) DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Credible claim of notability backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When Will My Life Begin?[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article does not assert its independent notability. The mere fact of being a Disney song is not sufficient. Was not released as a single. No thematic info, composers' notes, sales info, awards, extremely limited reception. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator: Potential future article beats actual current article every time. These songs from musicals may not have been released as singles, but have been extensively analysed and there is a wealth of information about their context within the movie. Looking for sources will demonstrate its notability.--Coin945 (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independently notable. Basically sourced to blogs and film reviews. I don't see anything obvious on Google. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has been improved since vote. In response to your critique, I went ahead and sourced lots of information on the song's production, and added a book source. Again, this doesn't cover every single source available, but it is certainly more than "blogs and film reviews" and demonstrates the song's notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coin945 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 July 2014
Keep. The article has been expanded considerably since AfD nomination, and I'm curious to see what would come up eventually. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 10:42, 8 July 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, Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Quenhitran. Reviewed article in time since AfD nomination, and there's been significant expansion. Notability appears to be established now. --McDoob AU93 16:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated above. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 16:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC) struck duplicate !vote -- RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The creator has established notability for the article. No matter what'd be its eventual quality, it should not be deleted.Forbidden User (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, it has many citations, but some of them are to unreliable sources, and most of the rest of film reviews. WP:NSONGS says: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." I think film reviews are pretty much the same thing. We're not counting how many times the song gets mentioned, we're looking for significant coverage. It looks like I'm going to get overruled by sheer numbers here, but these are not policy-based votes, and they run directly counter to established notability guidelines. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with NinjaRobotPirate. First, the song, while very nice, is not notable in and of itself. The only really notable song from Tangled is "I See The Light." Second, only three of the sources cited appear to pass WP:RS at first glance. --Coolcaesar (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because "I See The Light" is "really notable", it doesn't mean this song isn't still notable at all. The former song is simply *more* notable.--Coin945 (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This song in the Rapunzel template[edit]

In other (but related) news, I've been trying to add these songs from Tangled to Template:Rapunzel, but every time I do, they get deleted. I had the impression that when a franchise offshoot didn't have its own template (Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera etc.), they were merged with the template about the original property. But despite other parts of the Tangled franchise being in the Rapunzel template, the songs keep getting deleted. Now that I know the article is being kept, I want to bring up this discussion. Am I in the right or in the wrong?--Coin945 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization Fanatics Center[edit]

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

No different from other video game fan forums per WP:CRUFT. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 22:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For what it's worth, this is widely acknowledged as the biggest and most influential Civilization fansite. That's about all I got, though. I don't see anything more than trivial mentions in reliable sources. Not sure the site's awards are notable in any way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any awards won by the site, or even trivial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Links might be useful, for others to consider them. ––Agyle (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found no coverage in a reliable source on which to base notability claim per WP:GNG, let alone significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. It's won no major awards or met other website-specific criteria described in WP:WEB to suggest notability. Individual forum posts have been referenced in a few books/papers, but these aren't sufficient for a presumption of notability. The previous AfD was closed incorrectly, in my opinion: the arguments for deletion cited policy, the arguments for keep essentially boiled down to "it's popular" with no sources cited or indication why that should be sufficient; while it's technically correct that a "consensus" wasn't reached, the closer should have considered the strength of the arguments, not just a vote count. One respondant in the 2006 AfD suggested that the game publisher's link to the fan site conferred a quasi-official status, which I'd dispute, and in the context of an AfD, point out that notability is not inherited from sites that link to a site.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for insufficient amount of reliable sources. Alexius08 (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trivial mentions come from doing a WP:VG/RS custom Google search. It gets quoted every now and then for news about Civilization. I like it, but I guess there's really no other way to vote but to delete. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 11:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG without multiple, reliable in-depth sources. TM 15:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable: a historically influential congregation well documented in reliable sources now added to the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed @Arxiloxos: the key word being "congregation" because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Also, on WP there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the subjective importance essay says. IZAK (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article has more than sufficient WP:V & WP:RS that make it WP:N. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Nominator, User Namiba (talk · contribs) aka "TM", seems to have started an arbitrary process of eliminating articles about Orthodox Judaism synagogues from Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States, he is requested to stop this process of mass nominations for deletions without further discussions and requests for improvement of the articles. So far he has nominated for deletion these articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel (2nd nomination) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) that looks like its heading for mass deletions in this area. The nominator is requested to consider WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE and to please start a discussion or a WP:RFC if he feels such articles are not up to snuff at a venue of his choosing, or at WP:TALKJUDAISM that would make the most sense. Quite frankly this is not the best time to start a move to delete any synagogue articles given that the current Israel-Gaza conflict is now so hot that it is spilling over into attacks on synagogues in France, see Protesters scuffle with police at Paris synagogues (AP, July 13, 2014), and the problem is growing, so it behooves any editor undertaking such deletions to proceed with great care in order to avoid any semblance of impropriety until the temperature surrounding the role and place of synagogues as current flashpoints of conflict stops. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment: An RfC that concerns this AfD has been opened. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Community input has been requested, see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Trying to avoid WP:WAR over spate of AfDs and PRODs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I don't see any problems with the nomination, and thanks to Arxiloxos we now have a much better article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The material in the article is now sufficient. It might be good to have one on the rabbi also. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources in the article satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to Arxiloxos, the article shows reliable sources, verifiability, and notability. Yoninah (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gene Keady. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Keady coaching tree[edit]

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

This list fails WP:GNG. It also violates WP:LISTN since this coaching tree as a group has not been written about. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Uproot and transplant tree to Gene Keady. It is talked about a little bit in Sports Illustrated ("And his coaching tree is one of the farthest-reaching in the sport -- 10 of his former assistants and players now have head coaching positions, including seven in Division I."), The News-Gazette, and IndyStar, and the coaches are listed in the Purdue basketball official site. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I thank Clarityfiend for providing clarity above and listing the best sources for this article. At the heart of this matter is whether "Gene Keady coaching tree" is notable; not Gene Cready, and not the individual members of the "tree." Following the general notability guidelines per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG, that requires significant coverage of the "coaching tree" in multiple reliable sources as described in WP:RS. For purposes of establishing notability the sources must also be independent of the subject, which eliminates the Purdue basketball website. The two best articles (Indianapolis Star & Sports Illustrated) listed by Clarityfiend are about Keady and his current job, with only incidental mentions of his coaching tree. The only article directly on point (News-Gazette) is a smalltown paper in east central Illinois. That's one reliable source in a small market with significant coverage; that's not a strong basis of notability under WP:GNG. There may be other coaching tree articles worth saving (Bobby Knight, anyone?), but this is not it. A simple list of the coaches in the tree can be incorporated into the Gene Keady article. Otherwise, delete. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first option sounds reasonable. I'm changing my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with uprooting the tree and moving it to the main entry on Gene Keady. Similarly notable coaching trees for other hall of fame college basketball coaches (Dean Smith, Rick Pitino), as well as impressive coaching trees in other sports (Bill Walsh) appear to be included in the main entries on the individuals rather than as separate entries. gdog13cavs (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most coaching trees are incorporated within the parent article with good reason: like this one, they cannot survive the test of the applicable notability guidelines for a stand-alone article per WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. This list could be cut by 80% or more, with a bare list of names and current positions held incorporated into a single section of relatively small size within the parent article. Nothing hard about it. Accordingly, I have changed my vote above to "merge" to accommodate the "uproot and transplant" sentiment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topolism[edit]

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

I was unable to find any sources for this topic, and the user name of the primary author leads me to believe this may be WP:OR, but I am not certain. Frietjes (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no secondary sources provided to show notability. Also if this is the artistic technique of one person it really should be covered in that person's article (which hasn't been written yet) to avoid duplication. Borock (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no showing of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SiPaaS[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable product. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I can confirm that this is a trademark of VeriSilicon Holdings Co., Ltd., but beyond that I'm not seeing anything in the way of WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's simply an attempt at SEO for VeriSilicon Holdings. Note the recent speedy deletion of VeriSilicon Holdings Co., Ltd. (July 9) immediately followed by the creation VeriSilicon and then two days later SiPaaS. I've looked briefly at the company article. In my experience, virtually every article on WP about a company that not publicly traded on a major stock exchange and which has not received extensive in-depth coverage in the mainstream press or highly regarded financial publications, e.g. Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, was written either by a company employee or by a paid editor, and will show all the hallmarks of it, as that one does. Nothing but press releases cited as sources and reference "padding" with articles that either do not mention the company at all, mention it it only in passing, or are PR planted interviews. Voceditenore (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a thoroughly non-notable product. Perhaps if it catches on and becomes a success the article can be restored, but for now it doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even ignoring the blatant !vote stuffing and SPA !votes, there are sufficient cogent arguments from long-time AfD participants to call this a clear keep consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel[edit]

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

This article, by its very name and content is a WP:POVFORK of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel - it is a list dedicated only to casualties of one side, and attacks by the other side, without the corresponding casualties/attacks of the other side. Were we to include the missing content , it would be a copy of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel AlanS (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons given above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. AlanS (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 09:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 09:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a useful tool when you try to study Hamas terror evolving from "traditional" terror attacks to something different. Perhaps a list of Hamas rocket attacks would be more accurate for it is difficult to define "Palestinian" as a unified group regarding the conflict between Israel and palestinians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juhoeerikki (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see the logic for deleting List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel (and replacing with a redirect) since all the links from List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel are also included in Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. But that isn't an argument for deleting the individual articles List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel, 2001: Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel presents summary-style information with links to more detailed articles, so I don't see how the more detailed articles can be considered a POV fork.

Lists of casualties from one side are legitimate: there is coverage of Palestinian casualties from the Arab-Israeli conflict in other places on Wikipedia, and even if there wasn't, Wikipedia is a work in progress and we don't delete one article just because nobody's yet written another complementary article. POV issues can almost always be fixed by editing and therefore are not cause for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a POVfork. Brad Dyer (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keepNo more a POV fork than everything else on the subject. I try to avoid this topic because of the difficulties of true nPOV writing, but I think trying to cover a list of attack by both sides in the same article while in theory desirable, would create even greater practical difficulties in fair proportionate editing. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This looks like a legitimate topic for one or more lists. The fact that it covers only the aggressions of one side and their resulting casualties is not a POV issue. The Arab-Israeli situation is complex and there are plenty of articles with a similar focus on alleged aggressions by Israel. That said I would suggest adding links to some of those articles in order to provide a quick reference for those seeking some subject balance. Additionally I concur with the points raised by Colapeninsula. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Putting something up for AfD simply because it is a subject of world interest for the moment is not the way to do it. Wikipedia should not be one-sided but cover a broad spectra of this conflict.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the same information will be available elsewhere with a redirect.. It's being a very singular list in no way keeps anyone else from making a similarly singular list of which they approve. FlaviaR (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)FlaviaR[reply]
Keep. Per above Keeps. If the current trend continues, this would be a good SNOW candidate. Epeefleche (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I think the issue here is that we need to take a balanced coherent approach. As shown by the nominator we have many one sided articles that document only Palestinian violence. Recently someone created an article List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge to document Israeli violence during its current attack on Gaza. That article is nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge). It can't be right that we can have numerous articles documenting Palestinian only violence but not a single one that documents only Israeli violence. Dlv999 (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Additionally the articles are a WP:FORK of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. AlanS (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The title explains the content exactly. If the content is substantively correct, I am interested in it. No one else should be able to decide for me what information I get to see, not I for them.Mary-Anne Sillamaa (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Resolve any POV concerns by adding articles to represent 'List of Israeli airstrikes on Palastine' or somesuch, rather than deleting the content here.--Flibble (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed the issue is that one single article was created to document Israeli attacks on Palestinians and it is slated for deletion. So the issue is whether it is legitimate to have a local consensus that prohibits any article documenting Israeli attacks on Palestinians but at the same time have a local consensus that allows numerous articles documenting Palestinian attacks on Israelis. Dlv999 (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:POVFORK advises: "do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." This article falls far short of being an "extreme case of persistent disruptive editing". Israelgale (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But at the same time I agree with Dlv999's remarks, because the absurdly POV nomination of List of Israeli strikes and Palestinian casualties in Operation Protective Edge for deletion has to be considered here as well. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The attacks are real; there is much interest. "Balanced" has come to mean "Ignore the other side because I disagree with or dislike the facts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sequoia e (talk • contribs) 14:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was extremely helpful. Alan s seems to be biased and i believe he should be watched to make sure he does not attempt to silence the suffering of innocents on both sides by POV based beliefs. (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTNEWS. The rocket attacks on Israel are notable, do we need a list of every single attack though? No, the main article pretty much sums up the attacks and people killed. I find this list un-encyclopedic just as a list of rocket attacks by Israel would be, its overkill in terms of details, and the attacks have become routine news. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone may want to look into some of the accounts here, there are more than one that have only one edit to Wikipedia in the form of a vote here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar lists exist for other conflicts as well. I don't think this is POV (since it's a neutral listing of occured events), esp. since a complementary list can be easily created. -- Phiarc (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a concise listing of reliably-sourced events. Andrew³²⁷ 20:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a data driven article, not political. I see no reason why a similar article cannot be created to track Israeli attacks on Gaza.Jeff^{(talk) 21:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)}[reply]
Keep. Articles like this which are encyclopedic-bordering-on-the-dull very useful for my work as a journalist. Now to add my Keep vote for the parallel article documenting Palestinian casualties. Yudel (talk) 16:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious keep, per all arguments mentioned above (Yudel, JeffMaslan, Andrewman327, Phiarc, Palestinewillbefree, Sequoia). --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since the articles have well-sourced pertinent contents. E3 (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it's all true and newsworthy and historical. Other events can have other pages. shf1234 (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid list. --cyclopia ^speak! 22:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Invalid deletion rationale. A list of attacks of one side is not a POV fork of the topic of attacks, and no policy demands that a list of attacks during a conflict must contain attack from both sides in the same attacks. No other policy or guideline issues worth considering for deletion in the article: notable, sourced etc. --cyclopia ^speak! 22:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as each article is backed up by thorough WP:V & WP:RS. Note that WP:NOTPAPER and that due to the seriousness of these events and that they are given high priority in the media and in international relations there is therefore a constant outflow of reliable and noteworthy information that is an important encyclopedic record. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the facts are accurate, wikipedia is an encyclopedia and such articles are part of encyclopedic knowledge. --Yoavd (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel and all related articles by year, which are completely sourced and verified. These articles are not POV forks but valid Content forks. Yoninah (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet rename - Sublists with notable events, well sourced, and a correct name. The parent list is not called rocket and mortar attacks. These are close enough to be bundled yet distinct enough to necessitate separate mention in the title. gidonb (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Lists of Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel", because it is a list of lists. Debresser (talk) 13:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Debresser above.Smeat75 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The facts in these articles is well sourced and is given in a useful manner. Deletion of encyclopedic knowledge in the form of these articles is detrimental to the wikipedia goals in my opinion. Yammiyammi (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verified facts on a notable target. There may need to be another list of Israeli attacks on Gaza, but that is a separate issue.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This constitutes notable (per WP:N), verifiable (per WP:RS and WP:V) information of encyclopedic record as per WP policy, specifically WP:NOT. yonkeltron (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. I was looking for this, but I'm also looking for the exact number of Iraeli airstrikes in the last days..--Neo139 (talk) 04:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Useful, well-organized page for information access. -- Deborahjay (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep–article appears to be a valid list, well-sourced, and with notability demonstrated for most/all of the items in the list. If individual statements need more support, it would be best to just tag them inline with {{citation needed}} or other appropriate inline article cleanup tag. N2e (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Rename article to "Lists...." and also keep the other articles as well. Frmorrison (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm spitting into the wind because Wikipedia will never delete anything that favors Israelis over Palestinians regardless of policy compliance, but delete. The many, many users arguing to keep on the basis that all of these attacks verifiably happened either don't know or don't care that that isn't how Wikipedia works at all, and I hope that the closing admin will weigh them for what they're worth. Wikipedia guidelines specifically point out, in fact, that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and requires that data be put in context. This means that a bare timeline of every single attack is not compliant and doesn't serve Wikipedia's goals of being useful to the reader. The way to handle this sort of thing is to write about ground offensives prompted by X number of recent rocket attacks or rocket attacks as part of Hamas's pattern or whatever. Not daily news-cycle stuff. If it means that there's a rocket that doesn't get documented on Wikipedia, well, that's the price we pay for having an encyclopedia that runs on rules instead of political bias. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a unique and valuable tool to understanding what is going on. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per yonkeltron. -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discovergreece.com[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable website. The sources are mostly trivial and do not raise the subject to the notability threshold required by WP:WEBCRIT. A couple of editors, including myself, have tried to redirect this page to the company article but have been repeatedly reverted. I'm proposing deletion or consensus to redirect. Based on the low page view traffic, deletion would seem to an appropriate outcome. - Mr X 13:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It also includes inappropriate external links (facebook) and reads as a promotional piece or an advertisement. That could just be how I'm reading it, though. Definitely redirect or delete. Abroham1024 (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed them; that's easy to fix, and things that are fixable are not grounds for deletion (see WP:BEFORE). However, lack of notability, which is mentioned initially, is certainly a good reason. ––Agyle (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Abroham, the tone of a piece is almost always not a cause for deletion — it is something "fixable through the normal editorial process." What matters is whether there are sufficient independently published sources extant (not necessarily included in the piece at this time) to allow the writing of an encyclopedic article with verifiable content. You are doing the right thing by commenting rather than asserting Keep/Delete until you better learn the way AfD works, excellent job going that route! best, —Tim. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick googling turned up significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, meeting the presumption of notability standards explained in WP:N. While it's not as notable as many sites with grassroots popularity, it is of great importance to a lot of companies in the travel and advertising industries, which is reflected in the news sources that serve those industries. While the sources are not currently cited in the article, that's an issue of editing and improving the article, and is not necessary to establish the notability of a topic (the AfD guidelines at WP:BEFORE say that if an article's problems can be improved through normal editing, it's not a candidate for deletion). Some sources I found:

"DiscoverGreece.com New Travel Planning Website Launches". Luxury Travel Magazine. 2014-03-18.
Christina, Poutetsi (2014-02-11). "Στον «αέρα» το www.discovergreece.com". TO BHMA (in Greek).
"Η Κάλυμνος στους προτεινόμενους τουριστικούς προορισμούς από το discovergreece.com". Kalymnos-news.gr. 2014-06-18. A couple paragraphs on the website in general, and a few more about Discover Greece's coverage of the island of Kalymnos (the site emphasizes a new tourist product/destination every day).
Primke, Götz A. (2014-03-04). "Griechenland: Full of unique travel experiences – Webseite discovergreece.com gestartet". Le Gourmand (in German).
"Marketing Greece presents the Greek Tourism Product and "discovergreece.com" at ITB 2014". Travelling News. 2014-03-05. Just two paragraphs, plus a transcript of a speech about the website by the president of the Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises.
"Συμμετοχή των σχολών στην προώθηση του Ελληνικού τουρισμού μέσω του portal discovergreece.com". Isthmos.gr (in Greek). 2014-06-19.
Ρόκου (Rokos), Τατιάνα (Tatiana) (2014-02-12). "Παγκόσμια παρουσίαση του discovergreece.com από τη Marketing Greece". Travel Daily News – Greece & Cyprus (in Greek).
"Σε τρεις νέες γλώσσες το Discovergreece.com". Advertising.gr (in Greek). 2014-04-17. Short article on the addition of Russian, German, and French language support (it launched in just English and Greek).
McGonagle, Katie (2013-11-04). "WTM 2013: Marketing Greece aims to recover share with 'hidden gems' website". Travel Weekly. Only a paragraph or so on coverage on the website, before it launched, but article is about the site's creator, Marketing Greece, so may have useful background info.
"Marketing Greece: Global launch of www.discovergreece.com" (Press release). Association of Greek Tourism Enterprises. 2014-02-12. Just a press release, not indicative of notability.

Agyle (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the evidence of this site being substantially covered by multiple, independently-publshed sources provided above by Agyle. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G12 by Jimfbleak. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC) (non-admin deletion)[reply]

Grief Syndrome[edit]

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

Unremarkable doujin (fan-made) video game. Author removed PROD. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:23, 11 July 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 July 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio of this wiki, among other sites. I tagged it for speedy deletion as such.—LucasThoms 21:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sho Shallow (rapper)[edit]

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

The article is too promotional in nature. It claims that this artist is "one of the UK's most popular independent rap artists", and that he "have stamped their mark on the UK rap scene and are expected to reach great heights in their respectful careers", without any sources. Only two sources that are provided do not provide wp:significant coverage. Actually., they do not provide any coverage at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as not-notable musician effectively unreferenced, no claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article's current references are too thin to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, and I am unable to find coverage elsewhere to establish that this person meets those guidelines. Gongshow talk 16:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He may make it big at some point, but he has not yet done so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ard Adz (rapper)[edit]

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

The article is too promotional in nature. It claims that this artist's songs are "an instant hit", and that hi band is "without question one of the most popular rap groups of their era", without any sources. Only two sources that are provided do not provide wp:significant coverage. Actually., they do not provide any coverage at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too soon for this artist to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO; the article's current references don't do the trick and there does not appear to be sufficient coverage elsewhere at this time. Gongshow talk 16:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This line from the article sums it up " and are seen as 2 young rappers with a lot of potential." The subject may actually show his potential and make it big, but he has not yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Windows XP. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows NT 5.1[edit]

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

Delete per that Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs is an edition of Windows XP, we should also not put down stuff like Windows Embedded Industry on the page either, simply because it is also version 5.1 and an edition of XP The ChampionMan 1234 07:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows XP. Hyponymy should not be confused with ambiguity. More than one edition of Windows XP has its own articles. Codename Lisa (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windows XP. Considering that Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs is an edition of Windows XP, the page should be redirected to Windows XP. Windows XP could have a section added to cover this edition if deemed necessary. This would make the information more discoverable. Ultimatemythbuster (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windows XP per Ultimatemythbuster. I don't see a valid deletion rationale. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sub Assistant Community Medical Officer[edit]

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

Article is about an assistant position to actual physicians in one country, one source doesn't verify the notability of the position nor reference it at all. Article/Stub fails WP:GNG profoundly. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for every obscure job title in the world. Brought to you by the Third Assistant to the Provisional Adviser to the Deputy Director of Wikipedia Deletions. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Neutral made some improvements with the article none of which address notablity. If kept, should be expanded to Community Medical Officers in general, which are notable. (But, that article could just as easily be recreated.) RevelationDirect (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable position and an unlikely search term. I suppose we could merge/redirect to Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council, but job titles are not currently mentioned at that article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ciiva (company)[edit]

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

Not notable. A mix of promotion and deception. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the AFD here since it was blanked for some unknown reason. –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Same editor also blanked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toradex, a business they are promoting with their main edits. Xe also removed the advert maintenance tag from this article. Clearly here to promote. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does he really think blanking will achieve anything ? ... Well thank god he's blocked I suppose. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That one account only. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. A bunch of links to download sites don't count and neither does the anonymous "review". Msnicki (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a well known and useful tool for electronics engineers. I removed the links from download sites and added more trusted secondary sources including notable Red Herring (magazine) for reference.--Lemanlake (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC) — Lemanlake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't think it is well-known and if it were, there'd be some evidence. There isn't any. I've looked at your new sources and they're all at least as worthless as the download sites. The startup.ch and ecnmag.com pages are just directory-style listings of basic information about the company likely supplied by the company itself. The redherring.com page is even less helpful: It's just the company name, country and sector on long mishmash list of unrelated companies. Msnicki (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised that you have never heard of redherring.com, many today's giant tech firms made their debut on Red Herring Top 100 technology awards. --Lemanlake (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. Of course I've heard of redherring.com. I'm saying that particular page on redherring is worthless and I told you why. Too bad you've never heard of what it takes to make a reliable independent secondary source. Msnicki (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. A one-line listing as one of 100 finalists for an award is not significant coverage, and a search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Insufficient WP:RS to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Leibsohn[edit]

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

No assertion of notability; only one reference in entire article for one sentence. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page. He has a large following as a radio host and an author--I'd keep it.Political news and views (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's got a show and he's a co-author--evidence of importance is not provided. 207.157.121.52 (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 11:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angus MacLane[edit]

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

No significant coverage, more seems to be like a vanity article. Google search doesn't turn out anything significant. Ireneshih (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 06:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:NRVE. While not over-sourced, this article IS sourced and, now sourced within its current content, it seems this individual has won two Annie Awards.[18] That would seem to be something significant that could have been found through a little research. Notability is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree that WP:GNG is now met as well. Nominator, there is no shame in a withdrawal... specially as your nomination contentions were so easily proven incorrect. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep meets WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Don't think he meets the GNG, but he meets WP:CREATIVE. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Tiferes Yisroel[edit]

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

No claims to notability or independent sources. TM 02:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in independent sources beyond passing mentions; nor do I expect any, as a neo-Hasidic shtiebel is quite WP:ROUTINE. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this is a unique WP:N Hasidic Orthodox synagogue located in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, a city not noted for its Hasidic presence so this makes this synagogue even more noteworthy in that context. This article survived an AfD in 2007 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Tiferes Yisroel and has withstood the test of time, so it is very surprising that the nominator has nominated not just this synagogue but another one at the same time as well for "deletion", see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem. There are many things that make this a keep, starting with two recent additions in it: 1 "In 2011 the shul [synagogue] celebrated its 25th year. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore recognized this milestone by proclaiming March 13, 2011, Rabbi Menachem Goldberger Day in recognition of his service to the Baltimore community." 2 In 2013-2014 Tiferes Yisroel became apparently the only American Jewish institution to accept bitcoin for dues, donations, and other payments. The congregation stopped accepting bitcoin after the collapse of the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange."Bitcoin Bites the Dust at Baltimore Shul After MtGox Goes Bust" (from The Jewish Daily Forward, March 11, 2014.) The nominator should withdraw this ill-advised nominations as soon as possible. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wiki is not a catalog or directory of synagogues- NN. In addition, there seems to be Original Research in the process of arguing for keep.--Jayrav (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've just read one source. The Forward article. That is certainly an RS. And the article is certainly more than a passing mention of the synagogue. None of the delete !votes seem to have considered it, as they all ignore it or claim that no such article exists or talk solely about directories. Did nom surface it and review it in his wp:before search -- his nomination sounds like he was focusing only on what appeared in the article itself, though I could be mistaken. Did the editors read it in forming their !votes? Epeefleche (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed @Epeefleche: note that the key word "Congregation" because this article (and similar ones) are about congregations, not just the buildings in which they worship. Also, on WP there are general consensuses relating to deletion that aren't formally codified in the deletion guidelines; for example, there is apparently some long-standing consensus that every single high school on the planet is notable, regardless of age, size of student body, availability of reliable secondary sources, etc. Along those lines, there appears to be a general consensus that significant age does impart at least some degree of notability to a synagogue, despite what the subjective importance essay says. IZAK (talk) 06:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N. I just expanded the article with reliable sources. The synagogue is a noteworthy institution in Baltimore and has received quite a few mentions outside Maryland. Yoninah (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Nominator, User Namiba (talk · contribs) aka "TM", seems to have started an arbitrary process of eliminating articles about Orthodox Judaism synagogues from Category:Orthodox synagogues in the United States, he is requested to stop this process of mass nominations for deletions without further discussions and requests for improvement of the articles. So far he has nominated for deletion these articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Arugas Habosem & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anshei Sfard (Louisville, Kentucky) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) that looks like its heading for mass deletions in this area. The nominator is requested to consider WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE and to please start a discussion or a WP:RFC if he feels such articles are not up to snuff at a venue of his choosing, or at WP:TALKJUDAISM that would make the most sense. Quite frankly this is not the best time to start a move to delete any synagogue articles given that the current Israel-Gaza conflict is now so hot that it is spilling over into attacks on synagogues in France, see Protesters scuffle with police at Paris synagogues (AP, July 13, 2014), and the problem is growing, so it behooves any editor undertaking such deletions to proceed with great care in order to avoid any semblance of impropriety until the temperature surrounding the role and place of synagogues as current flashpoints of conflict stops. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Comment: An RfC that concerns this AfD has been opened. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#RfC: Should there be mass AfDs of articles about Orthodox synagogues?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Community input has been requested, see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Trying to avoid WP:WAR over spate of AfDs and PRODs. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—The article is now, in my opinion, adequately sourced. Thanks to both the nominator and the editors who helped establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable and verifiable sources included in the article establish notability for the synagogue. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per GNG. I advise the nominator to in the future perform the required wp:before search, if he did not do so here. There is no need for the RS sourcing to be reflected in the article (which it appears may have been nom's assertion in his nomination) -- it need merely exist. Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: despite Yoninah's extensive sourcing and rewriting efforts, I think the article still does not the notability criteria. Users Alansohn, Lesser Cartographies and Epeefleche believe that the new sources are sufficient; I disagree, and will analyze the sources (numbered according to this revision).
1: The article is about Goldberger, not really about his synagogue. 2 is the only significant source, in my opinion. 3 is a mere listing, as would be expected in a comprehensive report. (4, 5 and 9 are passing mentions, and are only intended to support details.) 6 is a blog. 7 seems promotional, and is not in-depth in any sense. 8 is commercial, a product listing. 10 and 11 are in-depth coverage of a trivial aspect of the congregation riding on a popular recent bit of news. How does this make the synagogue notable?
הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have to read through the refs, but will jump right to the last two. Hasirpad dismisses articles about the congregation's acceptance of bitcoins as "trivial" and "popular". Well, notability is built on popularity -- and of course we have oodles of articles about "popular" topics that some editors (including me) think trivial ... but our POV is not relevant, if the RSs cover the topic "in depth" as Hasirpad admits these articles do. And in-depth coverage is what we look for in GNG. Editors have to park their personal views as to whether a topic is "trivial", and accept that RS coverage is the key. Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should have foreseen that my poorly-written sentence would be misunderstood. "Trivial" was meant in an objective sense; not "unencyclopedic" (I have no POV here that I am aware of) but "not of central importance to subject". (Thought experiment: imagine an opening sentence "... is a synagogue known for accepting Bitcoin".) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it is covered, with in-depth coverage (as here), we really shouldn't care that our personal point of view is that the coverage is trivial (in our subjective sense; it's not objective). As far as I'm concerned, if the coverage were because a synagogue were openly polyamorous, or kept real lions adjacent to the ark rather than sculptures of them, or were the oldest synagogue in the world, or were the smallest in the world, or had a chimp as the rabbi ... I would not substitute my judgment that the matter is "trivial" with the judgment of the RSs that it is worthy of full-length articles. And that is what we look for at AfD. Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question and Suggestion It appears there are enough synagogues in Baltimore, present and past, that a combination article might be possible; I even think that would be more useful than separate ones. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I concur with User:הסרפד's analysis of the sources; we have one good one, followed by a bunch of trivial mentions and bitcoincruft that could not be considered "substantial", as required by the WP:GNG, by any stretch of the imagination. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

China Digital Times[edit]

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

NN website.The content of the website is cited in many reports but none of them has significant coverage of the website itself.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom. Ansh666 02:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No offense, but I retain my opinion at the deletion proposal in the Chinese Wikipedia. I would like to invite the upcoming Wikipedians to look into links like [19][20][21][22][23][24], and so on - same as what I listed in zhwiki. Plus, this site has been ranked around #210k on Alexa Global traffic stats. Many websites less popular than CDT (or even without a satisfying Alexa traffic rank) were recorded in Category:News websites and/or Category:News aggregators. Such as Jurnalo,Tahitipresse, just to list a few. Thanks. Kou Do u 05:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (note: I changed the category links from using <nowiki> to using [[:Category:Example]] Ansh666 07:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a pretty influential online magazine whose reports are frequently cited by academics and other news outlets.TheBlueCanoe 12:10, 9 July 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, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has a 3rd party that proves it is notable (it is blocked in China) and it is a popular website. Frmorrison (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per TokyoGirl's rationale, this is not a novel or a series of published novels but rather a website and A7 is appropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mythania (novel series)[edit]

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

Notability Chaveyd (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Delete. There are no published novels associated with this "Novel series". The author links to his website, on which he has articles about the world he has created, and four short stories set in that world, but of the promised novels, he says "The books have been in development for nearly ten years; with numerous changes, revisions, and rewrites, it still has a considerable way to go.... There are no plans at this time to post the novels online, as I still have hope that they will one day be published." Since there are no published (or posted) novels, there is no novel series. Chaveyd (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 4 July 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this series is ultimately notable. There's no coverage for it and most of the links I'm finding are WP:PRIMARY. On a side note, the series seems to be published solely through the internet (ie, through the guy's website) and may qualify as a speedy via WP:A7 since they have never actually existed in any format other than electronically. I'll try to tag it as such and see what happens. Either way, deletion appears to be inevitable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MC Honky[edit]

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

No evidence this meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 4 July 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's plenty of evidence if one is willing to search for it, in addition to the 2 sources already cited in the article. Plenty from a Google search including The Guardian ([25]), Metro Times ([26]), NPR ([27]), The Encyclopedia of Popular Music ([28]), The Michigan Daily ([29]), and Uncut ([30]), and 15 articles on HighBeam for a start. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Michig which establishes notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps. Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Dizerens[edit]

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

Non-notable author. No indications that Dizerens or his books have received any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure author and books, no independent coverage in secondary sources. -- GreenC 00:57, 8 July 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA biography, matching its WP:SPA equivalent on the French Wikipedia, where notability is also queried. No evidence of notability found. AllyD (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tetteh Plahar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. All of the references cited in the article do not exist. Versace1608 (Talk) 18:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and lacks citations. Darreg (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 July 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, I see nothing convincing to show notability on Google. Lots of directory hits and similar sources, but no real leads to anything convincing. Unencyclopaedic article, full of unverifiable claims and peacock terms, written by someone who seems to have either a clear conflict of interest, or doesn't quite get how to write a WP article. I tried a few alternative Googles, but I'm afraid nothing remotely usable seemed to come up. Mabalu (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not gonna opine about notability, which is borderline one way or the other. This is a flat failure of verifiability — an essentially unsourced BLP. Carrite (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Monkstown, County Dublin#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoil Lorcáin[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monkstown, County Dublin per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, as it is a primary school in that place with no indication or evidence to be found of notability. BethNaught (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. We can't have articles on every school and this one seems hardly notable. AndroidChuck31 (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC) Striking sock !vote Ish dar ian 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Monkstown,_County_Dublin per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to Monkstown,_County_Dublin per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where may I read the discussion that authorised wholesale deletion of primary schools while leaving secondary and tertiary schools intact? I wish to understand the reason, if any, for distinguishing between them, and treating them differently. It seems to be suggested that primary schools are automatically dismissed as non-notable while higher-level schools are not so automatically dismissed. Just as Wikipedia acts as a gazette of geographic features, so may it not act as a gazette of schools, whatever the level, as they are an established element of social geography? I request that an administrator desist from sweeping deletions of primary schools as proposed by editor Epeefleche until this difference of treatment of schools is clarified. Editor Kudpung's comment immediately above mine states that this action is "neither a policy nor a guideline", so sweeping deletion of articles on such a vague premise as "the community has generally agreed" to such action seems dubious to me. Let's press the Pause button, please, and discuss the broad assertion that primary schools are automatically less notable than other schools. — O'Dea (talk) 13:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kudpung is one of the more seasoned !voters at schools AfDs ^{adding (as is user:DGG)}. He may be able to provide you with further information. In the meantime, he did already mention WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. You can find a number of discussions regarding the deletion of primary schools here. This has been a long-standing practice for years. Discussed at length by many editors. It is nothing new. Thus, there is no need to press the pause button. Of course, should you wish to renew a discussion, either at OUTCOMES or elsewhere, you should of course feel free to do so. But as you can see from these hundreds of AfDs, primary schools are not typically viewed as deserving of stand-alone wikipedia articles. Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Even without WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES this primary school still fails WP:NSCHOOL.Indeed, we presume populated, legally-recognized places to be notable (as wikipedia's gazetteer function) because we can almost always find sufficient reliable secondary sources to write a full-length article about a ceratin legally-recognized place, regardless of its size. As you can see, Monkstown,_County_Dublin is a small town. Still we have written a full-length article about it. (Though the "History" section is uncited now, source like this book does exist.) However, almost all the primary schools being redirected in the recent afd debates lack sufficient reliable secondary sources to write a full-length article. Take Scoil Lorcáin as a exapmle. The only source listed in the article is the school's own website. Clearly if we can't find in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, this stub should be deleted.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, wikipedia is based on consensus and notability is not a level playing field.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This reply does not address the question why primary schools are presumed less notable than higher level institutions. It also does not point to an actual consensus discussion that might be consulted for verification that there actually is such a consensus.

You say that this primary school fails WP:NSCHOOL, but that policy states, "All schools... must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both." But what does "this guideline" refer to? Where is that defined?

It is unclear exactly what point you wish to make by alluding to the unlevel playing field; a clarification would be helpful. — O'Dea (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monkstown,_County_Dublin per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Glasnevin. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glasnevin National School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to Glasnevin per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES--180.172.239.231 (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to Glasnevin per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Ultimatemythbuster (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glasnevin per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Don't see much point in deleting then redirecting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glasnevin per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 1000s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Looking at the keep votes, I'm not moved my numbers of subscribers nor number of casual mentions nor comparisons to other similar articles. WP:GNG is about sourcing and significant coverage and there is no indication this criteria has been met. As for salting, I don't see sufficient cause at this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Tomicki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable, and the inclusion of misc. items like winning the lottery makes this into the equivalent of a self-indulgent autobiography. The books are not even in worldcat. The Chicago Tribune article is a pure press elease, and so are the others DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:CREATIVE #3, founder and editor of ENTREE travel magazine with 12,000 subscribers and 30+ years old,[31] it has been reviewed in Chicago Tribune, NY Times, NY Times, LA Times. It was also reviewed in Travel & Leisure and Vogue. -- GreenC 02:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw William Tomicki apparently wants the page deleted (see comment below). I believe people with marginal notability like this should have the right to remove their Wikipedia page if they want. It's probably not a valid reason to !vote delete, but I am withdrawing the Keep. -- GreenC 12:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment here. -- GreenC 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity and autobiographical as indicated by the article creator's lack of any other contributions. MiracleMat (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They do mention him and his creation in various major newspapers. So he passes WP:CREATIVE #3. Dream Focus 13:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the guy really does want his article deleted, then delete it. Was he just stressed out from the negative comments in this AFD, or did he have another reason? Dream Focus 13:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- .: I would suspect it was stress, considering the letters he has written, posted elsewhere.Trackinfo (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He seemed to make a concerted effort to remove the page not just a momentary lapse of judgement. Personally I agree with his assessment that he has been "under assault", though I don't believe it's a conspiracy ("forces that have aligned against me") just the nature of Wikipedia's ruthless truth seeking that can be harsh and arbitrary. Given BLP and the subjects obvious distress over criticism I figured it was best to withdraw my Keep. Having a Wikipedia article is not necessarily always a good thing for someone it can be a potential liability to constantly monitor, he may have come to that conclusion as well. -- GreenC 03:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it was stress. -- GreenC 21:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Absurd to think that publishing a travel newsletter qualifies as "CREATIVE". Most of the "references" are about the publication, and most of those aren't evenly exclusively about it, but as part of a group. There's not a solid source about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:02, 3 July 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw two comments on my personal page that my article contribution was indicated for deletion. I apologize if this has caused any problems! Some of the comments on here said that I was making an autobiography about Tomicki, which was not my intention for sure. Sorry again if that's what it reads like and if there's anything I or anyone should cut to make it better, please do. Honestly, I subscribe to ENTREE and thought Bill could have a page like some other ones I've read online. When I was adding information, I used the ENTREE site bio for help. I tried to only reference what was not associated with him though. I think that part was okay, but probably my submission needed work. I clicked on the other editor's WP:CREATIVE link and I think he matches these criteria for writing and creating. I'm going ahead and taking off some info to start. Let me know what else to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahmsii (talk • contribs) 02:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Not notable. Greglocock (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a peerage geek, I highly doubt this claim of the title "Lord Millbourne" and the two supposed knighthoods, which he claims. There's nothing on the net to back any of these claims up that isn't him in an interview. The only thing that explains more is this which would claim he has a distinction from the French Legion of Honour, which is what a Chevalier is (he's not on any of the lists I've found), and I'm not aware of the claimed Portuguese title even existing. Also, you don't buy titles in the United Kingdom unless its a fake one. JTdale ^Talk 16:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Addendum The United Kingdom's roll of the peerage seems to indicate it's fake, he's not listed and neither is the title. Roll of the Peerage. Just a thing to note when considering notability since titles play into that. JTdale ^Talk[reply]

See his explanation: "I never indicated I was A Chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur. Nor would I. Never mentioned those words. That is a serious infraction. I was made a Chevalier of the de l'Ordre Des Coteaux De Champagne in Reims, France in 1994." There may be similar explanations for the "Lord Millbourne" claim. None of this is mentioned in the article nor should it be without reliable secondary sources but I think we need to be careful about jumping to conclusions about a person being "fake" without all the information. His notability is based on CREATIVE, as a writer, per previous comments above, for which secondary sources exist. So let's not attack (calling him a "fake") his credibility based on guesses and incomplete information, see WP:BLP. -- GreenC 03:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His titles were mentioned in the article when I commented, which is why I raised it. He didn't explain the title Lord Millbourne. JTdale ^Talk 03:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His "explanation" was made in February based on results of the first AfD, which only discussed the Legion d'Honneur not the Lordship question. -- GreenC 04:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He claims here[32] that it is "Lord of Millcombe". A Google search finds a manor house on the island of Lundy called Millcombe and the island was once owned by lords in the 19th century.[33] If this is the same house which William Tomicki says he owns ("thanks to a land acquisition in England in 2007, holds the title Lord Millcombe"[34]) there might be something to research further. -- GreenC 14:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The account User:Freddymcgough, who claims to be William Tomicki,[35] has recently been making edits that indicate he would like the article deleted, through Speedy Delete templates and blanking the page.[36][37][38]. Another account User:SumaraLove has been making similar edits. -- GreenC 12:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No matter what the possibly WP:COI subject of the article might write, assuming that it is the subject (which ordinarily should be a stretch on the internet) we should look at this article on its own merits. I would suggest the article needs some editing, deal with the peacock terms and clear up statements. I'll try to do a little clean up shortly. That is no reason for deletion. Andrew Harper's Hideaway Report is a comparable site with decades less of a history. Perhaps someone should do an article about the site too. WP:AUTHOR establishes his creation of the 30+ year institution, plus several other publications. Out of 18 sources, there are many WP:RS verifications. Trackinfo (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few sources and will add a few more.Trackinfo (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, membership in "Chevalier of the de l'Ordre Des Coteaux De Champagne" and similar drinking and dining societies is vanity content, & should never be included. "Lord of the Manor" is not a title of notability, but a archaic British designation that is in a weird way associated with ownership of particular pieces of property, "In modern times any person may choose to use a name that is not the property of another." It is similarly vanity content--such titles are purchased either separately or along with the piece of property by people vain enough to want to use them. I have very doubts about of the objectivity of any bio here that includes such content. (and usually doubts about the notability also, because this usually implies there's nothing actually worth including) DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's comment makes sense assuming AGF he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest he as an editor should remove any content he thinks is peacock or mis-characterized. Maybe he could show a source that explains these details so other can learn from it. That is why we are called editors. What does not make sense is the giant leap of logic that since some part of some sentence is vanity . . . so the entire article should be deleted--which is what you are proposing with the AfD Nom. Trackinfo (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.
^ https://upload.cnet.com/2706-21_5-973-9.html CNET Policy
^ https://www.google.com/search?q=%22httphotos+create+photo+gallery%22 Google query

[note6-1] Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

[2] ttps://upload.cnet.com/2706-21_5-973-9.html CNET Policy

[3] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=%22httphotos+create+photo+gallery%22 Google query

[1]

[2]

[3]