Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 July 14 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kristine Elezaj[edit]

Kristine Elezaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:MUSICBIO and is not updated. IPadPerson (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the subject passes WP:GNG, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The fact that nobody has bothered to update the article isn't a valid reason for deletion.
...and there's more including passing coverage of others in the context of events where she performed (such mentions seemingly enough for people to understand the importance of said events). It's not the strongest case for notability and the article does need work but I think she just makes it over the line. St★lwart111 09:53, 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. The keep !voters appear to have established that sufficient reliable sources exist to satisfy WP:NBOOK. Anarchangel's suggestion that the relevant section of Donald Keyhoe be reduced to a summary, with some of the material merged to this article, seems worthy of editorial attention. Deor (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Flying Saucers Are Real[edit]

The Flying Saucers Are Real (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding any usable references for this book. There's some ancillary coverage that mentions the book or interviews the author, and one such article says the book is a "best-seller" but isn't a definitive source for that claim. I think we need to clearly meet WP:NBOOK, and I don't think this book does. Mikeblas (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although possibly notable there are so sources to establish this in the article &there is nothing I can find online in reliable sources, altho there may well be print sources from the time of publication. However the subject is in fact rather better covered in the biography of Donald Keyhoe, so am not suggesting a merge. The only regeret is that the rather charming cover illustration is on a fair use license, which I assume would not apply to its use in the biog.TheLongTone (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least six available references, including Carl Gustav Jung. The argument that the author's article has more material is easily countered: I assert that the author's article has too much material, some of which needs to moved to the book article.
  1. Crows, Pete Rose, UFOs: And Other Pretty Pieces, Marvin E Mengeling
  2. The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects: The Original 1956 Edition, Edward J. Ruppelt.
  3. Hostile Aliens, Hollywood and Today's News: 1950s Science Fiction Films and 9/11, Melvin E. Matthews
  4. UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973, Richard M. Dolan
  5. "Recommended Reading," F&SF, Fall 1950, p.83
  6. C.G. Jung (1958). "Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies". p. xiii
Anarchangel (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it was a ground-breaking book that significantly contributed to Air Force openness with regard to UFOs, and it was the inspiration for the 1956 film Earth vs. the Flying Saucers. Besides it meets WP:GNG easily. Of course UFO-ology is fringe, the issue here is not the validity of Keyhoe's presentation, but whether that presentation was notable. --Bejnar (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Funny: the article makes none of the claims for the book that you make here. Is that because your assertions here don't need references, while the article does? -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I added sources and text before making my comment, I am surprised that you missed "groundbreaking" in the lead as supported by the source that follows it. Do take a look at the sources. --Bejnar (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assertions not only do not require references, they would not be assertions if there were references. People make assertions here all the time. I have never asked anyone to WP:AGF before, but I do now. Anarchangel (talk) 02:26, 16 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This book was a very big deal when it appeared in 1950. The book (and the magazine article it was based on) were widely covered and kept the author in the public eye for more than a decade (eg [1]). Simplistic internet searches are pretty useless in assessing most of the popular culture of the 1950s, but it's rather difficult to understand why the nomination rejects commentary by Jung (!) as a sign of notability or why the many results a Google Scholar search turns up (often despite paywalls) are to be ignored (for example, one article in the Journal of American Folklore characterizes the book as influential ("With the publication of Donald E. Keyhoe's book The Flying Saucers Are Real (1950), many people believed in the conspiracy theory, charging that the Air Force consciously withheld UFO information from the general public"; another piece in the Journal of Transatlantic Studies declares the book "garner[ed] a good deal of international attention" and "made headlines"; while a more recent piece in English Today calls the book "The first reputable ufological text." This ought to be a slam-dunk keep decision. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:24, 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 delete. Even after two relistings, no one has shown up to advocate that the article be kept. Deor (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of the British Virgin Islands, London[edit]

Representative of the British Virgin Islands, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. This does not have embassy or high commission, in any case diplomatic missions do not have inherent notability. Those wanting to keep must show evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 27 June 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 deckertalk 02:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we're debating the notability of a desk and a sign on the wall. Obviously not notable. St★lwart111 07:23, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 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 keep. Deor (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts)[edit]

Congregation Beth Israel (Malden, Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks independent, reliable sources. I was unable to find significant sources per WP:BEFORE. TM 21:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the article is a WP:STUB that has started with a couple of WP:V & WP:RS. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 22:51, 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/Beth HaMedrosh Hagodol-Beth Joseph & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts) & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregation Shomrei Emunah 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) 22:51, 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) 22:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (Changed to Keep, see below. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC): Early 20th-century results do not seem to indicate notability. There seems to have been a substantial Jewish community in Malden around 1920, but this synagogue, though occasionally mentioned in passing, does not seem to have received much attention. One of its rabbis, Rabbi (Ber?/Boruch?) Boruchoff, may have been notable, (see [2], [3], [4]) but not so his congregation. As for contemporary results, nothing but directory listings and social media, as far as I can tell. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Make that keep, per Arxiloxos' research below—some (but not all) of those articles constitute significant coverage. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @הסרפד: (aka "Hasirpad") what makes any synagogue "notable"? and if as you admit there are refs to the notability of even one of its important rabbis then that in itself suffices for WP:V & WP:RS and WP:N. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes things notable on Wikipedia is well explained at the pages you just linked to, and the sources I cited do not make this synagogue notable. As for inherited notability from its rabbi, many sources refer to Rabbi Boruchoff merely as "the rabbi of Malden" and neglect to mention his officiating in this synagogue, which only emphasizes how unremarkable a congregation it was, historically. If you want to save the article, I suggest you focus on its contemporary notability, if any. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @הסרפד: (aka "Hasirpad"), you seem to miss what is going on here, that User Namiba (talk · contribs) has so far nominated 7 articles about synagogues for AfDs and 8 more as PRODS, so it is hard to keep up with him at this pace. The WP:CIVIL and right thing for him to have done, was to make efforts to make his intentions known at a forum such as WP:TALKJUDAISM or anywhere else of his choosing and then asked for help and volunteers to improve the articles he seems to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Then it would have created the right environment to proceed and improve the articles and not argue over them as they face mass deletions. As you know editing takes time, we are short of Judaic editors in this area and the original editors and creators of these articles are gone now, so we are faced with a challenge while all that Namiba is doing is throwing out the baby with the bathwater because these articles are important parts of Jewish American history, and at a minimum if they are not up to snuff they can be incorporated into better sections of other articles rather than face this brutal process that Namiba has instituted and that you seem to agree with and abetting judging by your uncaring attitude to the significance that synagogues play in organized Jewish life anywhere. Thanks IZAK (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @הסרפד: (aka "Hasirpad") 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) 06:57, 14 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) 06:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—per הסרפד. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 11:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the congregation is an important part of the history of Malden and is a work in progress. User:Terageorge — Preceding undated comment added 12:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC) :[reply]
User:Terageorge, Wikipedia's WP:NOTABILITY guidelines do not define what is important. As for the 'work in progress' agreement, this article was started on July 17, 2008. 5 years is a long time to be a 'work in progress'.--TM 13:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple reliable sources (including The New York Times[5]) document, among other things, this congregation's historical role and its unusual financial efforts to revive its community. Other examples: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] (the last 3 are duplicates of the AP story). Finding sources here requires some patience because searches also yield many hits relating to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- established for over a century, which is a good claim to significance; enough information is available to show it's a significant part of the community. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim of notability for the institution is backed by the reliable and verifiable sources added to the article. Alansohn (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The notability and resources issues.--Aaronshavit (talk) 22:58, 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 procedural close per WP:SK#1. Use WP:DRN or WP:RfD as suggested. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 05:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics of Hinduism[edit]

Ethics of Hinduism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a process nomination; Sitush (talk · contribs) desires to replace the article with a redirect to Hinduism, which I thought should be discussed here. Vectro (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is a bloody waste of time. See the article talk page and note WP:RFD. - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vectro (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From my perpspective (one who knows very little about Hinduism), the page seems to have useful/interesting content. If there are problems with the article, I'd rather see them resolved by improving the article rather than replacing the whole thing with a redirect. However, if there is a community consensus to replace with a redirect, I'd like to suggest the redirect should be tagged with {{Redirect with possibilities}}. Someone will also have to clean up the 500+ pages that link to this one, including Hinduism itself. Vectro (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the clean up? No rush - the links pipe through. I've already said that you are free to remove the redirect and build the article, just not using the sources that were there. If you can't accept that those are unreliable and that the creator was a pov-pushing sock then maybe you should review WP:CONSENSUS. We don't keep crap content but we don't necessarily delete articles just because the content is crap. Hence, the redirect and not, for example the CSD G5 that I could have opted for. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think it's confusing to have links all over the place that say "Main Article: Ethics of Hinduism", only have that go to Hinduism itself? I have no opinion about the reliability of the article sources (being unable to evaluate them) or its creator, although I can see that the account is blocked. Vectro (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just done this at a template. That should get the link count down in one edit. Revert if you expand the article properly. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still over 500. Maybe a cacheing issue? Vectro (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, caching. Regarding reliability: if you know next to nothing about the sources and feel unable to evaluate them and you also know next to nothing about the subject, why the heck do what you have done with this nomination? It seems senseless when you are up against someone who does know something about both, has a lot of experience and has told you where to look. For example, only last week there was a discussion at RSN regarding Raj sources - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_172#Are_British_Raj_ethnographers_unreliable.3F - and the same/similar sources are being used here. You'll also find discussions in past AfDs, at WP:DRN and at articles such as Talk:Yadav, not to mention WT:INB. We don't use them, period. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "fails to advance an argument for deletion", " editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". Note that there are numerous books about Hindu ethics such as Hindu Ethics: A Philosophical Study and so the topic has great notability. Andrew (talk) 05:37, 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. I think DocTree summarized it well enough, and did the homework. I could relist it, but it seems obvious this will slide by with a keep. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giant in My Heart[edit]

Giant in My Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear how this might meet WP:NSONGS. Having only debuted recently, lacking the coverage as the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works, no indication of charting or awards, it appears to be too soon for a dedicated article. Probably should be redirected to the artist's page. RadioFan (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Please note that I only undid the redirection due to it being turned into a broken redirect, and one entirely to the wrong link; in short, no part of the edit was useful. A Google search turns up plenty of results, and it being featured on "This Week's Fresh Music" is a good indicator. (I am interested to know your rationale for the "failed verification" insertion.) There is no need to add {{notability}} to the article - that's this AfD's job. And for heavens' sake notify me! I know I don't appreciate whacking great templates on my talk page but a ping wouldn't've hurt!--Launchballer 23:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The number of Google results doesn't tell us much about notability. It's also not clear how "this week in Fresh Music" is a good indicator and that reference could not be verified as I'm unable to locate archives of previous weeks. Let's stick to WP:NSONGS for guidance on whether a dedicated article on this song is necessary or if it would be better covered in the album (is there an album?) or artist's page.--RadioFan (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you live in the UK, it's on now and again on Wednesday. If you put it on now you may be able to catch it. I'm warning you; the captions are changed every week. I will be watching it on Wednesday.--Launchballer 08:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose deletion, I guarantee if this page is deleted it will have to be recreated in a months time after this song is properly released, it's going to easily go Top 40 and quite possibly Top 10, dont delete just to recreate a few weeks later!
  • Weak Keep based largely on this that was published after the deletion nom. It indicates that the song moved up to 47 on Billboard’s Hot Dance/Electronic Songs and that the associated video was nominated for an MTV Video Music Award. Other Google hits indicate the song isn't due to be "officially released" until August. Many of the Google results aren't in English and I didn't bother using Google translate on them. While I disagree with Guyb123321's WP:CRYSTAL (and please sign your edits here), the song seems to have enough independent coverage now. Launchballer, please add reliable sources and continue to improve the article. The Idolator.com review is by a fan, definitely not a WP:RS, and the other two references aren't in-depth coverage. There's more out there. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 03:31, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aquib Amin[edit]

Aquib Amin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail on notability, references provided dont actually link to anywhere, are internal links or dont assist with notability just confirming that this person does what has been stated Amortias (T)(C) 19:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Article's claims of notability are not verifiable. -No.Altenmann >t 21:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Quds Hospital[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Al-Quds Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    There is nothing to suggest the hospital meets notability requirements. Ghirla-трёп- 17:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge/redirect List of hospitals in the Palestinian territories, agreed; no evidence of notability presented. -No.Altenmann >t 20:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is one of Gaza's largest hospitals (some sources say the second largest). Searching makes it clear that there is a lot of material that can be used to build an article. It featured prominently in the Goldstone report, for example. Notability is thus obvious. At the moment the article is only a trivial stub, but we don't delete stubs just because they are stubs. Zerotalk 23:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 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. Since Pha telegrapher has already added an entry on her to Open carry in the United States#Open carry demonstrations and events, the merge suggestions seem moot. I'm not, however, seeing enough support for a redirect to just redirect this title there. If anyone thinks that a redirect is desirable, nothing is stopping them from creating one; but I'd suggest that they consider the advisability of doing so, as a simple search for the name will lead readers to that article anyway. Deor (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Meleanie Hain[edit]

    Meleanie Hain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This person is not notable per WP:CRIME and WP:BIO1E. Fails WP:GNG. Tchaliburton (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Ms. Hain got widespread news coverage from reliable sources that are not connected to her during her lifetime from bringing her gun to the soccer game and the sheriff's decision to revoke her concealed-carry permit. Because she was well known before her slaying, WP:CRIME doesn't apply. Her slaying also got widespread coverage from reliable sources that are not connected to her. And finally, the lawsuit that her estate was pursuing posthumously was reported in the news -- from reliable sources not connected to her. This clearly passes WP:GNG and she is notable for more than one event -- her initial dispute with the sheriff, her slaying and her posthumous lawsuit. Pha telegrapher (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I should have specified that I'm the person who started this article. I don't want anyone to think I'm hiding that. Pha telegrapher (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Boston globe, CBS, and USA today are reliable sources, and she had significant coverage. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete per WP:SINGLEEVENT; amount of coverage irrelevant, since there is no lasting historical/social consequences. -No.Altenmann >t 21:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe there's something I'm missing here -- both of the people who say this should be deleted are citing the single-event guideline. But there were three events where she made national news: 1. Her initial dispute with the sheriff in 2008. 2. Her murder in 2009. 3. The dismissal of her estate's lawsuit in 2010. How is this one event? Pha telegrapher (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - plenty of reliable coverage. significant coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Lots of news stories get lots of coverage. There is nothing of encyclopedic value here. Resolute 20:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is one event, and clearly fails rules against Wikipedia being news. Her carrying a gun at an event is not a big enough event, and nothing else even comes close to being such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I keep hearing people saying this is one event, but I've yet to see an answer to the question, "How is this one event?" Her murder was a year apart from her carrying a gun at the soccer game, and although both involved guns, they were clearly different events. This person was not in the news once; she was repeatedly in the news for different events over a period of years. If she were only known for her dispute with the sheriff, I'd agree that she only deserves a paragraph in the "Open carry in the United States" article, but that's not the case. Pha telegrapher (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • She *is* only known for her dispute with the sheriff. What little notability she had was exclusively due to her carrying a gun to a children's soccer game. There is nothing else that sets her murder apart from a thousand others committed that year and which do not have, nor do they deserve, articles of their own. Resolute 14:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, the sheriff dispute is the only thing she's known for. The reports on her death rehash that story for another news cycle. Tchaliburton (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for explaining your positions better. I believe that the sum of these events add up to her being a noteworthy person, but I can see how reasonable people would disagree. Pha telegrapher (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - She is known only for the gun-totting soccer mom incident. As far as I can see, she disappeared from notice until she was shot by her husband. I can see the argument that this isn't just one event, but as a the notability guideline notes, we should treat them "with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This is one of those circumstances. Two separate news cycle appearances in don't add up to notability in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete or perhaps Merge into the Open Carry in the United States Article - This is pretty much a single event and there is no lasting impact from it. Now, if a law about open carry were changed as a result I could see it being kept. I don't think there is enough here to be a stand-alone article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that hasn't been mentioned so far in this debate (and I apologize for not mentioning it sooner) is the irony in someone who became a prominent open-carry activist dying from gun violence. If she had been strangled, it would be a whole different story, but I think it's noteworthy that she died from the very instrument she'd argued would keep her safe. However, if the consensus is that this doesn't deserve its own article, I ask that we Merge it into Open Carry in the United States. I added references there for her initial dispute, her death and the posthumous lawsuit -- if this redirects there, anyone interested in learning more will be able to follow those links to learn the details. I think that would be a reasonable compromise. Pha telegrapher (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • So was that your agenda for writing the article to begin with? As a POV/Advocacy pierce?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it wasn't. I was discussing this with a friend from high school and went to Wikipedia to check facts. When I didn't see an article on this, I decided to write it. Pha telegrapher (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Looking at this sources and events, her notability before death was dubious at best, demonstrated by rather trivial back page coverage of that event. As such, it isn't enough to free her from the bonds of WP:BLP1E. Even now there are only two sources about the previous event, but what determines notability isn't the count of the sources, but rather the quality and whether it qualifies as significant coverage The murder does, and most murders would (and why we have WP:CRIME so that all are not included) but the permit event does not qualify. That there is a degree of novelty in a gun advocate dying at the hands of her gun toting husband doesn't convince, and in fact would raise NPOV issues, so it can't be considered a rationale to keep any part of the article. As such, the topic is ineligible for inclusion and should be deleted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect to Open Carry in the United States. Granted a single relatively simple sentence in the parent article is going to be the totality of the merge of this article. Agreeing with the novelty aspect, but not enough for enduring coverage of this one particular subject. Hasteur (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge a couple of lines and redirect to Open Carry in the United States as the most reasonable outcome. Cavarrone 06:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - While I'm sure the merges are in the best of faith, I would be strongly against it. The novelty of a gun advocate getting shot is just that, novelty and doesn't represent any significant minority position. It would instead be a "ha, look at that, she should have been for gun control" WP:NPOV nightmare and violation. Controversial articles don't contain novelty for this reason, for it doesn't represent any mainstream or significant minority viewpoint, it is just a sad coincidence that shouldn't be used as a political wedge. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge some content with Open Carry in the United States. Seems like while her open carrying and her death received media attention, its notability was short lived and didn't receive significant enough coverage. As User:Dennis Brown said, her gun advocacy and death by firearm stands out, but there still lacks notability. Upjav (talk) 03:20, 24 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 deckertalk 02:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Lipsha[edit]

    Lipsha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:NALBUM states that unreleased albums notable enough for articles are few and far between - "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects".

    This album release may not even happen - it was reportedly canceled previously, and almost a year later nothing significant has surfaced. Possibly a WP:CRYSTAL violation since it might not even come out; NALBUMS also says that generally album articles should only exist when the title, track listing, and release date are all officially confirmed. So far only the title has been.

    Furthermore, the two artists involved have previously collaborated multiple times outside of this planned project, and many of the sources just seem to support any collaborations they have done since 2012, regardless of whether or not they're for this record. –Chase (talk / contribs) 04:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take another look at the article: It is still a chance for it to be released, so there is no need to delete just yet Thewormsplayer (talk) 12:49, 6 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. I am also less than sanguine about the reliability of many of the sources such as Digital Spy. Certainly the twitter tweet should go. Seems to lack significant coverage in reliable sources for WP:GNG. Also runs afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL. --Bejnar (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NALBUMS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:TOOSOON. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 00:59, 21 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. The "keep" here points out that Frost has been covered in some sourcing, but while the argument has some merit it is not sufficient to overcome the otherwise clear consensus here since users such as Lankiveil and Stfg make a solid case as well. Being cited is the norm after a few years for academics who have published research, so it is not a particularily distinguishing feature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Frost (anthropologist)[edit]

    Peter Frost (anthropologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Doesn’t appear to be notable and seems to mostly be a promotion of a relatively unknown individual including many citations to primary sources written by the subject of the article. Google book search reveals a book written by Frost from a likely vanity publisher and Google news doesn't reveal anything obvious. Pengortm (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC. Even his own web site, cited as ref [1], doesn't give any reason to believe he meets it. The article seems mainly to be a soapbox for his hypothesis about hair, eye and skin colour -- a fringe theory, I believe. --Stfg (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Searching on GS for "P Frost" skin" I get some very high cites. Would the nominator like to discuss? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    so there's a Peter Frost and a Phillip Frost (which GS won't distinguish) working in the same field. I bow out. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    It's not quite the same field, and they can pretty easily be distinguished by publication year (seen Peter Frost's CV?) at the least. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As long as the article provides absolutely zero biographical information (which, of course, would need to be verified by independent sources), I see little sense in discussing the notability issues. However, concerning the "very high cites": Via GS/PoP, I find four papers of at least 88 cites each and then some of 39 21 or below, respectively, which sums up to probably something around 600 cites and an h-index of 10 11 [see below]. In this highly cited research field (only one of his papers is among the respective journals' top 50, another one in the top 100 - yes, I generally do credit him for publishing in renowned journals, but that's what I'd expect from a would-be notable academic anyways), it's not quite enough for me. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't have a problem with notability, per se, but rather with the poor shape of the article; it's entirely about his novel research, and not about him. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, and it isn't even presented as research. It's full of words like "hypothesis", "theory", "suggests" "believes". I don't see evidence there. --Stfg (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ? With a GS h-index of somewhere around 30 and several papers with over 100 cites (Searching on GS for "P Frost" skin"), he zooms past WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    Most of the articles you're referring to are by Phillip Frost, though. As I said, Peter Frost's h-index is 10, apparently. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just realized that his 1990 paper and the 2005 self-published book which share the same title probably are two distinct publications (I had the latter assumed to be a reprint). So that would raise the h-index number to 11. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you elaborate on what coverage you are seeing which you think constitutes "a core of coverage about his ideas that seems to meet WP:GNG"? Thanks. --Pengortm (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your reading is incorrect. WP:Prof can be passed on the basis of contribution to scholarship (WP:Prof#C1). Purely biographical information can be obtained from non-independent sources like university and research institute sites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    I agree that I was incorrect in that WP:Prof#C1 is indeed sufficient for scholars. However, the links I provide and WP:Prof#C1 do get at the point that interpreting h-index to derive notability is not straightforward. Reading over WP:Prof#C1 I also note that Frost might not qualify because his expertise may be in an "Overly narrow and highly specialized categories". I also agree with the other editors that the lack of biographical information is a concern. None of us seem to have been able to dig up any biographical information from reliable sources.--Pengortm (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete, obviously an active academic in the field, and no reason to believe that his work isn't of a very high standard, but I'm not seeing any significant coverage of him or his work. There are a few cites, but generally less than I'd expect to see from a genuinely notable researcher. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:09, 23 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 Primary schools in Singapore. j⚛e deckertalk 23:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    St. Gabriel's Primary School[edit]

    St. Gabriel's Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (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) 16:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Primary schools in Singapore 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) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. (Does this really need to run through AfD?) Carrite (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doen't, and per policy, summary redirects are perfectly admissible. Pushing everything throough AfDs when an accepted alternative is available is borderline disruptive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 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 Primary schools in Singapore . j⚛e deckertalk 23:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Innova Primary School[edit]

    Innova Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (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) 16:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Primary schools in Singapore 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) 15:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional elementary schools are presumed non-notable. (Does this really need to run through AfD?) Carrite (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doen't, and per policy, summary redirects are perfectly admissible. Pushing everything throough AfDs when an accepted alternative is available is borderline disruptive.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:11, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Minixr[edit]

    Minixr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unreferenced software article of unclear notability, tagged for multiple issues since 2009. A search revealed no significant RS coverage of this software. Dialectric (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. It's not even clear this software ever really existed outside of beta-the site is no longer valid, and the last twitter post was from 2009. No reliable sources; the only source I found was a blog site describing the software in beta.--gdfusion (talk|contrib) 17:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I can find only some start-up coverage prior to any launch. No evidence that the software ever became notable. AllyD (talk) 06:30, 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 redirect to Warriors: Omen of the Stars#The Forgotten Warrior. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The Forgotten Warrior[edit]

    The Forgotten Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Failing WP:NBOOK, a non-notable children's/young-adult fiction book. Part of a series; seems like the only book topic that has not been converted to a redirect to the series. (Topics for The Fourth Apprentice, Fading Echoes, Night Whispers, Sign of the Moon, and The Last Hope (Warriors) all redirect to Warriors: Omen of the Stars.) Mikeblas (talk) 15:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect I was originally on the fence over redirecting this one as it made mention of critical reception, but the sources mentioned aren't that great, so I'd redirect it like I did with the rest. I've now integrated this article's infobox in, so all the information has already been merged in. Brambleclawx 20:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect for consistency with other articles, sourcing is insufficient for a standalone article. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:41, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 23:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Maa shaarde private industrial training ,chakchamu[edit]

    Maa shaarde private industrial training ,chakchamu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable training institute. The only source that I could find was this one with snowflakes, glitter and disco lights and a faculty of one. Fails WP:ORG. - MrX 15:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • delete nonverifiable notability. -No.Altenmann >t 21:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 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 - Withdrawn by nominator. WP:NAC NeilN talk to me 14:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Neelam Saxena Chandra[edit]

    Neelam Saxena Chandra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The subject does not establish the WP:Notability, cited sources are not per WP:reliable sources nor verifiable. The subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia. It should be deleted. Justice007 (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy keep - nomination without merit. Multiple publications, various awards. And how the heck source, including India governement, are not reliable? The claim she is not covered outside wikipedia is false. -No.Altenmann >t 15:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability but the subject does not. Justice007 (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    huh? The awards are referenced. That alone is enough. "significant attention" clause is for bios with no particularly outstanding personal achievements. That the article sucks is another issue. But notability is proven from sources quite independent from the person. Not to say that nobody bothered to search for non_english Indian sources. -No.Altenmann >t 19:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw-Thanks Bearian, only this review establishes the WP:GNG, rest are not the reliable sources that are independent of the subject, anyhow I withdraw nomination for deletion request. Once again thanks for assisting to find the sources. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep then; thanks. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the editor has already stated that the page can be kept, what is required to be done now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikitasaxena (talk • contribs) 10:40, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 23:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Carman[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Mark Carman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I saw this article in 2010 and I tried to bring it up to snuff so it could be saved, but I never found any good sources for in-depth coverage. We deleted it per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Carman. This new version has the same problems as the old one, with primary sources, low quality sources, and a complete absence of in-depth coverage in third party sources. Note that the link to Heartland (band) is the wrong link, the wrong band. The Heartland band that Carman is associated with is a Christian act and not notable. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Complete junk. Not a single reliable independent secondary source to be found. Msnicki (talk) 00:17, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 23:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloodstrike (band)[edit]

    Bloodstrike (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Speedy delete as non- notable band removed because "Bloodstrike "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable " However, I see only one @notable' member, and his notabilty looks pretty slender. Othe members have been in bands asserted to be notable but which do not have WP articles. Sources are shaky, putting it kindly TheLongTone (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 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 delete. Speedy deletion under WP:G10 as a wholly negative BLP; BLP as defined per WP:BDP as applied to a recently deceased person with exceptional death circumstances (especially when these circumstances are the only thing in the article at all). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Forrest Hayes[edit]

    Forrest Hayes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This person seems to be notable only because he died of Heroin overdose. It might be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Not notable enough for a separate article. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete. We are not here to judge people or defame anybody. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undo speedy, delete or merge. Is it possible to defame someone who is dead, by referring to news articles that have merely published a sequence of events that were reported by the police, as protected under the first amendment? Double check the Wiktionary definition of defamation https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/defamation . After doing a date range search of news articles, while he is reported as a "Google executive," he does not appear in the news ever until an obituary was written for him, making him fairly non-notable before death. Overdose alone does not seem notable, and apparently it has not have had a notable impact on the company's reputation either. Perhaps mention in some article somewhere just for the sake of not censoring the truth, but seems hardly notable in any article. --Makkachin (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you put yourself in the shoes of a family member? Wouldn't you ask yourself why WP made an article on a relative only to tell us about his tragic end and bad habits? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Otherwise anonymous fellow whose death seems to be the only thing notable about him. Google executive or not this article is in terrible taste, and I wouldn't even argue for an article about the event itself as the only sources are overheated cable news channels looking for a story in the dead of July to cover to death. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete This individual is non-notable other than for being the victim in this tabloid crime of the moment. A Google search for pre-July 4 mentions of him reveals (other than misdated current posts) little other than a standard obituary in the Santa Cruz Sentinel soon after his death. The guy was a non-notable, non-officer exec at Google. (If the crime itself is ultimately deemed to be notable enough, include an article about it, and turn this page into a redirect.) BTW, ditto for the alleged killer - Alix Tichleman is not otherwise notable, either. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete per nom. and Iamcuriousblue.  NQ  talk 01:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object Article will be expanded. Subject is notable. Is not an attack or defamatory. RobertBolan (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Courtesy Blanked (content visible from history or in a hidden comment) - Please only undo this courtesy blanking if AfD consensus is to keep or improve/clean-up the content. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Salvidrim!, your blanking was reverted by the author of the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The two wikipedia policies cited by Salvidrim! refer to Discussion/Talk Pages and Biographies of LIVING persons respectively. I removed the page blanking with the understanding that it was an error, but done in good faith. RobertBolan (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How convenient. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:55, 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 speedy delete (G11) by Orangemike. (non-admin closure)  Gongshow   talk 17:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    SuperNannyApp[edit]

    SuperNannyApp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No sign of WP:NOTABILITY. Google search for "SuperNannyApp" gives results that are generated by company, app store listings, and other things not indicating notability in the product. Article has no claim of notability; list of references are just internal Wikipedia links. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    FlipGive[edit]

    FlipGive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Appears to fail WP:CORP. A quick search of news and books found nothing, websearch yielded a press-release about the change of name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Actually, I found some sources in the Globe and Mail and The Star, however they were under what I presume was the organization's former name, "Better the World Inc." or under the website "bettertheworld.com" so the sources cannot be found if you look for the name of this article, "FlipGive". CorporateM (Talk) 08:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the sources provided by CorporateM. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:43, 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. There are enough arguments being made here by long-term and experienced hands at AFD that sources should exist. Based on this, I find it impossible to conclude that there is a consensus for deletion here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts)[edit]

    Temple Anshe Amunim (Pittsfield, Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article lacks independent sources, fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. TM 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the information provided is independent of the organization.--TM 00:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    TM, I think that's understood. This is a genuine difference of opinion. It's likely, and perhaps even near-certain, that local reliable sources exist that would establish notability. Reasonable people can disagree whether that means we should have no article until that information is unearthed, only a stub article, or an article with not much in the way of WP:RS for the immediate future. Where existing institutions are concerned, I prefer to be a more conservative (congregations that no longer exist would have a lower bar, in my opinion, because there's less opportunity for tomfoolery). The community may prefer DGG's interpretation, and that's fine. WP:RS is a means to an end, after all, and where it interferes with getting to that end (as I think DGG might argue it does here), we're free to ignore or amend it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'd like to see other documentation supporting that it is the 4th oldest congregation of its type in its area, but that is an assertion of significance and I am inclined to believe it is true. Search of New York Times yields 9 hits under "Anshe Amium" which are funerals and weddings conducted there, and 7 similar but older hits under one of its alternative names, Anshe Amonim, by the way. I believe there will exist significant coverage of the congregation and its buildings in sources not online, not yet identified in the article, so best to keep and let it be developed. --doncram 03:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wedding and funeral announcements are routine coverage, not significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say otherwise, about the weddings and funerals, though they do suggest some notability of people associated with the congregation. I just looked in the NYTimes database. Again, I think 4th-oldest Reform congregation in New England is a fairly significant assertion, and I expect that there will exist significant coverage of the congregation and its buildings in sources not online, not yet identified in the article, so best to keep and let it be developed. --doncram 14:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment to answer the question asked by Lesser Cartographies: We seem to use the term "Reliable Sources" in two meanings: sources that are sufficiently reliable and substantial and independent to show notability by the very fact that they exist, thus demonstrating that others think the subject important to write about, & therefore satisfying the GNG; and sources reliable enough to establish a fact. In the case of plain facts, such sources need not be independent--information about when an organization was founded & who started it, & who the leaders have been are the sort of facts for which an organization's own publications can be trusted unless there is reason to doubt them--as sometimes does happen. The argument for notability here is that what these sources show is sufficient to demonstrate notability in an ordinary sense, and that we should accept this sense, not necessarily following the limitations of the GNG. I think we should in general--the GNG is over-rated in importance-by now I think we all realize that its requirements ( substantiality, independence, etc. are terms that can be interpreted in many ways, depending primarily upon whether we want to find a subject notable. Given any particular situation (including this one) most of us are capable of constructing an argument using them in either direction. That doesn't necessarily mean using the GNG is worthless, because some interpretations will be more strained than others. It does mean it has to be seen as a guide only, one among others. Regardless of what' was written down 10 years ago, that is what we now do in practice. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Doncram's findings. Right now, the article has no independent sources: no secondary sources whatsoever. If Doncram's discovered nothing beyond trivial things happening at the building, there's really no solid online coverage of this place. We can't retain just anything that predates the Internet because it might have print coverage: by that argument, we'd keep any biography of a person who's older than Al Gore. I will happily change my vote if I know that someone's produced solid offline coverage, but unless that should happen, we have to delete, because we don't make decisions on predictions. Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh??? I don't like the personal tone in Nyttend's comment. Some disclosure: he and I have past history. What is the statement that if i personally haven't discovered something, there must not be anything? Is that sarcasm? Given past history, i doubt the comment was meant to credit me with any positive skill. Anyhow, I had the NYTimes database open for something else and ran a quick search, that's all. I make no assertion that I did anywhere near a complete job in searching in news databases that are available to me and probably others here. And, for another thing, the comment's linking to wp:CRYSTALBALL seems odd as there are no predictions within the article. Nyttend, please don't make any further comment about me here and I will not make any further comment about you. You used my name twice, i used yours twice, let's stop. --doncram 15:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your findings showed that there was no substantial coverage. I marvel that you instantly made this personal, commenting on the contributor instead of the contribution in defiance of our expected standards of behavior and decorum; once again, I warn you that any more of this will result in a request for arbitration enforcement. I came here to participate in the AFD, not to hear your comments on my motives. Nyttend (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, I further disagree with the comment that my findings show there exist no substantial coverage. It's hard to prove a negative like that, and I have clearly disavowed doing any serious attempt to research available news databases.
    And, umm, i absolutely did not comment on your motives; i said there is past history, which you confirm. I do comment that your reasoning is off-base, about the article: you assert that if doncram's search in NYTimes database doesn't come up with substantial coverage, then no substantial coverage exists, which is just bizarre. Only NYTimes coverage is valid? You don't answer the question, what did you mean by your statement about me. And I find that your commenting about me including invoking my name twice is odd, given that, indeed, you have several times stated "warnings" about personally-directed comments. So you yourself, please don't make personally-directed comments, then, like you did here first, and which you have done again. --doncram 01:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    --doncram 01:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Further sourcing is available and should be added, but the claims of notability are appropriately supported in the article. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Over century old notable organization as outlined in sources above and in article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:08, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 05:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Rakia[edit]

    Rakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Should be deleted per WP:CFORK as it is an effort of content-forking for rakı. After deletion can be userfied to preserve the little, if any, useful information to add that content to rakı. The article is a total original research (see the version before I shaved it a bit) and that is why I did not propose a merge, which can be decided here, together with a redirect option. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the history, I had first created rakija as a redirect to the anise-flavored liquor article in 2004, because it was described over there. Then, over a year later, after one or two other users fiddled with the redirect in an inappropriate manner (making it look as if it was a strictly Bulgarian drink, which it isn't), I moved the content over. It has since lived a life of its own. The next year, a Bulgarian user moved it to rakia. Over time, we had numerous more or less anonymous users fiddle with it further, trying to add a more strict relation to raki, or to some particular nation. It seems reasonable to separate it from raki because a rakija with aniseed is fairly rare in comparison with the other variants. Indeed, if you want to merge this drink anywhere, despite the etymology, I'd say brandy is a better location. And if you're actually serious about a merge, you'd probably have to take in the entire kit and caboodle, for example the list at eau de vie. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Joy - although Rakia and Raki probably come from the same Arabic word, the drink itself is very different, and Rakia is indeed a sort of brandy. FkpCascais (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep without prejudice for possible merging with eau de vie per Joy, but a content fork this is not. Rakı is a completely different beverage (basically same as ouzo), of which Rakia only borrowed the name. No such user (talk) 10:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello. Just an ordinary user. I don't understand why you'd want to delete what seems a pretty factual (and accurate) article. Raki and Rakia are not the same. I just received a splendid bottle of local Rakia from a friend in Montenegro (on the bottle the sub-title is Eau de Vie de Montenegro). This is, of course, alcohol distilled from fruit (other than grapes) as your article on Eau de Vie correctly says - that article also refers (correctly) to Balkan Rakia. Eau de vie distilled from grapes can be called Brandy (among other things - Armagnac, Cognac, etc) I have also happily drunk Turkish Raki (most recently in Istanbul in October 2013). It is an anis-flavoured drink - like ouzo etc, but also pastis and absinthe (that connection would be better). IMHO the article does not need deleting but linking better with other articles. To verify, please just drink the stuff with pleasure and you'll see. Thanks.

    2A02:120B:2C03:DB00:6D95:5AF0:8C13:E47 (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I see that messages have been taken (myself included). Therefore, as nominator, I suggest let us continue our discussion for its Merge and redirect to the appropriate article/section. To me it is Fruit brandy where Rakia's name is already present. We may take the additional -if any- information in the article there and redirect the title. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, well if it's "fruit brandy" to you, then it must be fruit brandy. We mustn't let minor nuisances like significant coverage by reliable sources mislead our readers. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is in the fruit brandy section of brandy article and I did not put it there. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Along with over a dozen other entries, each with its own parent-article. If someone reading that article wants to know more about rakia, we have a fairly comprehensive source-backed article that's only a wiki-link away. See how that works? Nothing to delete, nothing to redirect, nothing to merge; this is a solution in search of a problem. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It isn't anymore -- I've created a WP:CONCEPTDAB article about fruit brandy, with a much clearer scope than before. Still, there are many articles about similar drinks across the world, which mostly differ in cultural aspects. No such user (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Joefromrandb. This should be left alone as is. It's well referenced, factually accurate, and the nomination is based on a good faith misunderstanding. Leave it. oknazevad (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw nom per opinions and new input by No such user. I made some changes to the article. I also would like to say here that "raki" should go directly to Rakı and not to a disam page, Thanks to all for your input and time. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:28, 22 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. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 21:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Martin Gumbura[edit]

    Robert Martin Gumbura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Biography of someone who is only notable for being convicted of a crime. Fails WP:PERP. - MrX 19:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Admittedly this is a very brief, poorly written stub that is focused on the fall from grace of a particularly influential, controversial and ultimately notorious figure. However, he is not only known for the crimes for which he has been sentenced. The figure in question is notable, and especially to church-going Zimbabweans, in that he has lead an errand section of the apostolic faith in Zimbabwe (the largest of the faith-based Christian groups). I think an expanded and properly referenced article on him and, by extension, his church group could lead to a wider understanding of the current religious context in Zimbabwe and its treatment of women. If it is kept, I am willing to work on it to see if it can be made into a valid article.Isla Haddow (talk) 20:43, 26 June 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 / 01:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not sure what purpose the article serves. Nothing links to the article except for deletion related links. The wikipedia page does not come high up the list on a search on "Robert Martin Gumbura" OR "Robert Gumbura". Over all I think it is a risk keeping the article here as, perhaps, the only person that might want to edit the article is the convicted man. Beyond that I really can't make up my mind on actual notability but I agree that it is notability for all the wrong reasons. Gregkaye (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Articles don't have to be wikilinked to come up in google results, plus its an easy job to work some wikilinks in. A lack of wikilinks, an easy to fix matter, is not a reason for deletion. JTdale Talk 09:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- I would be much happier if wew had an article on his church, and a few links. Could it be userified to Isla Haddow, with a view to his bringing it up to an acceptable standard? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, there are oodles of sources available on this individual besides those in the article, including this, this and this. The current poor state of the article is not a reason for deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:56, 13 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, NorthAmerica1000 09:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Response to above) - It is. The current situation of any article is a reason for deletion, if we want to keep our standards high and the name of WP up. Some articles must be made from scratch and for that reason may be deleted, like this one. This is why I propose to Delete and userfy the text to whomever interested in developing an article for a criminal. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion - This plainly states editing should always be done instead of deleting. If someone wants to start over, they press Select All then the delete button and begin writing. JTdale Talk 11:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarity: I am happy to work on the article if it is kept. The point is not to "develop an article for a criminal", but to develop the article to see how a criminal could develop within one of the largest churches in Zimbabwe. If you only look at the "good" in society, you are only covering half the story. Isla Haddow (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - that the article is badly written is really not a reason for deletion when it is like in this case a notable article subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 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 redirect to Family of Barack Obama#Maternal relations. There are several valid concerns that family relationship to an important figure usually does not confer notability (and in this case it is an extended family), and there is a clear consensus that there should not be a separate article. On the question on whether the content should be merged there is no consensus, so I will not delete this outright. Since the subject already has a paragraph in the "Family of Barack Obama" article I will redirect there without further changes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Margaret Arlene Payne[edit]

    Margaret Arlene Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No proof of notability other than an obituary and Obama being mentioned very late in her obituary. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Redtigerxyz Talk 07:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    She may deserve an entry in Obama's family, but does she deserve a stand-alone article? The whole ruckus was about the obituary. WP:SINGLEEVENT applies. WP:GNG "Significant coverage" is violated. There is no proof of WP:NACADEMICS being complied with. Authoring a book on children's nutrition doesn't make her notable.Redtigerxyz Talk 18:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K., I see the other arguments, in particular User:TonyTheTiger's, supra. I'd go along with a merge. Bearian (talk) 21:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again WP:NOTINHERITED. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    Not at all. If she'd earned it in 1927 then it would have been relatively unusual, but there were plenty of women with PhDs by the time she got hers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The academic notability rules are not time sensitive. Either she meets one of the clear criteria or she does not. Writting one book in most subjects does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 1 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I really want to find a reason to support this. However, anyone can have an obit. WP:GNG is about a subject having editorial content apart from passing mentions. Although an obit is not a passing mention, it is not really content based on editorial choice that it was worthy of space. An obit is almost a mandatory mention. Discarding all obit and related content it is difficult to support notability. Having a book published does not confer notability unless the book meets certain standards of import. I just don't see a policy based reason to claim uninherited notability for this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If it is decided Payne is non-notable, please consider a merge to Family of Barack Obama instead of a deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:45, 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge In my opinion deletion nomination was not the appropriate action to be taken here. Merging with Family of Barack Obama should've been what was proposed. JTdale Talk 09:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above arguments. The article itself implicitly asserts WP:INHERIT notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:34, 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 no consensus. I can understand the point of view by the "delete" side, but much of it is only assertions of non-notability. A number of sources have been provided that cover Mrs Fulton in a non-trivial manner, and while it is arguable that this is more news coverage than encyclopedic coverage, they do come from different events. As such, I cannot read a consensus to delete here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Brenda Sue Fulton[edit]

    Brenda Sue Fulton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Person without an especially strong or well-referenced claim of notability; she's been on the boards of various organizations, with no particularly substantive assertion that she accomplished anything unique in those roles, and was part of the first same-sex couple ever to get married at one particular facility — but neither of those is a reason why a person should have a permanent standalone biographical article in an encyclopedia, as opposed to just having her name mentioned in the articles where the mention of her name might be relevant. Delete unless more substantive evidence of actual encyclopedic notability can be located than this. Bearcat (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I really cannot see any reason whatsoever why this person would be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as no evidence of Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. Part of first West Point class to admit women. Founder of two organisations. First same-sex couple to marry at the Cadet Chapel at West Point? What more do we want, mermaids? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those three things are notability claims that actually pass our inclusion rules. And a person doesn't pass WP:GNG just because you assert that they did X, Y or Z, and source it only to a single blog post of a length that would be called a blurb if it were appearing in a newspaper — we require substantive and ongoing coverage in reliable sources. So what more do we want? Real sources supporting a real claim of notability, that's what. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick check found plenty of reliable sources. New York Times, Huffington Post Wall Street Journal. Ongoing coverage is not required. Plenty of notable subjects do not have ongoing coverage. (Usually because they are dead.) These are claims to notability. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even dead notable people don't actually cease to be the subject of any new coverage — new biographies can still be written, new media analysis of their sustained influence on how things are today can still happen, and on and so forth. That said, "ongoing" doesn't necessarily mean that coverage has to continue right up to the present day regardless of how long ago a person died; it merely means that the coverage has to be sustained over a meaningful length of time. That period of time may have ended or it may not have, but that's not part of the test either way — what matters is that the coverage constitutes much more than one or two small, isolated human interest/WP:BLP1E blips, and that it supports a substantive and genuinely meaningful reason why the person warrants permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the multiple notable events left the article above WP:BLP1E. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Why is being "part of the first same-sex couple to marry at the Cadet Chapel at West Point" notable enough for an article? I don't think even being part of the first same sex couple recognized as marrying in New York would make someone notable, but this case clearly not. Nor do we have articles on all the other women in West Point's first class with women. This is not the type of things that pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per coverage identified by User:Hawkeye7 above. These things confer notability because reliable and independent sources covered them. Whether you or I think that what Fulton has done is important or noteworthy is irrelevant, the fact that reliable sources have documented it is what counts here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:13, 13 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - What brings her notability? What makes her so attractive? West Point in the 80's? (Women were accepted to top military schools in the Atatürk era Turkey (1923 on) and the first of those batches retired as coronels in the 1960's.) Or her same-sex marriage? So common in many Western countries nowadays. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And dozens of men were Vice President before Joe Biden. Notability comes from coverage in reliable sources, not from being first. This is the Wikipedia, not the Guinness Book of Records. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In addition to what has been mentioned, I provide these;
      Coverage of Marriage;
    - ABCNews
    - Yahoo News
    - USAToday
    - Fox News Insider
    • Appointment to Board of Visitors of Military Academy;
    - Advocate Magazine
    - ArmyTimes
    - RawStory
    - Windy City Times
    - Washington Monthly
    - WashingtonBlade
    - Mentioned in passing here
    • delete Being "first married" is hardly a high personal accomplishment; just case of luck. No other aspects on=f notability; WP:SINGLEEVENT. -No.Altenmann >t 15:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      As noted above, there are other aspects of notability, including presidential appointment to the Board of Visitors of Military Academy, founding of OutServe and SLDN, and the first West Point Class. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, meets WP:GNG, I agree with User:Hawkeye7's statement of fact about ABCNews and onward. Just doing a bit of research I've turned up multiple independent sources. Notability's main point, in the Wikipedia sense, deals with whether an article can be expanded via multiple independent reliable sources, which this subject has. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:43, 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 Madison Beer. While more participation here would have been ideal, the weak consensus in this short discussion is for a merge. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 21:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Unbreakable (Madison Beer song)[edit]

    Unbreakable (Madison Beer song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Irrelevant and unnotable song written by an artist that has never even been charted and sold less than 10k albums. Why she even has a wikipedia page is beyond me. Youngdrake (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, or merge I feel it can be brought up to standards if some work is put into it. It certainly fails to make an assertion of notability at this point but it is covered by multiple independent sources. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or redirect to Madison Beer. The coverage for this song in reliable sources is quite thin, and WP:NSONGS suggests that articles consisting of such limited material be merged into the artist's page.  Gongshow   talk 17:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Madison Beer. Not enough coverage for an article. --Bejnar (talk) 06:46, 21 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. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Active Royal Navy Vessels in 1981[edit]

    Active Royal Navy Vessels in 1981 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Do we really need this article? I don't think having Active ships per year is such a good idea, too much effort maintaining it. This article is an orphan so nothing links here - rather delete IMO it as all the info is available on other pages Gbawden (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - per Andrew below, and, periodically, a list of ships shows the forces available and thus the fighting capability. Roughly every five years would work. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep We don't seem to need this nomination because, if this information is covered elsewhere, there are sensible alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Delete per reasons I gave above (these two nominations should have been bundled together). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:40, 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:33, 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 keep. Nice save. I'm going to move to the title suggested by Milowent, but that's not part of the close. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruvu, Town[edit]

    Ruvu, Town (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No verified sources ProudNitro (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are multiple "Ruvus" in Tanzania and I can't find one that is "near to Dar es Salaam." If this can be proven to be a population center/town as the article claims, I would opt to keep it. But right now I can't find any verification.--Oakshade (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak, weak keep. Delete Keep per sources found by Milowent. I finally found a mention here: "The other [railway] lines runs [sic] from Ruvu northward to Korogwe and then branches to Tanga port on the Indian ocean ...", and from the map in Central Line (Tanzania), it looks to be at about the right distance from Dar es Salaam. It's also mentioned here in this railway accident report as being "78km west of Dar-es-Salaam" and as a railway station in Patterns of Regional Geography: "There also exists a link between the Tanga Line and the Central Line between the stations of Mnyusi and Ruvu ..." These establish it's at least a station, though whether it's a town is a bit hazy. Addendum: Too hazy to warrant keeping. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, given the difficulty of actually proving the existence and location of this down, I think we can't really write an article per WP:V. I'd take a guess that it's probably a siding or a junction rather than a settlement as such. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • I suspect there is a town there at what appears to be an important railroad junction, but without any corroboration, I'm changing my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous vote struck, I'm now Keep per User:Milowent. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with including the coordinates, which although plausible feels like WP:OR to me, but I'm not going to quibble about it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:03, 22 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The location information found by Clarityfiend above (78 km west of Dar-es-Salaam, near a railway junction), along with a label for the railway station on Open Street Maps, indicates that this is almost certainly the settlement visible on satellite maps at 6°48′33″S 38°39′24″E / 6.8093°S 38.6568°E / -6.8093; 38.6568. Whether that, taken with the mentions cited by Clarityfiend, provides enough for verifiability, I won't venture to say. Deor (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Verified populated place. Yes, it can be more difficult to reference locations in countries like Tanzania, but they often can be verified with some effort. I've found and linked a 2005 government report which includes a Kibaha district map showing the location of the town which matches the coordinates we have. I've also located the 2002 census page with the ward population. Let's move to Ruvu, Kibaha District once we close?--Milowent • hasspoken 17:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per sources added by User:Milowent to the article providing verification. NorthAmerica1000 21:20, 21 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) 08:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew J. Feiner[edit]

    Matthew J. Feiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non notable IMO, fails WP:NCYCLING. Nothing in the article speaks to notability, including that he returns stolen bikes or that his shop was robbed. Gbawden (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 June 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 deckertalk 15:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No indication of notability. Owning a bike shop that has been frequently robbed does not show notability.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:15, 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:30, 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. j⚛e deckertalk 23:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    St Bakhita Centre[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    St Bakhita Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    fails WP:ORG. last nomination didn't get any !votes. no real coverage, nothing in major Sydney newspaper smh.com.au LibStar (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 June 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 deckertalk 15:34, 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:29, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The New Essential Chronology[edit]

    The New Essential Chronology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable book about Star Wars universe. Fails WP:NBOOK Mikeblas (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 27 June 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 deckertalk 15:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - As far as I can see, it fails WP:NBOOK. I am unable to find any sort of review or discussion of the book from a reliable source, and while Star Wars itself may be notable, this particular book about it does not appear to be. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:56, 11 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No luck finding sources meeting GNG, it did have a couple months on Locus' magazines sales lists for in-genre-related works (e.g., [16]), but I that's not enough for the NBOOK criteria nor GNG. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:48, 21 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 deckertalk 02:44, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Wronski[edit]

    Chris Wronski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This businessperson bio seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (people) - no coverage in mainstream, independent sources shown. Prod declined by the creator without any comment. Also, WP:AUTOBIO, considering the article's WP:SPA creator is User:ChrisWronski. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment had one major business venture which gives article one incoming link. Gregkaye (talk) 06:36, 27 June 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 deckertalk 16:09, 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:28, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 21:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Water weights[edit]

    Water weights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This seems to be an advertisement for a company that doesn't meet WP:CORP. There are a bunch of external links and the only source provided is a dead link. Delete. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 23:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There are companies in various countries called Water Weights but is also a generic load testing method. I would prefer that the page was improved rather than being deleted Wayne Jayes 13:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a reference and external links to two separate companies that provide the water weight bags, so that the article is no longer an advert but rather provides information about a method of testing. Wayne Jayes 14:15, 28 June 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:13, 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:25, 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 keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Gojin Motors[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Gojin Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Deleted in 2005 and restored soon afterwards with claims of notability, but no sources were presented back then, nor were any added to the article since. ([17]) A lot has changed since those early years, and one of them is a policy at Wikipedia:Notability (companies), and our ability to say that as written, this stub clearly fails it. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm a bit torn. It is virtually impossible to find English sources that pass WP:GNG, this is true, but I see a ton of mentions (yet none are significant coverage), and looking at the previous discussions, some sources (now dead) did exist. Why I'm stuck on the fence is that this is a huge company, and I find it hard to believe that proper sources don't exist...it is just hard to find them using Latin characters and the English language. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I am usually quite passive with a "live and let live" in terms of articles but when there is no Korean wiki page for this Korean company a red flag pops up there. After searching on the main portal in Korea (www.naver.com) with the company name in Korean (고진모터스) I keep finding 아우디 고진모터스 (Audi Gojin Motors). I clicked on some random blogs and found a screen shot of Naver Maps (maps.naver.com) had the location in Gwangju named (roughly) Gwangju Audi (something) Market. The name Gojin is not in the name of the location in Gwangju. Spurred on by that I search for Gojin Motors (again 고진모터스) on Naver Maps and got 26 results, Audi Gojin Motors 14 results, Audi by itself over 400 results. In the first 7 results for 아우디 (Audi) 3 of them say '(different company name) + Motors Audi ____.' Yes, I see it exists, yes I can find it, but the search results in the native language are slim and I wrote them here and gave the portal so please confirm/rebut my statements. If car fans in that country can't be bothered to write an article about it, then it really must be small and really not worth the server space. I should also add the Korean wiki for Audi (https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%95%84%EC%9A%B0%EB%94%94) only has one brief sentence about Gojin syaing they were the official dealer. And for whatever reason their official site is blocked here at work. ₪RicknAsia₪ 02:13, 30 June 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:14, 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Default to keep I was able to find passing mentions in three sources:
      1. "Sales of imported cars up 7.2 pct in July". KBS World. 2001-08-08. Archived from the original on 2014-07-21. Retrieved 2014-07-21. Gojin Motors, local dealer of Audi and Volkswagen models, ranked fourth with 67 cars sold last month, defeating Toyota Korea with 64 vehicles sold.
      2. "Volkswagen's Audi to set up distributorship network in South Korea". Agence France-Presse. 2004-08-17. Archived from the original on 2014-07-21. Retrieved 2014-07-21. Audi brands currently are imported by an independent South Korean company, Gojin Motors Import, which was to continue its partnership with the car maker.
      3. Chon, Steve (2004-05-13). "Changing competitive dynamics in the Korean passenger vehicle markets". Frost & Sullivan. Archived from the original on 2014-07-21. Retrieved 2014-07-21. Audi AG, the luxury division of Volkswagen AG, will also set up a subsidiary, and Gojin Motors, their importer will continue sales and after sales service operations.
      Although these passing mentions are not sufficient to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, they verify that the subject exists, allowing the article to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability, which says, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."

      At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gojin Motors in December 2005, Kappa (talk · contribs) wrote:

      *Keep, not advertising, gets mentions in national and international newspapers [18] [19] [20] Kappa 23:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

      The closing admin, JIP (talk · contribs), wrote:

      The consensus is very marginal at best, but I looked at the three links Kappa provided, and the first couldn't be found, and the second was a local Korean newspaper. I don't think this company is that much internationally notable.

      The close was discussed at WP:DRV, which resulted in an overturn. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gojin Motors (2nd nomination) was closed as keep.

      I sympathize with Dennis Brown (talk · contribs)'s arguments.

      I am defaulting to supporting retention because:

      1. There may be offline Korean sources available that discuss the subject.
      2. The links provided by Kappa might be sufficient for the company to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, but cannot be accessed because all are dead links and none have been captured by the Wayback Machine (the captures were all made after the links no longer worked).
      Cunard (talk) 05:25, 21 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Adrian Croom[edit]

    Adrian Croom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I'm unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this person or his works; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC.  Gongshow   talk 18:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • More credible sources of editorial coverage have been added to the Adrian Croom page. Croom has released multiple albums and has had coverage on dozens of blogs, magazines and newspapers. Thank you for your concern and input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBobBradley (talk • contribs) 22:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:21, 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 merge to Cadbury Snack. j⚛e deckertalk 00:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Cadbury Snack (Australia)[edit]

    Cadbury Snack (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    First, the link the bot says the article is a copyvio of redirects back here, so I'm not sure what to do about it. In any event, notability concerns - there are no reliable sources. Launchballer 20:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I Moved the content to this new page because, the British version is nothing like the Australian version. I cant say more than that. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Definitely not a copyvio, just a split that had been performed without the correct attribution. I've fixed that up now and removed the copyvio notice. I do agree with Crazyseiko that the Australian Cadbury Snack shares nothing in common with the British version except for the name and so the two should be in the same article. As to whether the Australian version is actually notable or should just redirect to somewhere like Cadbury#Australia and New Zealand I'm not sure. Other products of a similar nature all seem to have articles, but obviously that is a poor keep argument. Some significant coverage could perhaps be found in the Fairfax archive. Jenks24 (talk) 11:28, 25 June 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 deckertalk 18:07, 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, NorthAmerica1000 08:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hard to find much in the way of reliable sources even in the Faifax Archive or Google News. The best I could do was this. It's an entirely different product to the American Snack, so I lean towards a redirect to Cadbury#Australia and New Zealand unless better sources can be found.Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge - notability not established (which is hardly suprising, since it's a confectionary product without any historical significance...even if it is yummy!) 1292simon (talk) 11:47, 23 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 deckertalk 02:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Arsenal F.C.–Stoke City F.C. rivalry[edit]

    Arsenal F.C.–Stoke City F.C. rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A well-written article - but not a notable one. This entire "rivalry" seems to be attributed to one incident in one match (Shawcross' tackle on Ramsay) and is not actually a "rivalry" of any kind. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. GiantSnowman 08:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – There is no actual rivalry between these two teams, regardless of any mild antagonism in the last few years. These two sides never compete directly for silverware, and they're not geographically close; the only real beef here is between a few vocal Arsenal fans and Ryan Shawcross for injuring Aaron Ramsey. – PeeJay 13:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Agreed. Just because there was a bunch of BS between the two, like what PeeJay mentioned, Ramsey suffering a double fracture at the hands of Shawcross, doesn't make this a rivalry. That's like WP:1E. So yeah, fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. – Michael (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as noted above, there is no genuine rivalry between these clubs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As this was on the frontpage the other day, I've notified the DYK project. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's just so things like this can happen once in a while that DYK insists on showcasing content less than a week old. EEng (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not the same as "significant coverage." GiantSnowman 20:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that coverage in several national and regional newspapers and football specialist news websites over several years counts as "significant coverage" Of course there isn't going to be much pre-2008 as the rivalry is comparatively recent (as the article attests) and they hadn't played each other for years. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, no significant coverage of this as a notable rivalry. GiantSnowman 20:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I repeat the point. Coverage in several national and regional newspapers and football specialist news websites over several years is significant coverage as a notable rivalry given that most of them mention it as a rivalry within the first paragraph or title. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see just one title with rival. To save us trawling through the zillion sources can you give the links here to those that mention a rivalry in their text? EEng (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well. Goal.com, Bleacher Report, Sentinel, Sky Sports, Daily Mirror, BBC, Tribal Football and Metro shows that fans believe there is a rivalry. Definitely significant coverage. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there certainly are several mentions of a "developing rivalry", "rivalry in the last few years" and so on. I guess the question is whether that coverage adds up to a big-R Rivalry or a little-r rivalry, if you get my drift. I really can't tell because I don't understand the footy context well at all, so I'll leave that to others. EEng (talk) 06:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - bar the Ramsey injury, there is nothing that indicates a genuine rivalry to the level required by WP:NRIVALRY. Fenix down (talk)
    All NRIVALRY says is follow GNG. Which clearly it does fulfil as I mentioned above. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for the following significant issues:
    • Goal.com - the basis almost entirely on the Shawcross challenge.
    • Bleacher Report - doesn't even mention the notion of rivalry and is a set of predictions for an upcoming fixture.
    • Sentinel - just summarises a few meetings. Mentions the word rivalry once but does not expand on it. Nothing in here that discusses any rivalry in a wider context.
    • Sky Sports - one paragraph on Pulis v Wenger. Essentially states that everything boils down to the Shawcross challenge. No significant discussion of any rivalry.
    • Daily Mirror - is a match report, not an article on any rivalry. One very brief mention on "rivalry" which provdes nothing to support the assertion.
    • BBC - post match interviews with managers are hardly reliable sources. Again one brief mention of the word rivalry, no expansion on that assertion.
    • Tribal Football - very short article, mainly quotes from the manager, so hardly significant coverage from a reliable source as required by GNG.
    • Metro - doesn't even mention the notion of rivalry.
    Yes, the clubs don't particularly like each other, yes, they play each other at least twice a season at the moment, but no, there simply is not sufficient significant reliable coverage of the notion of rivalry between the two clubs to warrant an individual article. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Never seen one of these survive afd, not this one either. Szzuk (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There is no clear rivalry between these clubs and no history. QED237 (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: while there are some reliable sources there is no significant coverage. Plus, My friendly neighbourhood Stoke fan has always said it's more a dislike of Arsene Wenger than Arsenal per se. I've never known an Arsenal fan to comment on it at all. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OR! POV! COI! ANI! Block! Ban! EEng (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per the thoughts of WP:TOOSOON. It is something that might develop into a full rivalry, but probably won't. There are loads of examples through the history of sport where there is an incident with the result that supporters / players / coaches of Team A bear a grudge / make bad comments about Team B, but in most cases it melts away into the territory of "do you remember....?" and doesn't develop into an ongoing rivalry. I suspect in this case that most or all of this "rivalry" will dissipate when the central figures to the incident (Shawcross in particular) move on. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the point though, "look what happened", i.e. look what grew out of the fixtures over time. At this point there simply isn't enough in the sources. There might be in the future inwhich case what is present will become relevant. Fenix down (talk) 09:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Educational note: Can someone please explain this odd (to an American) use of this word fixture? EEng (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It just means a match, basically. What you would (I would imagine) refer to as a "season schedule", we call a "fixture list" i.e. a list of individual fixtures -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. Somehow I never, ever heard that before. There's even this! EEng (talk) 05:14, 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. Later comments after further sources were added seem to generally agree that this person is sufficiently notable. ~ mazca talk 19:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Mira Gonzalez[edit]

    Mira Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable person does not pass WP:BIO. The only source from an established publication (ie, not some unknown indie-zine) focused solely on the subject is the VICE article, which seems to be a transfusion of satirical fiction and immersion journalism. felt_friend 04:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Validatrium (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC) - Sockpuppet of User:Don't Feed the Zords. Tiptoety talk 05:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as notable poet. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: A young artist early in her career. If she achieves notability, an article can be re-created, but as it stands, she doesn't pass the relevant notability guideline, when one looks at the sources in the article. Soccermom47 (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I've added a few sources but I'm so far undecided about her notability. I do think that if Gonzalez is ultimately deemed a non-notable person at this point in time, a copy should be userfied or placed in the draftspace for someone to work on until she gets more coverage. I am seeing where she's getting some mention here and there (for instance, in this article), but the coverage right now is fairly light. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Her reaching a point of agreeable notability is definitely possible within the foreseeable future. I feel that for the time being however, the sources provided do not establish notability of any kind. felt_friend 15:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's kind of what I'm leaning towards. It's just too light for me to really be comfortable, to be honest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 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 2014 FIFA World Cup#Third place play-off. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 18:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Brazil v Netherlands (2014 FIFA World Cup)[edit]

    Brazil v Netherlands (2014 FIFA World Cup) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is not a notable match. Unlike Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup), which was an historic game, the only coverage of this match is routine sports coverage. As far as I know third place WC games are not presumed notable. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Tchaliburton (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to 2014 FIFA World Cup#Third place play-off, no need for a separate article. GiantSnowman 08:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per above. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 12:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I declined an A7 on this article. If it's going to be redirected, wouldn't it be better first to change the title of the redirect to match the pages that deserve separate articles so we have a consistent naming convention?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - The match is clearly not independently notable, but it seems a reasonable search term. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per everyone above, unless we plan to have a separate article on every match at the World Cup (which would be ludicrous, just in case anyone thinks I was being serious..............) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 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 seems to be that there just hasn't been enough coverage to satisfy the general notability guidelines - while the subject had a moderately interesting life in several fields, none of them confer the level of notability necessary for an encyclopedia article under our guidelines. ~ mazca talk 19:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Silas Hathaway[edit]

    Silas Hathaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No evidence of notability per WP:MILPEOPLE (Staff sergeant is not a flag or general officer), and apparent failure to meet WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO: the only reliable source is a single article in a local publication, not multiple published works, and that source does not address any of the child actor claims. ALL connections between the subject and the Chaplin film are based on primary sources or unreliable sources, which, even if in fact true, are violations of WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPPRIMARY until substantiated by reliable sources. If no reliable sources have promoted the "notable" fact that Hathaway had a minor role as an infant in a well-known film, than primary sources (autographs) cannot be used to establish notability. It is not the place for Wikipedia editors or film fans to promote that which has never been reliably published- that is original research, and runs the risk of building the Frankensten. Furthermore, even assuming the film connection is true, WP:ONEEVENT may apply. Any possible claims of notability per WP:NACTOR need high quality, reliable, secondary sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Many thanks to him for his military service, but wounds as such do not entitle one to a Wikipedia article any more than does appearing as a baby in one film. Fails WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete per above. Hard sounds familiar to me. Zyzzy111 (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Tiptoety talk 05:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. The Desert Sun piece is certainly a good source, local to Palm Springs, though, contributing incrementally to WP:GNG. I found another such source, a biographical piece on Hathaway in a newspaper, this time The Catalina Islander, the local paper of Hathaway's hometown, Avalon, on Catalina Island. The piece was titled, "Silas Hathaway is a man of many talents". So there are two local biographical pieces, but the area widens to the region of Southern California because the two papers are not very near each other.
    More stuff that I found:
    • Yes, Silas was the infant who appeared in Chaplin's The Kid, playing the younger version of the Kid.[22][23][24] Film historian Jeffrey Vance writes that The Kid was filmed from July 31, 1919, to July 30, 1920, with some post-production work completed on December 29, 1920. The film was released on January 21, 1921, in NYC at Carnegie Hall. The filming dates correspond to Hathaway being in the range of 4–16 months old.
    • While attending Avalon High School in the 1930s, Hathaway served for a time as a reporter and then the assistant editor at the school paper, The High School Sugar Loaf.[25][26]
    • During high school in 1934, Hathaway played left guard on the football team.[27] He played fullback in '37.[28]
    • During high school in 1934–35, Hathaway served as the 9th grade class president.[29]
    • During high school in 1936–37, Hathaway lettered in football.[30][31] He was also a letterman in 1937–38.[32] The school paper's gossip column called him "Silas 'Man-about-town' Hathaway".
    • In early 1937, Hathaway made a diving helmet in shop class.[33] Later that year he made a paddle board.[34]
    • Hathaway's father, also named Silas M. Hathaway,[35] killed himself in early February 1938 because he was gravely ill. He had been a city councilman in Avalon, and the proprietor of the Glenmore Hotel. He shot himself in the Angelus Hotel in Los Angeles.[36] The announcement of the memorial service says that the father was survived by his wife Bonnie Louise Hathaway, by his son Silas Merrie Hathaway, Jr., his daughter Virginia Louise Hathaway, and by his two sisters.[37]
    • In May 1952, Hathaway was in charge of ways and means at the Costa Mesa PTA.[38]
    So with all this routine local stuff which doesn't count for much, and the two in-depth newspaper pieces but from far-apart local papers, I'm on the fence about this biography. I'd like to see even one in-depth piece connect the dots and tell us that the adult WWII mechanic, rancher, nurseryman, landscape contractor, taxidermist and fisherman was also the baby Kid. Binksternet (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Those factoids from snippets of the high school paper are primary sources, no more notable than a number in a phone book (factual yet non-notable) and stringing them together in any kind of narrative would be original research, and only if subjected to publication in secondary sources (presumably having undergone some due-diligence of fact-checking) should they be mentioned: the chance exists, small as it may be, for mistaken identity and other perpetuation of falsehoods.--Animalparty-- (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just a note; IMBD lists the "Silas Hathaway" who played the baby in The Kid as female; see here. Might just be a mistake on IMBD's behalf though. JTdale Talk 07:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think this could be the connection between the two bios: "Hanging with Hollywood Autographs" (https://www.facebook.com/HangingWithHollywood/posts/778002872212052) recieved a double-sided letter from Mr. Hathaway in May 2014. On the first page he writes that he was the baby from "The Kid". On the second page he writes about his time in the army. He also writes that he lost four fingers on his left hand - exactely like the man in the Army Article lost four fingers. --Clibenfoart (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And Mr. Hathaway is also notable as one of the last surviving persons from a Silent film. And The Kid is among the most famous silent films, and Hathaway played together with Jackie Coogan the title figure. --Clibenfoart (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there are links between Hathaway's adult life and his role as infant Kid, but these are in social media or primary sources, not reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. I would love to keep this bio on the simple basis of his being the last survivor, but I'm still on the fence because the fact that he is the last survivor has not been the subject of a third party article in the media. Binksternet (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Following up on Binksternet's comments, claiming that the subject is notable for allegedly appearing as an infant in The Kid is so far entirely original research and synthesis using primary sources, which is not allowed, especially in Biographies of Living People, where the utmost emphasis must be on reliable, secondary sources. Playing detective or journalist is in violation of Wikipedia's policies. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources:
    • Comment. I sent a couple of notes out into the world so that one or another film writer can go visit Mr. Hathaway and interview him, to see his photos and documents, and to confirm he was the infant in The Kid. I expect someone will soon publish such an article, and we will be able once again to have this biography in Wikipedia. Even though I expect this article to be deleted, I will not vote that way. Instead, I will rewrite it in the future based on better sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I learned that the interview was done way back in 2002, and Hathaway is certainly the baby in The Kid, but I don't think there will be a new article written about him, discussing his life and his film experience. The problem is that he doesn't remember any of his film experiences, so he is not so interesting a subject for film historians. Binksternet (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Nobody has an article here for a secondary role in one film (in which he lay down and cried perhaps). We even deleted recently that Italian-Greek babe. (I already forgot her name, Monica something, but not the looks. :-) No way. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:57, 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. Michig (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Julio Tavarez[edit]

    Julio Tavarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:BLP of a politician, "notable" only as a city councillor in a city not large enough to confer notability on its city councillors under WP:POLITICIAN. In addition, the article is sourced exclusively to primary sources, with not a shred of reliable source coverage being cited as evidence of his notability. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 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 no consensus. SpinningSpark 17:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Autism Research Institute[edit]

    Autism Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:ORG. There are, as far as I can tell, a grand total of three articles [39][40][41] in what could be considered reliable sources about the institute, and all three are in relation to negative issues with chelation therapy. There is simply no significant independent coverage of the subject. The article seems to have been created as a kind of attack page and reverse WP:GREATWRONGS, which makes it unsuitable for inclusion at best. As a disclaimer, I initially looked into this as a request from an editor with COI, I attempted to fix it rather than delete it, but gave up after realizing that I was getting nowhere and in any case my search for sources and information seemed to turn up nothing that could salvage it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Covereage fairly substantial here (major investigative newspaper story). Discussed fairly extensively in Gil Eyal (2013). The Autism Matrix. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9780745656403. Listed by Quackwatch here, mentioned on ScienceBlogs here, here, here, here and here. Popular Autism Research Institute conferences mentioned here. In Lisa A. Kurtz (2008). Understanding Controversial Therapies for Children with Autism, Attention Deficit Disorder, and Other Learning Disabilities: A Guide to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 126. ISBN 9781846427619. Substantial discussion in, Kaushik Sunder Rajan (2012). Lively Capital: Biotechnologies, Ethics, and Governance in Global Markets. Duke University Press. pp. 361–. ISBN 0822348314. Discussed in, Mitzi Waltz (2003). Pervasive Developmental Disorders: Diagnosis, Options, and Answers. Future Horizons. pp. 156, 293 etc. ISBN 9781932565003. and in Lynn M. Hamilton (2009). Facing Autism: Giving Parents Reasons for Hope and Guidance for Help. Doubleday Religious Publishing Group. pp. 67, 306. ISBN 9780307569035. Mentioned in Chantal Sicile-Kira (2004). Autism Spectrum Disorders: The Complete Guide to Understanding Autism, Asperger's Syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, and Other ASDs. Penguin. p. 127. ISBN 9780399530470. Discussed in Chloe Silverman (2011). Understanding Autism: Parents, Doctors, and the History of a Disorder. Princeton University Press. pp. 291–. ISBN 1400840392.. Description of DAN! certification in, Seth Mnookin (2012). The Panic Virus: The True Story Behind the Vaccine-Autism Controversy. Simon and Schuster. p. 264. ISBN 9781439158654. Multiple books refer to this organization some with discussion, many books include citations to publications by this organization. Some of the publications of the organization are cited by authors in journal articles etc. Frequent mentions of DAN! protocol or certification in discussions of or websites of doctors. That ought to be enough to qualify as notable.

    It would seem someone with COI wanted to remove all negative discussion of the treatments advocated by this organization and failing that would like to see the article go away. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - A few points below:
    • The Autism Matrix - A grand total of five mentions, three of which are index- or bibliography-related
    • Lively Capital - 8 mentions, 4 index or bibliography-related
    • The Panic Virus - 14 instances, half of which are index- or bibliography-related. Seems to concentrate on the DAN! protocol
    • Understanding Controversial Therapies.. - Three mentions, trivial coverage at best, concentrates on the protocol
    • Understanding Autism: Parents, Doctors.. - Eleven results, five index- or bibliography-related. Rimland and the protocol again
    • This is most decidedly not about the institute itself
    • This is an article about Wakefield and ARI is mentioned in passing only on page two. Notability (or notoriety) is not inherited
    • And I saved these two books, Facing Autism and Autism Spectrum Disorders: The Complete Guide... for the end. It's amusing and not a little hypocritical that you would even use these as example of coverage, since it's positive towards Rimland and the Institute. They would be immediately declared as fringe as the subject and thus would never be accepted as a reliable source if someone wanted to add them as counterweight. It's the old catch-22 with all these articles
    • Blogs are not reliable sources, unless we accept also fringe blogs. Last I heard we don't
    Finally, two points. One, given your contributions to this article (a sample here) and the use of sources sympathetic to the subject above, I assume you simply did a Google search for the subject. Your argument seems rather impressive until one realizes it's basically WP:GHITS. Second, I resent your insinuation about the COI issue - the editor with a conflict of interest asked me to help them with this, I did my WP:BEFORE (apparently more effectively than you) and I brought to AFD. That kind of attitude is what fosters the toxic environment we've managed to create for COI editors around here (as if the fringe topics weren't toxic enough already) and I wish there was less of it, not more. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 06:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest actually reading the sources instead of using the GHITS approach. You will find the discussion ARI is extensive, the authors don't repeat the name often they refer to Rimland in his position as director or to the DAN! project a part of ARI. I provided links to quite of few of the discussions of ARI below. Again read the sources and in context ARI and its child DAN! are the subject of extensive discussion.
    I stand by my assertion that there was an attempt to whitewash the fringe treatments advocated by ARI followed by an AFD when clear policy based argument was presented for retaining current medical knowledge on these treatments (and etiology theory). Those who have a COI with articles presenting widely discredited and especially harmful and dangerous treatments don't need to be insulated from the valid criticism from mainstream academia. Those who are going to advocate for an organization whose DAN! protocol was used by doctors whose patients died from treatment and those who advocate for Wakefield's ideas as legitimate are going to be confronted with what has been published in reliable sources on the subjects.
    The use of sources for establishing notability and the reliability of sources for content are two separate issues. I would think an editor with some experience would know that. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – Between the institute and the DAN! project there is enough secondary material to satisfy WP:GNG (see MrBill3's list above). The article title might change to "DAN! Project". As an aside, Bernard Rimland might be better merged in too. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Eyal 2013 very extensively discusses Rimland, ARI and DAN! in multiple chapters here. Rajan 2012 published by Duke Univ. Press devotes an entire chapter to discussion of ARI and DAN! here. A page about DAN! in Kurtz 2008 here. About 10 pages discussing Rimland's founding and activities at ARI in Silverman 2011 published by Princeton Univ. Press here. Two pages on ARI, listed as #3 of "Ten things to do first" in Hamilton 2009 here. Description of contacting ARI and discussing their ideas on autism in Seroussi 2002 here. Two pages of discussion of ARI, Rimland and DAN! in Lambert 2010 here. Considerable discussion of ARI in Oller & Oller 2010 here. Discussion of ARI and its advocacy of chelation in Fitzpatrick 2008 here (not to mention DAN! is virtually the subject of the entire book). Discussion of the ARI checklist in Osteen 2010 here. Listed in The Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders here. Discussion of DAN! conference and use of their diet treatment in Millan 2010 here. How does that not qualify as the substantial coverage needed to establish notability? Rimland may stand on his own for his initial work. I don't have a strong opinion on changing the name but ARI is the parent institution. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment about source
    Tsouderos & Callahan 2009 it was stated by another editor "This is most decidedly not about the institute itself" I beg to differ.
    "Doctors, many linked to the influential group Defeat Autism Now!, promote the therapies online, in books and at conferences." "'We feel some urgency that we can't wait for 10 or 20 years,' pediatrician Dr. Elizabeth Mumper, medical coordinator for the Autism Research Institute, testified in a special federal court that examined the issue of autism and vaccines. The nonprofit institute is the parent organization of Defeat Autism Now!" "Address those undiagnosed immune, digestive, neurological and metabolic issues, and the symptoms of autism may improve, Jane Johnson, executive director of Defeat Autism Now!, wrote in an e-mail. Johnson said more than a thousand parents have contacted the Autism Research Institute to say their children have recovered or nearly recovered from autism." "Both Johnson [of DAN!/ARI] and Teri Arranga, director of Autism One, said solid science supports their approach to autism" "No other treatment is more emblematic of the world of alternative therapies for autism than chelation. It is also a potent example of the approach's flaws and risks. Chelation is one of the highest-rated treatments on the Autism Research Institute's parent survey, and a Defeat Autism Now! consensus statement calls removing metals from the body 'one of the most beneficial treatments for autism and related disorders.'" "In fact, Jordan's troubling results were based on a lab test that is common in the world of alternative autism treatments and is practically guaranteed to give incredible results." "Both Shaw and Johnson of Defeat Autism Now! said the labs are identifying real problems..." "...filed complaints with state medical boards against the boy's two Defeat Autism Now! doctors..." "Both family practice doctors are stars of Defeat Autism Now!, having trained thousands of clinicians, according to Johnson. They are listed on the group's online clinician registry, a first stop for many parents of children with autism seeking alternative treatment. To be listed, doctors need only attend a 13-hour seminar held by the Autism Research Institute, sign a statement saying they agree with the group's philosophy and pay a $250 annual fee Johnson told the Tribune that doctors linked to her group mostly focus on diet and vitamins. Yet a recent clinician seminar held in Dallas covered many highly technical specialties: immune problems, digestive issues, methylation abnormalities, mitochondrial dysfunction and detoxification. As long as doctors continue to attend seminars every two years, they can remain listed. As of this month, 350 physicians, naturopaths, chiropractors, nurses and others were listed on the Defeat Autism Now! U.S. registry for state-licensed health care providers." "Of 300 U.S. Defeat Autism Now! clinicians who answered a question about supplement sales for the registry, 80 percent indicated they sold the products to patients." "A disclaimer on the registry site states that the Autism Research Institute does not 'guarantee competence, skill, knowledge, or experience' of those listed. Johnson said the providers sell supplements to ensure quality control. One physician on the registry was Dr. Roy Kerry of Pennsylvania. In 2005, a 5-year-old with autism had a heart attack and died while being intravenously chelated in his office, according to court records. Less than a year later, Kerry was added to the registry." "Defeat Autism Now! continued to list the doctor until Nov. 5, a day after the Tribune inquired about his inclusion. Johnson said the group had already planned to drop him this month because he had not filled out paperwork on his medical license."
    To my reading the above contains extensive discussion of ARI and its DAN! program with multiple quotes from officials in DAN!/ARI. How exactly is it "decidedly not about the institute itself"? Apparently the BEFORE mentioned above was not done as well as asserted. Apologies for the extensive quoting but how else am I to illustrate that the article clearly discussed ARI? - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Although this is perhaps not a clear cut case, I have to come down as keep; this, for instance, strikes me as a good example of non-trivial secondary source coverage. The fact that there are a lot of instances of trivial and fringe mentions shouldn't discount genuine ones. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment on source
    Rajan 2012 was described by another editor as "8 mentions, 4 index or bibliography-related" although this may be a GHITS evaluation of the source, Rajan goes into considerable detail on ARI starting with,
    "The Autism Research Institute is neither the largest nor the best-funded of the parent groups involved in research on the autism spectrum disorders. However, understanding their work is crucial for understanding the ways in which families with autism intervene in medical knowledge production and the complicated ways in which commercial, scientific, therapeutic, and professional interests collide in an organization that seeks to recruit practitioners as well as patients."
    The author then provides 14 pages of discussion on the specific subject of ARI's work. This seems to very clearly be the type of scholarly analysis of an organization required for notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment on source
    Eyal 2013 characterized by another editor as, "A grand total of five mentions, three of which are index- or bibliography-related" actually contains extensive discussion of ARI.
    "The research institute he [Rimland] opened in 1967 - originally called Child Behavior Research Institute (CBRI), then later changed to Autism Research Institute (ARI) - allowed him to maintain close connections to parents and persue his own agenda, crafting a viable career as an autism research scientist outside academic or government medical institutions. For the next two decades, Rimland used ARI as a platform from which to promote alternative biomedical interventions in autism, especially megavitamin therapy, supplements and diets." The author provides multiple pages of discussion on Rimland's use of ARI as a platform...
    "In 1987, Rimland began to publish his own newsletter, the Autism Research Review International (ARRI)." Note that ARRI is officially a publication of ARI.
    The author discusses Rimland's checklist for autism at some length including this telling comment, "The form was intended to be used primarily by parents, who had to send it to ARI once it was completed. The institute, essentially Rimland and an assistant or two..." Eyal goes on, "What was Form E-2 designed to do, if it was not primarily a diagnostic tool? It was a research tool meant to build a database [the database described in multiple sources as ARI's] that would allow Rimland to investigate biological variables and biomedical treatments through a direct exchange with parents." So the form is sent to ARI, the database is an ARI database and the discussion is not a "grand total of five mentions" but a complex discussion of ARI, Rimland and DAN!.
    "To follow the story of Rimland, ARI and DAN!, therefore, is to follow a genealogical thread that does not lead one from the roots to the tree, from heterogeneous origins to a settled identity, but like a rhizome splits apart, wraps around, then spreads out and disapears into the earth."
    Clearly the author discusses ARI through discussion of the activities of its director Rimland and its program DAN!. The discussion of "the story of Rimland, ARI and DAN!" covers many pages and spans several chapters. As Eyal stated ARI, DAN! and Rimland are so intertwined as to be comparable to a single organism. This makes the characterization "a grand total of five mentions, three of which are index- or bibliography related" a blatant misrepresentation of the source. This source obviously contains non trivial and extensive scholarly discussion and analysis of ARI. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment DAN! is a part of ARI, the DAN! protocol is the product of DAN!/ARI. If sources "focus on the DAN! protocol" they are discussing the activities of the subject of the article. Extensive discussion of the activities of the subject of an article in multiple sources contribute to the notability of the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either stubify and protect (suggested subification leaves only the current lede) or delete and salt. The article's history shows that it's both a fertile ground for SPAs and socks, and a huge time-sink for experienced editors. Wikipedia is under no onus to cover everything which there are reliable sources for (if indeed there are reliable sources) and undoubtedly the passage of time will make many of the current issues quibbled about redundant due to the appearance of multiple, high-quality secondary sources. I invite editors to consider the opportunity cost of their time editing wikipedia---are there really no other articles can should focusing on? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply "a fertile ground for SPAs and socks" not exactly a policy based argument is it? Nor is "a huge time-sink for experienced editors". "if indeed there are reliable sources" "due to the appearance of multiple, high-quality secondary sources" as at least 4 high quality secondary sources have been given it seems you are making a proposal without even bothering to look at the references given. "are there really no other articles can should focusing on?" you are welcome to work on whatever articles you choose as is any editor, perhaps since you haven't checked the given references or presented arguments your efforts are better directed elsewhere. Pardon the low level of civility, but after giving references, having them dismissed and providing detailed information on several references, "if indeed there are reliable sources" is dismissive and shows a proposal made without consideration. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Bernard Rimland. There is actually very little in-depth coverage of this organization from secondary sources independent of the subject matter. Evidence of this is that the preponderance of sources in the article are either primary sources from ARI or secondary sources that discuss related issues (i.e. autism, vaccines, chelation therapy, etc) but give little to no discussion about ARI. The in-depth coverage alleged earlier in this discussion appears to be primarily a discussion of Rimland. Location (talk) 20:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding a merge I am the editor with a potential COI mentioned by user:FreeRangeFrog. I never put the page on my watchlist, so I'm afraid I didn't notice the AfD discussion until just now. I did not realize that the Bernard Rimland page had buckets of poorly sourced promotion on the Autism Research Institute. So if/when the page is merged, I'd suggest replacing the entire poorly-sourced/promotional "Autism Research Institute" section on his page and the promotional sentence before it with something neutral and sourced, such as "He founded the Autism Society of America and the Autism Research Institute, which at-the-time advocated for alternative autism treatments."(Source: The New York Times). CorporateM (Talk) 18:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I do not see any good source. I see no source which is talking about this organization, but only some sources talking about something else which talk a little about this organization alongside the main topic of discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Per MrBill3's sources, there is enough press and books to keep the article. Frmorrison (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A WP:FRINGE organisation, taking donations, therefore we should be suspicious that it is self-promoting for WP:ADVOCACY reasons. It is appropriately in Category:Pseudoscience. However, it exists, it is out there in reliable sources, readers will expect to find some coverage of it, and we do not censor pseudo-science. No strong opinion on the merge proposal, but probably it should be smerged if the opening paragraph can't be sourced to a reputable independent secondary source and the first reference is to be to quackwatch. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This organization describes a lot of medical practices that may fall under WP:FRINGE if editors don't pay attention to WP:MEDRS. That being said, there's many problems with this article right now, but it seems to satisfy WP:GNG Karzelek (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -I agree that it is WP:FRINGE, however, i also think as many others do that this does in fact have plenty of reliable sources to support its remaining here on wikipedia. I do not see where it fails WP:GNG rules.--Canyouhearmenow 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, I'm the editor with a COI. I wanted to point out that while the article may appear sourced, because it does in fact have many citations that are reliable secondary sources, most of those sources do not even mention ARI or only briefly mention them. We have this problem often (with COI editors usually) where non-notable article-subjects are given the appearance of notability by making it "look" sourced, when it isn't actually. I imagine that if the organization were notable, the controversies mentioned by user:Karzelek would exist, however at the moment they are fabricated by citing the org's press releases to state their views, then citing sources about autism (that do not mention ARI) to explain that those views have been discounted (original research). I find that it is very easy to remove promotional content from Wikipedia, but there is a reflexive defense to never remove negative content under the "censorship" banner. CorporateM (Talk) 13:40, 25 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. Michig (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Markus Schirmer[edit]

    Markus Schirmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I tried to salvage this article, but the more I checked for sources, the more I realized that the subject's notability consists almost entirely of press releases, trivial mentions and mini biographies based on this six year old article. It looks like the article was originally based on the subject's PR biography and some unsourced content. Over the years, mirrors sites have picked up and repeated the Wikipedia article almost verbatim. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - MrX 00:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. - MrX 00:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - MrX 00:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – Based on the nominator's comments above, removing the subject's career events from his article as copyright violation seems unjustified. Subsequently nominating the article, now devoid of many noteworthy elements, for deletion seems pointy. Searching for reliable sources would have been more constructive. I suggest to restore the article to its earlier version for a more informed discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion nomination is valid with or without the content that was removed. Also, as I stated in the nomination, "I checked for sources". Some of the content that I removed was unsourced, resume-like detail and some was copy-pasted paragraphs from the subject's PR bio. They were removed for different reasons, which I attempted to explain in the edit summary. You're free to restore any of the article content if you can find reliable sources (per WP:BLP) and are willing to rewrite some of it to remove the copyright violations (per WP:COPYVIO).- MrX 03:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - several entries in the German National Library and professor, clearly to be improved, not deleted --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing administrator: Creator of the article has been informed of ways to improve his article via AFC if it were to get deleted. If this were to be the result, please consider USERFYing the article. Thank you. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 08:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – Has an extensive discography of classical works; won significant prizes; coverage in reliable sources; professorial academic position; extensive concert tours; founder of musical project; juror in piano competitions. All these outweigh the article's creator's deplorable tendency for promotional writing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He's had an album reviewed by Gramophone magazine (two Mozart concertos in May 2013; behind a paywall but you'll just have to trust me), which is a pretty good indication that he's not a complete nobody. We accept worse. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:29, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_July_13&oldid=1142628818"