Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 July	15 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Osto-EZ-Vent®[edit]

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

I can't find any major coverage except for product descriptions and non-independent sources. --Jakob (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator forgot to list in their exceptions the places to buy and the sales pitches. I just deleted the history section as a copyvio. Bgwhite (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like an advertisement. This is way too promotional, even if it were notable – of which I see no evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more than 1/2 of what's left of the stub is a how to guide. See also WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage in reliable sources. An extremely mundane device like this will never receive coverage in reliable sources. Antrocent (♫♬) 03:08, 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 NAC: Deleted as a copyvio by User:Jimfbleak. ukexpat (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Society of Incentive and Travel Executives[edit]

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

No indication of sourcing to meet WP:CORP. Found only trade journal articles obviously written off press releases in a search. Article was initially written in 2007 by a throwaway account whose only edits were to this article. It came to my attention thru a question at the Teahouse by a user who was subsequently blocked for a promo username violation. All in all, just WP:PROMO John from Idegon (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok, I found a newspaper article also written off a press release, a book published by a vanity press house, and several directory type listings. Still nothing for notability. John from Idegon (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - an advertisement masquerading as an article. ukexpat (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have tagged the article for speedy deletion as a copyright violation from http://www.siteglobal.com/p/cm/ld/fid=144 - David Biddulph (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Michael Egan[edit]

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

This article lacks reliable sources and appears to fail WP:ENT. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should stay on Wikipedia! It is about an actor, why shouldn't he be on the site? Plus, there were plenty of sources on the page, but you keep deleting them!!! If it fails to meet your standards, then here's a crazy idea... Make it meet your standards instead of just completely deleting it! RizzBizzMovieFan (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for reliable sources but did not find any. Wikipedia, Wikia, and Twitter are not reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at his credits, he just seems like an extra. Doesn't qualify for his own article. Plus the one ref on there is a twitter status that isn't even from a verified twitter. I find no sources about him with a google search, so very much fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Sorry, but it's too soon for an article on this person. When the New York Times or The Hollywood Reporter write an article about him, then he'll qualify. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. It's very clear that there is no significant body of work. -- Whpq (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Lady Lotus is right. RizzBizzMovieFan, I wish the article's subject the best and hope he meets the W:GNG someday! Antrocent (♫♬) 03:12, 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 Bauhaus 1979–1983. I do not see any policy based reason for deletion on the grounds of "clogging up search results". Nevertheless, I might have closed delete if there were more support for that and search results were actually clogged up. However, the suggested results has only two suggestions other than this article so the three easily fit in the box, and I don't believe that redirects are shown in the full search results (only the target page) SpinningSpark 18:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1979–1983[edit]

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

This is not a justified DAB page. There is no article that covers this topic. Partial title matches are best found through the search function, and this page interferes with searching. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not seeing sufficient value in this DAB to make it worth keeping. Gongshow talk 23:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, there is one article that covers the topic "1979–1983".... Dohn joe (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. That article covers a barely notable obscure album with no relevance to what a general audience would expect from the title "1979–1983". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to search for it unless they want the album? Do people really type random combinations of years into Wikipedia? - Colapeninsula (talk) 09:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. User:SmokeyJoe? --В²C ☎ 16:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A search for 1979-1983 yields material in multiple articles. What clairvoyance says that anyone who enters 1979-1983 wants the obscure album previously imprecisely located at this title? Why is this clairvoyance to be considered superior to the Wikipedia search engine (which was substantially upgraded years ago). Note that this article was viewed zero times in ninety days, except for the effect the RM discussion concerning it. Note that it has no meaningful incoming links, virtually no secondary source content, and should probably be merged together with all of Bauhaus' other discography.

In short, the page should be deleted because: (1) it is not a proper DAB page; (2) there is no appropriate redirect target, the one suggested by some will mislead because the target doesn't cover the apparent topic, and the Wikipedia search engine is far superior in ranking likely wanted pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't plan to respond to every post here, but it has to pointed out that plenty of people visited the album page before the RM. 684 pageviews in March 2014, for example. Dohn joe (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. One legit entry doesn't require a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but retarget to Bauhaus 1979–1983. The dab page is not worth keeping, but lots of references to the album (a large majority, in fact) call it 1979–1983:

It's a clearly notable topic. We shouldn't delete this from namespace. Dohn joe (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already established that "1979–1983" is prone to be misrecognized as a reference to the time period, the redirect is more likely to mislead unsuspecting readers, and the search function will better help all readers if there is no such title, DAB or redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete, definitely do not retarget - to keep the misleading redirect jamming up search results as requested by User:Dohn joe (on the basis that Bauhaus listings of Bauhaus compilations don't repeat Bauhaus Bauhaus Baushaus in front of every subtitle in the listing) would go against the RM result that this is simply clogging up search functions with a product anyone searching for would search "Bauhaus" not the impossible to remember year period. Redirects are cheap but bad redirects which jam up search aren't helpful. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (delete is okay) this WP:Contrived dab page, but remove all partial title match entries from this page, then change it to be a redirect to the only use of this title on Wikipedia: the article currently at Bauhaus 1979–1983. Whether it's kept or deleted, the end result needs to be the redirect (anyone searching with "1979-1983" needs to be taken directly to the article about the album). The reason to keep rather than delete is to retain the history for posterity, to help keep it from being repeated. The main point is this: just say no to disambiguation that is unnecessary to resolve title conflicts. --В²C ☎ 16:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see four albums on the page with names that contain that string. Have we confirmed that there is only one that is ever referred to by it? If there is more than one then I would keep this, and if there are no others, then I would delete this page, since we don't generally have the thousands of possible odd year-range page titles. bd2412 T 16:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
My Google Books searches show that the other albums always carry the longer titles. But why delete this page and not redirect it to the only subject actually known as "1979-1983"? Dohn joe (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because as already answered above 07:17, 15 July 2014: a bad redirect disables wikipedia's article search box. Why ask this again at 17:06, 15 July 2014 In ictu oculi (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're all aware that you have made up your mind here, but perhaps User:BD2412 is still open to the possibility that it might be a good idea to have the title of an album actually serve as a link to that album.... Dohn joe (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've made up my mind and your questioned was already answered. Here and in the RM we just had. Repeat "a bad redirect disables wikipedia's article search box" - which was one of the reasons for moving the Bauhaus 1979-1983 album out of the way of search functions. In the RM, which we just had. We don't need to reopen it here. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think that it's a term people will naturally search for at all. bd2412 T 02:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the ~650 people per month who went to the page pre-RM? Surely some of them got there via searching for the title, no? Dohn joe (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of them could have arrived at the page by clicking an incoming link from another page. We have ways to test that, for example by setting up a dummy redirect and routing incoming links through it to see where visitors are coming from, but that hasn't been done here. bd2412 T 14:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of dummy redirects. How would you suggest we set one up here? Dohn joe (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we were to do that, we would need to keep this page and create a dummy redirect on it (like Bauhaus 1979–1983 (album)) leading to the proposed primary target for the term. However, if the page hits really were coming from incoming links, and those links have now been fixed, then whether we set up a dummy or not, we should see no appreciable change in the number of readers arriving at Bauhaus 1979–1983. bd2412 T 20:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment. This situation is simple. All but one of the uses that has "1979-1983" in its name is a partial title match. There is no evidence that any of those other uses are ever referenced as just "1979-1983". They don't even belong on the dab page, let alone have a claim on the title.
There is only one use of "1979-1983" as a name. Only one. That means that name/title has a unique use, by definition. So it's not ambiguous, also by definition.
Therefore, having a unique use and being an unambiguous title, 1979-1983 needs to be the title of, or a redirect to, the article about that one unique use. A recent RM resulted in choosing a different title for that article, which leaves us only with the redirect option. There is nothing to debate here about any of this.
The only question here is whether the dab page is to be deleted before it is made into a redirect, or whether it should just be edited to be a redirect. I don't see a good reason to delete. --В²C ☎ 18:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and removed the partial title matches on the dab page, leaving all but one link, then changed it to a redirect. --В²C ☎ 16:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Properly reverted. The situation is not as nearly as simple as you would like to think. The redirect is inappropriate because the album is not the only possible target, and is not even a significant target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You wrote above: "There is no article that covers this topic." I presume you meant, "there is no topic to which this term refers". In other words, there is no target for this term, right? In any case, it was your justification for removing this dab page entirely. Now you're saying the album is not the only possible target? Those two positions are contradictory. --В²C ☎ 18:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article that comprehensively or summarily covers to topic of the timespan 1979-1983. There are multiple unrelated articles that may be relevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the meaning or relevance of phrases like "no article that comprehensively or summarily covers to topic" and "multiple unrelated articles that may be relevant" to the issues of deciding primary topics, disambiguation and titling on WP with respect to a given term. I think you're referring to "1979-1983" as a topic when in fact it is a term (and possible title of, or redirect to, an article about one or more topics), and that's confusing.
  We know this: There is one (and only one) article that "comprehensively or summarily covers" a topic commonly referred to as "1979-1983" in reliable sources, and that is relevant to title decision making on WP. --В²C ☎ 23:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a "term", it is best treated as a search query, and the search for this term shouldn't be hijacked by a bad redirect.

No one refers to the album by that term unless already in context. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one refers to any other topic by that term in any context. --В²C ☎ 05:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term is used in other contexts. That usage makes it a plausible search term, for other uses.

East Australian drought
First Thatcher ministry
Inter-Dukakis Massachusetts governorship
Other composition titles

Other contexts exist: Australians droughts, Thatcher, Edward King, etc, for which a redirect would interfere with the default search function. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doe john makes a good point but I'll agree that this page creates more confusion than it prevents. Anthony Appleyard moved the article from this title to the Bauhaus album article and I'm curious to hear their input on this. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article move is explained at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#1979–1983. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That move was justified by the same misguidance that filled this dab page with bogus entries - incorrectly treating partial title matches as ambiguous uses of the name. --В²C ☎ 00:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete My reading of policy is that this page should be deleted. Although I can't personally see the harm in keeping it. Possibly rearranging it so the album (primary target) is at the top and the rest is below. SPACKlick (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I simply do not see what all of this debate is about? This certainly should not qualify for a DAB and I fail to see its true worth. There is no legit redirect page leaving only one viable option IMO which is to simply delete.--Canyouhearmenow 17:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Canyouhearmenow, why is Bauhaus 1979–1983 not a "legitimate" redirect target for 1979–1983, given that that topic is commonly referred to as 1979–1983 in reliable sources? I mean, 1979-1983 was the original title of that article[1], and remained so for six years. It's currently linked from the dab page, as the only one on there that is not a PTM. Now you say it's not even a legitimate redirect? Why? --В²C ☎ 17:53, 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 delete. On the issue of attribution raised by Lankveil, I have moved the page to Talk:Sami Al-Arian indictments and trial/Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian to preserve the history SpinningSpark 14:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rashad Hussain's comments on Sami Al-Arian[edit]

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

Massive undue weight on a single minor incident, peppered with poor sources and polemic attacks. Article was merged and redirected 6 months ago by User:Thargor Orlando but the merge has been unilaterally undone by the page creator, therefore this needs to go to AfD and deleted outright. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think a merge is appropriate here, and most (if not all) of the relevant information is already in Sami_Al-Arian_indictments_and_trial#Rashad_Hussein_comments. Delete also makes sense, as the commentary isn't really noteworthy outside of the indictments/trial article, but merge is my first option. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Subject was discussed by the Council on Foreign Relations. We may dislike/disagree with the subject, but this is not a reason to remove an articles page. Also, the merge was never discussed. The page was tagged, no discussion occurred, and the tagger merged the page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged with a merger proposal for four months and not a single editor objected. The page had been merged for more than 6 months without objection. As Thargor notes, the relevant information is in the appropriate article. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The Council on Foreign Relations stated that, "The controversy led to a larger question of whether the United States should engage the Organization of Islamic Conference diplomatically." [2] Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator has stated in an edit summary that the "article is about conservative response" - I believe that this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia. We don't write articles about partisan responses, be they liberal or conservative. The article creator also stated "this is not a BLP" which indicates a misapprehension of the policy, which requires that anything stated about a living person anywhere must be solidly sourced and that personal blogs, political interest group press releases and polemic fringe organizations are not suitable, particularly for accusations as charged as the ones in question. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources like Politico have well documented. See [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk),

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note This may not make for a fun article, but the sources are sound: Politico, Fox News, Council on Foreign Relations, Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs, Washington Post, Asharq Al-Awsat, Foreign Policy Magazine, Rediff, Asia Times, Open Salon, Mediaite, Saudi Gazette, The Washington Examiner, Forbes Magazine, Algemeiner, and the New York Times. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not news and we do not need to exhaustively and breathlessly document a 5-minute news cycle event. The coverage of the incident in the merged article is sufficient. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its not news -. It's a subject with much more depth. Aside from the coverage after the Hussain nomination, it has continued. It was 5 months later that the CFR made its analysis. Also, 2 years later, it was discussed in the 2013 text by Erick Stakelbeck, "The Brotherhood" - reviewed by Politico, linked here [8]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Books Over that past few years, there are books that have been written that discuss this subject. Some of these are: Andrew C. McCarthy's "The Grand Jihad," Robert Spencer's "Arab Winter Comes to America," Bill Seigel's "The Control Factor," and Joseph A. Klein's "Lethal Engagement." This is clearly beyond news, this subject has been evaluated by notables of their field of study. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even with good and sound sources, this is still a tempest in a teacup; it is a classic one-news-cycle story - the outrage of the day, "all sound and fury signifying nothing" - see WP:ONEEVENT. I would not object to this being transwikied to WikiNews or more information being added to the merged article. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After reviewing the above arguments, I think this article is a keep. While its name and subject matter may be less than interesting, it was a series of notable events, with international media giving it coverage. As the Council of Foreign Relations has shown, these events caused the U.S. to reconsider the existence of its ambassadorship. Also, the subject, as coverage has shown, was not simply about the actual comments. Those received coverage, and then it continued with the debate about what was said, a missing tape, media critism and support, followed by general reflections on the ambassadorship. This is way beyond one event, and the depth of coverage, and commentary, goes beyond "not news." As such, the article stands on its own. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user is the page creator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs show this to be notable. Meets wiki notability standards, as reflected in RS refs. I don't see this as excluded by any of our oneevent policies (I believe the above one points to a policy about articles about individuals), because we keep articles about one event if coverage, as here, spans a period of time and is not just for example in the paper for a week or two. Epeefleche (talk) 05:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rashad Hussain. Too oblique a topic to warrant its own article, sources or no. p bp 21:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having an article covering just a person's comments on one topic is inherently giving too much weight to the comments. Wikipedia is not news, and we do not need indepth article on minor comments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I think the article name is creating a problem here. The subject of the article is about - a series of events. As such, it should probably be renamed something more appropriate, like 2010 OIC Envoy appointment controversy. This would be more on topic. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rashad Hussain. Massively undue weight, and I'd typically go with "Delete", but if some of this content has been merged into the main article we need to keep this around to preserve the history (it may be sensible to lock the redirect to prevent unilateral recreation again though). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:12, 26 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aylesbury Dead Movie[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no secondary coverage BOVINEBOY2008 19:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOO SOON. The article itself states the film is "anticipated" and that "Details of the movie - currently in production - are shrouded in secrecy." Fine to keep it secret, but that secrecy becomes a lack of coverage. Allow a return only if or when WP:NF can be met. If author wishes it usefied, I'd be inclined to let him have it back for expansion and sourcing IF he changes his username to not appear to be the production company promoting its own interests. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find nothing to show that either the movie or the comic would pass notability guidelines. All I can find is one source, which asserts that the comic is very popular locally, but that's about it. There's nothing really out there to show that it would merit an article at this point in time. Maybe in the future, but not just yet. Userfication is always an option as long as he makes sure to try to get someone to look over the article before re-submission. Maybe he can AfC it? Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's "shrouded in secrecy", so we can't find adequate references. RomanSpa (talk) 12:57, 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 decker ^talk 23:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaker (band)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a band with no strong claim of meeting WP:NMUSIC; updated so rarely that a debut album that they recorded almost ten years ago is portrayed as still in production and pending future release. According to the only non-trival source I can find about the band, what happened is that they broke up before the album was released, with the result that it didn't come out until 2013 — at which time they played one reunion show to support it. But I can't find any evidence that it garnered any significant airplay or did much of anything on the charts, WP:NMUSIC requires a full-scale tour rather than a single show at Toronto's Horseshoe Tavern, one legitimate source isn't enough to get a band past our inclusion gates on GNG grounds if they don't pass any NMUSIC criteria, and the only substantive "update" that's been made here is that several of its members are now playing with other non-notable bands. I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination if good sources, supporting a real claim of notability, could be added — but I can't see how that's particularly likely here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EMachine03 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of coverage found; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 23:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Cook[edit]

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

Procedural nomination as this prod was already contested back in 2011. Concern remains the same though - "Fails WP:RLN as he has yet to play a first team NRL game." J Mo 101 (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Has not played first-grade, therefore not notable. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:. Needs to play first grade, per WP:RLN. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:RLN. (Disclosure: I originally prod'd the article). Mattlore (talk) 04:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XHAMC-TV[edit]

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

Non-notable article with very little information. I suggest a redirect to Canal de las Estrellas. Freshh! (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media says:

Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios.

This station also broadcasts local programming and news, according to the article, so it passes and should be kept.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As licenses change hands, we track through the history. Deleting now destroys that historical information from a wikipedia point of view. Trackinfo (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as appears to meet our requirements. RomanSpa (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XHIT-TV[edit]

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

Non-notable article with very little information. I suggest a redirect to Azteca 13. Freshh! (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast_media says: "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As licenses change hands, we track through the history. Deleting now destroys that historical information from a wikipedia point of view. Trackinfo (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — it's also worth noting that XHIT has a long history which helps. I have an offline source from 1972 that mentions XHIT as existing alongside XHCH in Chihuahua, under the same owners even then (Tele Cadena Mexicana). However I think that since the Imevisión era (when sister XHCH was one of three Imevisión stations to be locally programmed) XHIT's been not much more than a relayer. A lot of the resources that would help out here are not digitized, and I do not live in Mexico so they are not accessible to me. Raymie (t • c) 04:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XHFI-TV[edit]

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

Non-notable article with very little information. I suggest a redirect to Canal 5 (Televisa Network). Freshh! (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast_media says: "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As licenses change hands, we track through the history. Deleting now destroys that historical information from a wikipedia point of view. Trackinfo (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XHDEH-TV[edit]

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

Non-notable article with very little information, mostly outdated. I suggest a redirect to Canal de las Estrellas. Freshh! (talk) 17:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast_media says: "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As licenses change hands, we track through the history. Deleting now destroys that historical information from a wikipedia point of view. Trackinfo (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. While the Outcomes are normally a great idea, this station has been nothing but a relay station its entire history. Per the Federal Telecommunications Institute's Public Registry of Concessions it was created as part of a massive 95-station concession in the late 1980s (most commercial stations in rural Mexico are nothing but satellite-fed relays of stations in Mexico City). If you set this precedent we will get hundreds of articles like this off of redirects from similar stations. Raymie (t • c) 04:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XHGO-TV[edit]

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

Non-notable article with very little information. I suggest a redirect to Canal de las Estrellas. Freshh! (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast_media says: "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." If it's a stub, it's a useful stub. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As licenses change hands, we track through the history. Deleting now destroys that historical information from a wikipedia point of view. Trackinfo (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XHAUC-TV[edit]

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

Non-notable article with very little information. I suggest a redirect to Televisa Regional. Freshh! (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast_media says: "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." If it's a stub, it's a useful stub. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As licenses change hands, we track through the history. Deleting now destroys that historical information from a wikipedia point of view. Trackinfo (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XHD-TV[edit]

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

Non-notable article with very little information. I suggest a redirect to Canal 5 (Televisa Network). Freshh! (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast_media says: "Licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios." If it's a stub, it's a useful stub. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. As licenses change hands, we track through the history. Deleting now destroys that historical information from a wikipedia point of view. Trackinfo (talk) 03:39, 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 decker ^talk 00:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swallowed Whole (song)[edit]

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

Song was not released as a single per the band's website. Fails WP:N as a stand-alone article. Also the user who has created this article has created dozens of other dubious articles relating to singles released by bands, all of them unsourced. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What the heck is this article about? EMachine03 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Swallowed Whole already redirects to the song's parent album, and I'm not seeing enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Gongshow talk 00:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect fails WP:NSONG. Redirect unnecessary as Swallowed Whole exists, no disambiguation required. --Bejnar (talk) 06:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jurong West#Education. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jurong West#Education per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 1000s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as customary There;'s a standard way of handling these, that should not be lightly abandoned. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Nom should do this himself, –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
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) 20:32, 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) 10:09, 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 River Valley, Singapore. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

River Valley Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to River Valley, Singapore or County Cork per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 1000s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as always. There has never been consensus to delete these schools, and consistency is desirable. What is not desirable is having1000s of afds in the subject field. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect .... Losing the will to live!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:19, 18 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) 20:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course it doesn't. It's just a waste of all our time. Someone want to do a quick SNOW close followed by the inevitable redirect? (We can't because we have already !voted). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:45, 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 speedy keep. The sources reliability has no bearing on if the application is/was secure to use. You are clearing misinterpreting how sources support the article. They support the articles Verifiability not necessarily the articles topic itself. (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TrueCrypt[edit]

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

The development of the application was ended and the application lost significance (it is not secure to use and users should not note it).

Any sources previously supporting the application cannot support it anymore as the application is not secure to use.

The article is missing a reliable source supporting the application and needs to be removed (see No original research). — Preceding unsigned comment added by User340 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 14 July 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Notability does not just go away because the product has been discontinued. There have been an enormous amount of reliable sources which have reported on Truecrypt and in depth too, and quite easily meets the General notability guideline. Additionally, I don't want to bring this back onto the nominator, but do you have another account? It's very peculiar for your first edits to be nominating an article for deletion. Tutelary (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The story of how the application was widely used, then suddenly came to be declared insecure, with development apparently disappearing, is significant in itself and widely covered in the tech press. TrueCrypt is likely to persist as a long time as an example of a situation where this has happened, and is therefore likely to continue to be a notable subject, worth covering, for the forseeable future. Jheald (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. TrueCrypt remains significant because of its historical significance. Should we delete the article on <dead person> because they've died? See WP:N#TEMP. As the grounds for this nomination are invalid, there is little need for extended discussion. —WOFall (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per above - Ridiculous nomination, Passes GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - extensively referenced software article, including major RS news sources. Notability is not in question.Dialectric (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Agree with all the above to keep. There are plenty of reliable sources and the application hasn't been proven to be insecure. The audit isn't even complete yet. Dgrinkev (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is not a proper nomination. We don't delete articles about software programs just because they are, allegedly, no longer secure. Laurent (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I think this application is very significant despite being discontinued, as it was the go-to application for data encryption. Lucasoutloud (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the arguments invalidated the fact that the application is now only an original research without support from reliable sources. It also does not matter whether you think the application is secure -- it was declared not secure to use.

From Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators: Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. User340 (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not cited any evidence that the material IS original research. The way to prove that material is not original research is that there are reliable sources. There are an abundance of reliable sources. We don't need any original research to extract material about Truecrypt, the sources do that all by themselves. Notability is not temporary. Tutelary (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blood_pressure_drop_across_major_arteries_to_capillaries[edit]

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

The entire content of this article is already included in Blood_pressure#Fetal_blood_pressure, and based on edit history this article was copied from the blood pressure article. I would not favor making this a redirect page because "blood pressure drop across major arteries to capillaries" is not a commonly searched topic. And at any rate someone looking for that information would be better advised to look at the main page on blood pressure. Gccwang (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect covered already in the appropriately named Blood pressure article and the Reynolds number article. Most of the article is not specific to title. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal WP:NOT. I agree with Gccwang that no redirect is necessary. --Bejnar (talk) 06:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like somebody's term paper or research paper, imported verbatim into Wikipedia. Created in 2011 by an SPA who never contributed anything else to Wikipedia. No redirect and nothing to merge. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inappropriately detailed article, should be covered in main article on blood pressure. RomanSpa (talk) 13:03, 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. It seems to me that the WP:SCHOOLSOUTCOMES argument is being pushed to the limit with an article with virtually no content and absolutely no independent sources. There is nothing in the guidelines that this outweighs a lack of notability argument. I have declined also to merge to Panruti. This would have been sensible if the article already had an education section but it doesn't. Such a merge would be massively WP:UNDUE and on the basis of unacceptable refs at that. SpinningSpark 14:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Dewey School[edit]

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

This is a procedural AfD. It was started by Saurav Lamshal (talk · contribs) in this edit. I am neutral. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr User:Ritchie333 I am also Neutral..!! I even don't know this school !! Saurav Lamshal (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Saurav Lamshal: - does that mean you want to withdraw this nomination? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the strange nom, article has no actual content, so Delete, possibly csd no content.--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - To be honest this should be CSD'd under A3 since there's no content at all. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete - as no content. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)≈[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ per WP:CSD#A3 (hope I get it right the third time...hah!) Ansh666 01:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately CSD A3 also says "this criterion does not cover a page having only an infobox unless its contents also meet the criteria mentioned here" (ie: only tags and other templates). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhhhhh you're not supposed to bring that point up (which I actually already knew this time, hence why I didn't tag it as such originally)!... Ansh666 12:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my basic point is that we've had several goes at trying to shoehorn this article into a CSD criteria, where none seem to fit, so we might as well sit out the AfD. Either the article's creator will come back and expand the article so people might be tempted to vote "keep", or they won't, in which case it'll get deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per long-standing consensus and precedent. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Now has content, even if only a stub, so that's no longer an issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the John Dewey School is a primary through senior high school. It has no coverage that I could find. Yes, we keep most high schools, but how about ones with no independent coverage in reliable sources? Wikipedia is not a directory. --Bejnar (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in India. How much do you expect to find on the internet on an Indian school? In my experience, not very much. That hasn't in the past stopped us keeping Indian secondary schools as long as their existence can be proved (it's utterly irrelevant whether they also have a primary section). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expect that one of our many editors who come from India will be able to expand it. There's no deadline. Having stubs like these provide good opportunities for people to start editing. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG. I added one sentence and that's all I can muster, but I know from experience that India based articles do not feature heavily on online English sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article only has one source, and it is not a third-party ref. Unless multiple reliable third-party sources can be added, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 17:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not how we handle secondary school articles. We have clear consensus otherwise. Proof of existence is all that is necessary for them to be kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not what SCHOOLOUTCOMES says at all, (and it is not a policy anyway and therefore does not over-rule GNG) it says proof of existence needs to come from "independent sources", which do not appear to be forthcoming--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG and long standing precedent. This is clearly a High School. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the precedent? A school isn't notable for simply existing, and expecting someone "will be able to expand it" is borderline WP:CRYSTAL. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, the precedent is outlined in the links above that you should follow. The recommendations to redirect and keep as an alternative to deletion are also anchored in policy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Precedent is determined by debate. And we've had this one endlessly. I can't remember the last time a secondary school was deleted. We clearly have a precedent and a consensus to keep all secondary schools, which is outlined in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're reading a different WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to me. To quote that page (bold is mine): "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." There is no independent source, therefore this does not meet that criteria, therefore should be deleted. --Jac16888 ^Talk 17:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But there are. Try this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source is ambiguous, it refers to 2 John Dewey Mat HR Sec Schools in Panruti, one on 36, Link Road and one at 29, Kasthuribai Street. Which is this article about, is it either? How do we know?SPACKlick (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to locality, Panruti. No independent sources, no meaningful context not suitable for the locality article. Allow recreation on discovery of independent sourced coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. SPACKlick (talk) 13:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I am with Necrothesp on this one. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES does quote that "most" are kept with sources. this one has little to none so therefore I do not feel it merits a keep.--Canyouhearmenow 17:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Panruti. Merge not appropriate, since there's nothing of substance to actually merge. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M Capital Group[edit]

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

Subject has a lack of independent sourcing and does not appear to meet notability criteria. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better refs turn up. I can't find much, and the New York Times reference doesn't mention them. Hairhorn (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the company doesn't prove reliable source and its pretty much insignificant. I support deletion. --Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comprehensively fails WP:ORG. Passing mentions only and even then in largely press release based articles. Some of them don't even mention the company, just a passing reference to "Mr. Mouchbahani" in one of his previous jobs. I've not been able to find anything better. The NYT article is simply a smokescreen. Neither the company nor Mouchbahani is mentioned in it. The Islamic Finance article was written by the company's Islamic Finance director, Yavar Moini, and the Khaleej Times article is an interview with Yavar Moini. Voceditenore (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be no agreement on the subjective question on whether the sources on this person are enough to push them past the WP:GNG. I am also very disappointed at some editors feeling a need to comment on the phyiscal attractiveness of the subject; a topic that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Huppenkothen[edit]

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

This person is not notable and there are insufficient references to demonstrate notability. Wayne Jayes (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She may be hot, but notable not. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Absolutely agree with Why should I have a User Name? - If we could vote purely on looks then she'd get a 100% Keep from me ... But sadly we can't!, And see'ing as there's no notability yet it'll have to be Delete. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not all hot models are notable. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have failed to find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. I have also failed to understand why we have to refer to her attractiveness in this discussion when it is totally irrelevant (we would hope, in the 21st century) to her notability. And we wonder why Wikipedia has mostly male editors... BethNaught (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, BethNaught, I was referring to an in-joke around here, found in this essay. My attempt at a meta-joke failed. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BethNaught - Since I get told to be alot nicer I thought I'd do just that and compliment her looks, But I see that we've offended you so I apologize for that, It's never my intention to offend anyone, Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't offended me, I just don't like sexism. Nevertheless, thank you for the apologies. BethNaught (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, as I began this, I must also defend myself. I was only trying to say that her beauty does not increase her notability (in WP:N sense :-) and that I would not be influenced by that beauty while I was assessing her notability. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not inherently sexist to call a person "hot". Considering she is a model who gains any notability she has from her looks, this is clearly the case. I could see similar statements made about a male model. Now, if this was someone like Mia Love, or a leading scientist or writer, I could see objections to the comments as possibly sexist, but not when we are dealing with a person who is a model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO... 2007 Title Holder Nuestra Belleza Distrito Federal, one of the only two designates from Distrito Federal, Mexico to the Miss Mexico national contest,[9] final winner of the Miss Sports Award at the Miss Mexico national contest 2007. I've added a few references on the bio too. Wifione ^Message 14:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She can be notable as a model for her awards in the "Miss mexico" contests + two times cover girl on GQ and Esquire. She's also working as a sport journalist in one of the main mexican TV since 2008 (6 years). --Paul Gascoigne (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see broad coverage about this subject available to show that WP:GNG is met. I fear the WP:HOTTIE diversion above had the opposite effect of that joke.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Issues about beauty are irrelevant. The WP:GNG requires a subject to have multiple nontrivial coverage in reliable sources and this subject has it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Total lack of sufficient coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disagree with the above, appears to meet both WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG SPACKlick (talk) 13:23, 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goophone S5[edit]

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

Goophones have been making the rounds these days, but I doubt they're notable enough unless if someone would provide enough info/sources to back it up. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some sources,such as[10],[11],[12]and[13].But it seems that we can only write a stub based on the given sources.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Besides the KIRF articles Engadget occasionally posts in regards to faked or knockoff products from China, of course. I'm not that sure if an article about the Goophone line would be worthy of inclusion here, so rather than have it speedied I thought of coming up with this consensus instead. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 29 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 decker ^talk 01:01, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:50, 14 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) 15:54, 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 decker ^talk 18:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poko loko ali jaan[edit]

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

This is a recreation of the article "Poko Loko Ali Jaan" that was speedied as promotional. The author of the original article was User:Pokolokoalijaan (apparently the subject himself), and the copy of the original article is still at his User page [14]. Except that the article is autobiography, the subject is non-notable, and the author is probably the sockpuppet of User:Pokolokoalijaan. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is known as an imitator of Yo Yo Honey Singh, uses also the name Yo Yo Ali Jaan and his activities seems to be covered by the media: [15], [16], [17], [18]. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 29 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 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) 15:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources do not show much of a notability and some claims are not sourced either. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just a celebrity imitator without much coverage, two articles that are as much about the celebrity as the imitator. Fails WP:GNG fails WP:ENT fails WP:CREATIVE. --Bejnar (talk) 07:50, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Barratt[edit]

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

Delete, claims notability but no sourcing to back up the claims credibly, most of this is information on sourced and unsuitable for reporting here but I can't BLP prod this..At most a redirect to the band seems most appropriate if not deleted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 15:26, 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) 19:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Sledge Hockey Association[edit]

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

Article about an apparently non-notable organization. There do not seem to be sufficient sources to establish notability according to WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 02:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Governing organization of National Team which competes in international events is notable.[19]. Valid encyclopedic articles should be expanded, not deleted. Dolovis (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but allow for renomination for deletion if article is not improved. The subject is lacking in extensive coverage, so it doesn't meet WP:GNG right now. However, I agree with Dolovis that the subject is inherently notable. Thus, I think improvement is the best course of action. If, after a few months, we still haven't found sources, then maybe we rethink whether to keep the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:53, 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 redirect to Delia's. No argument advanced for notability, no argument advanced against a redirect to a putatively notable child corporation, in view of WP:ATD, policy prefers the redirect. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alloy Apparel & Accessories[edit]

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

Declined speedy with a {{notability}} tag. I just want if there's consensus in one way or the other if this company is notable or not. I dream of horses (T) @ 06:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe it fails WP:ORGDEPTH; the article states essentially that they sell clothes and bought a rival. 331dot (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Delia's, the more well-known brand of the company which contains this same information. Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's notability is not warranted by an analysis of the term at Google Trends.Solatido 17:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solatido (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was delete. Despite the efforts of the SPAs, the consensus is that this academic fails to satisfy the criteria of WP:PROF. Deor (talk) 12:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pradip Kumar Singh[edit]

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

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

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

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

Do we need individualistic approach for single low importance profile or event/s for each and every staff of Indian University who does not even hold major academic work position like Chancellor.

Thousands, millions of low profile professors including associate, assistant all around the globe have had minor single page publications as co-contributor. Do we need individual article for each one of them unless they hold any key positions or had major research work which impacted in their scholarly discipline?

This article should be merged with other existing articles, if available sharing same common subject/publication/research work of interest, or else should be deleted. Drsharan (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Drsharan (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "University Professor" is not low level staff. Low level staff are instructors, lecturers, assistant professors, and so on. -- and we almost never make articles on them. In this case, there seem to be substantial publications. DGG ( talk ) 14:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But DGG, we need more than the resume--we need proof of having been cited, etc. Randykitty, do you still have that indexing tool on your desk? Drmies (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not each and every professor (as the individual claims to be) can get their article on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Notability (academics) (there are thousands of Professor in India alone), unless they had an outstanding work achievement or research work or awards. The individual did not even hold any major incumbent in Indian University system. Moreover minor publications and research paper (in this case study of previous author/researcher had be revised by Pradip Kumar Singh and editors as co-contributor) does not make any sense for having separate article on wikipedia. Individual has a COI and it is a true example of self-promotional activity on the stage of Wikipedia. This article is supported by primary source (official website of individual). Couldn't find any reliable source that supports this article independently even on a small scale / search-engines hits. Majorly, this article is a pile of revised book work and research paper. Drsharan (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PK Singh and every anthropologist (even though they are minor professor/ressearcher) are notable and they do not need to prove anything by giving references in order to show their notability on Wikipedia. They all are notable in themselves. Keep this article. 110.225.205.113 (talk) 07:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — 110.225.205.113 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is simply incorrect. See WP:PROF. This IP contribution, like the other ones (all of which seem to mirror each other, and all of which smack of the work of Rksinghrules), provide no arguments toward PROF notability, and will not be counted by a closing administrator.
Strongly Keep Keep this article. Very good article even though references are not present we'll create website for L.P. Vidyarthi, P.K. Singh and other anthropologist which will serve Wikipedia as references. Thanks.Rksinghrules (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — Rksinghrules (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strongly Keep Very much notable than any OTHER PROFESSORS alive today around the GLOBE. 223.176.19.168 (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — 223.176.19.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep "University Professor" is not low level staff. DGG is right. Prefer DGG's Comment. Drsharan, being professor gives you the automated right to have article in Wiki even if Professor's work is not recognized worldwide. I SUPPORT DGG. 223.176.21.44 (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC) — 223.176.21.44 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- We all support DGG. If a professor's work is not recognized, they don't get an article here. Simple. There is no "automated" right. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ DO NOT PUT MULTIPLE ISSUE NOTIFICATION TAGS ON Pradip Kumar Singh, L. P. Vidyarthi and Vijoy S Sahay's PAGE. I HAVE REMOVED THE ABOVE NOTICE/NOTIFICATION AND URGE OTHER EDITORS NOT TO TOUCH THESE PAGES AT ANY COST. THANK YOU.Rksinghrules (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have an interesting user page. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You only get to voice your opinion once:I I have struck through your second keep. And you should bear in mind that Wikipedia operates by consensus. I have replaced the tags on the unreferenced article you mention. TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 05:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perfect article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.66.24.183 (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC) — 182.66.24.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Another example of a non-argument. Drmies (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, Singh has published a few books and some papers, as DGG notes. However, as WP:ACADEMIC says, it is not enough to publish, all academics publish. What is needed is evidence that these publications have been noted, which we usually assess by looking at how often an academic's publications have been cited. Usually, this is very difficult to assess for someone with a common name (like "Singh"). In this case, too, there seem to be multiple "PK Singh" (one of them a microbiologist), but all of them have been cited so little, that even if we just throw all on one heap and count everything, it just is not enough, not even in a low-citation density field like anthropology. If one clicks the Google Scholar link above (under "find sources"), the highest-cited article has 11 hits (and that is one by the microbiologist). The Web of Science (which has a lower coverage in the humanities and social sciences) finds 9 articles, cited a total of 13 times for an h-index of 1 (here, I searched for "PK Singh"). If opne searches for "PK Singh" in GS, one finds some very highly-cited papers, but all by other persons (I went through several pages, down to articles cited about 30 times, none of them by the PK Singh under discussion here). In short, I see no evidence of this person having made a measurable impact on his field, as required by WP:ACADEMIC#1, nor do I see evidence of him passing any of the other criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Randykitty: much appreciated. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another example of a non-argument.Papasingh (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~STRONGLY KEEP~~ Very good article and research work. Rksinghrules (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please only !vote once. Also, you'd be well adviced to base your arguments in policy and not on WP:ILIKEIT, otherwise they are bound to be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is future noble prize winner Papasingh (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — Papasingh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

He may be noble, but I doubt he'll get the Nobel... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sitting all the long in front of your computer because you are poor and jobless. How much do you make in a year? Are you notable enough to judge someone's notability? :-) --Papasingh (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cute! --Randykitty (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To expand on Randykitty's analysis above, I checked his book holdings in WorldCat: the "Dimensions" book is held by 35 institutions, but the other two do not appear in this database. His GS page lists 5 citations. These are below average metrics. Agricola44 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Another example of a non-argument.Papasingh (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This case will be decided upon demonstrable impact, such as given by my observations above, not your prediction of a future Nobel prize. Instead of snarky comments, I would advise you to search/produce evidence of notability (I could not find any), otherwise this article is certain to be deleted. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
THIS ARTICLE CAN'T BE DELETED. THAT'S BEST. Rksinghrules (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Dr. Singh is a university professor who, from looking at the article, has authored four anthropological books particular to India, in addition to addition to nine academic papers. Although the article needs much work, especially in the area of inline citations, my recommendation is to retain it. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:12, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Publishing is what academics do. If those publications get "noted", they become "notable", but nothing like that seems to have happened here. 9 papers is, frankly, a ridiculously low number. --Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WorldCat knows of only 1 of his books (sparsely held, see above). The others may not have been "published" in the standard sense, but may rather be manuscripts or locally distributed. Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or any other notability criterion. The mere fact of publishing does not give notability by itself (not does being a professor); notability is caused by other people taking note of those publications in some verifiable way (such as scholarly citations, published book reviews, or the like). In the absence of anything like that for this case, there is no justification for keeping the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another example of a non-argument.Papasingh (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)— Papasingh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Per Drsharan's comments, this professor doesn't meet the WP:Prof requirements. Frmorrison (talk) 03:39, 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 keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Pleasure[edit]

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

Non-notable novel. Can't find any reliable sources. Article's provided "quotes" as reviews aren't sourced. Fails WP:NBOOKS. Mikeblas (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not Notable. Sinai Horus ^〉^〉^〉 00:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like all of the coverage for this book would be in Arabic, so I'm going to ask around to see if anyone can help with searching for sources. I can do some searching with Google Translate, but it's understandably flawed. I can find some mention of it here and there with sources like this one, but GT isn't really helping overly much. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barring any Arabic fluent editors coming in and providing sources, I'd argue that if this closes as a redirect it should redirect with history. I figure that if we leave the history intact, we can always un-redirect this if Arabic language sources are found after the AfD closes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tokyogirl79, it appear that the notability can mostly be confirmed by Arabic sources. Youm7 [20] and Al Bayan [21] discussed the book, and so did As-Safir [22] but to a lesser extent. It was also mentioned/described by other Arab publishers, such as Al-Ahram [23] [24] [25] [26] [27], Sky News Arabia [28], Al Arabiya [29], ِAl Akhbar [30], the English language Egypt Independent [31] and many others. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources provided by Fitzcarmalan look legit, so I support keeping the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 00:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moodu Mukkalaata[edit]

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

Film with no citations to establish notibility Mblumber (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Moodu Mukkalaata K. Raghavendra Rao Ramoji Rao Jagapati Babu

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 15:02, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EarthKosher Kosher Certification[edit]

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

Apparently written as an advertisement, this article has no sources not affiliated with the subject, nor could I find any.

From the little I could find (on un-Reliable sites), it seems that it is a rather minor kosher certification (there are more than a thousand) whose only claim to notability may be its association with its possibly notable co-founder, Rabbi Zushe Blech; but notability is not inherited. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the original username of the article's creator is that of a company providing "internet consulting services", whose clients, according to their website, include EarthKosher. An obvious connection can be found to the only other page edited by this user, Diamond Sutra. 05:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment: There is a Category:Kosher food certification organizations (18 such agencies are already listed in it) for these type of organizations, but what is lacking is a main article for this subject! So while this particular organization may not be that notable, however as even the nominator admits when he states that "there are more than a thousand" such organizations which means that while individually they may not all be worthy of WP articles, however, collectively they amount to a very important sector of Jewish religious life that not just Orthodox Jews rely upon but even many of the less religious who have a cultural and bond to observing some level of "kosher" as well as in many instances when Muslims cannot get access to Halaal foods they will turn to find food that is certified by a reliable Jewish kashrut agency such as the one in this article, see Kashrut#Supervision and marketing. These kashrut supervisory agencies that are run and manned by knowledgeable rabbis and mashgichim ("supervisors") after suitable inspections that meet with sufficient requirements of Jewish law then issue a hechsher ("certificate" or "authorization") that food products are reliably "kosher". Therefore it would seem correct that WP should have an article devoted to Kosher food certification organizations that can then have sub-sections for some lesser-well-known agencies perhaps. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, after cutting down to a few sentences, and Redirect to Kosher certification organizations, making it general enough because such agencies do not only supervise food alone. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that every certification, even if not individually notable, should be merged to/mentioned in its "parent article". (Incidentally, the primary subject, which, as your wrote, is clearly notable, already has an article: Hechsher, which you linked to. How are the certifying organizations distinct from the actual certifications? Kosher certification organizations and the like should redirect to Hechsher.)

Redirecting does not seem advisable either. Non-notable soda manufacturers do not redirect to List of soft drink producers, do they?

Finally, in this case I could not find any verifiable information about this kashrut agency at all (this is typical of smaller hechsherim), so there is no cause to merge or redirect whatsoever.

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 21:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hasirpad: Thank you for your input, but I beg to disagree with you, for some of the following reasons:

You are now introducing an "apples and oranges" argument because, as you well know, the role of a kosher supervision agency is part and parcel of Jewish religious life, especially in these modern times when housewives do not kasher their own chickens etc or when people rely on a kashrut agency to guaranty the kashrut of tzitzis (people don't twine their own anymore), Sukkos (for s'chach), clothes (for shatnez), and now even for smart phones and devices (to monitor hookups to the Internet) etc with many more like this!
Additionally you admit that "there are more than a thousand" such kashrut agencies that merely explaining what a "Hechsher" is does not help.
To give an analogy that you may appreciate, just because there is an article about Medicine does not mean there cannot be an article about Physicians and just because there is an article about Physicians does not mean there cannot be articles about sub-specialties such as Surgeons or Psychiatrists etc.
Thus, while the notion of Hechsher is at the core of "hashgacha" but related to that is the role of Organizations and Agencies and religious bodies, including the business aspect of running such modern-day complex institutions that require and involve expertise in and of a cross between Jewish law, qualifications and educational background of rabbis and their Orthodox Judaism affiliations, knowledge of business, food manufacturing, food distribution, advertising, and many other such aspects that all kashrut supervision organizations have to know and deal with, be they large or small, so that an article about Kosher certification organizations on this subject is not just important but long overdue. Thanks a lot for caring, IZAK (talk) 10:51, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:36, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep Even though this article needs some work (update: now done), including foremost the addition of at least some basic sources, the organization seems to be widespread enough to be notable. Although the lack of online sources about this organization does have me worried a little. Debresser (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may have fixed the tone, but there is still no evidence that any reliable sources have significant coverage of this hechser. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:04, 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. (WP:NPASR). A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unidos Permanecemos[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ I contested the PROD because I found an AllMusic review right off the bat. However, I have so far not found anything more than some brief mentions, including here and here. But I have a hunch, I'm not exactly sure why, that there is more on this album out there. And also I'd hold AllMusic pretty high up there for clout. Not as much as say Rolling Stone, but I'm hesitant at saying "delete" when AllMusic has reviewed the album. Neutral for now.--¿3family6 _contribs 13:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hillsong United and/or Con Todo. I'm amending my vote as a pretty exhaustive search has not turned up anything else about this album. I'd suggesting merging some of the content with Hillsong United, and also putting some of the content into a "background" section for Con Todo.--¿3family6 _contribs 18:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:51, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 14:36, 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 keep. "Orphaned article" is not a valid reason for deletion, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of universities in Ireland[edit]

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

Orphaned article - nothing links here so there is not much point having a list of lists like this. Gbawden (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, offers guidance to readers who may be looking for either of the two listed lists, because List of universities in Ireland, a likely search term, redirects here. @Gbawden:, don't nominate any more articles just because they're orphaned. That's not a valid deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we have thousands of orphaned articles, the community decided a long time ago that deletion is not the appropriate action to take for the poor things. As it stands this article is functioning sort of as a disambiguation page for "List of Universities in Ireland", which would be an appropriate disambiguation page, and disambiguation pages normally should be orphaned anyways.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I search for Universities in Ireland it takes me to List of higher education institutions in the Republic of Ireland. Do we change this redirect page to Lists of universities in Ireland? Gbawden (talk)
- It makes sense that Universities in Ireland should have the same target as List of universities in Ireland. postdlf (talk) 14:20, 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. Lacking coverage of the specific topic in reliable sources, LISTN admits not providing final guidance, but defers to NOTDIRECTORY and in particular point 6, which is a plausible reading of the consensus delete argument here. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Navy personnel in 1983[edit]

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

Don't believe that this list is relevant - why would you need to know this information by year? This is an orphan and it seems as that it was only compiled for 1yr, making it more irrelevant Gbawden (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You raise a few points, so I'll answer them one at a time:
1. "Don't believe that this list is relevant"
  I'm sorry you feel that way; I feel differently. It would help if you could be more specific.
2. "Why would you need to know this information by year"
  I thought it would be academically helpful to see the structure of the organisation, and the key people within it, each year. It's currently very difficult to find out who was in what post in a particular year. For example, if you want to find out who was Flag Officer Portsmouth in 1953, how can you do so without an article like this? cf. List of sovereign states in the 10th century BC, List of solar eclipses in the 14th century, List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2013 and of course Category:Lists by century for examples!
3. "This is an orphan"
  It needn't be, but "building the web" is something I haven't done yet with this article. I can add some links in if that would solve your concerns.
4. "it was only compiled for 1yr"
  I am planning to write a full list for each year, but it'll have to wait until after Wikimania before I have time. Besides, Wikipedia is a work in progress; "that an article is one of an incomplete series" isn't a reason to delete this article, but is instead a reason to write new ones.

I don't think your reasons for deletion are particularly strong but I stand ready to be corrected :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 15:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. This directory seems to be an excessively and unencylopedically detailed breakdown, unless our goal is to list a bunch of non-notable people. If breaking it down by year, why not month or day, since someone might have retired partway through the year? This type of listing does not serve any purpose I can see, and seems to run afoul of Wikipedia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All these people, being officers of above two-star rank in combat or senior positions, are notable in terms of the usual guideline, WP:SOLDIER. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. First ships and now personnel? Grouping by year is not a good idea for lists that don't change a great deal from year to year. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've been pondering this AfD since I saw it posted, and having now reviewed WP:NOTDIRECTORY, I am convinced that this list of Royal Navy brass from 1983 is not notable and not suitable for a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. That having been said, if this article were for 1982, and not 1983, and written as a supporting sub-article for a larger parent article on the Falklands War, or for 1940 and written as a supporting sub-article for a larger parent article about the Royal Navy's role in World War II, I reserve the right to express an opposite opinion. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep I am baffled at this AfD, honestly. All of these people are notable in terms of the WP:GNG, and as a 1983 version of the RN's structure, it's a notable as Royal Navy#Command, control, and organisation (though it has a little less text because we haven't done the research yet). How can one build User:Dirtlawyer's history of the RN since 1945 if one deletes the supporting articles? Yes we don't have the same articles for 1982, or 1956, or the time of the withdrawal from Aden, or Confrontation in 1965-66 etc - because we haven't got around to writing them, but one can't tell the RN's story if one deletes the key personnel? On this argument, one should delete the senior officers' listing for 2014 as soon as 2015 rolls around!! This is the basis for detailed histories, because we can research these officers' names and compile the data from them!! These are crazy nominations!! Buckshot06 (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but there's the rub, Buckshot. Most of the years since 1945 are not historically significant in terms of who the Royal Navy's leadership was . . . In the last 80 years, the RN leadership is historically significant in 1939–45, 1956, 1982, 1991–92, 2002–03 . . . and? As far as I can tell, the 1983 RN leadership is not one of the more significant years. The nautical mileage in your wake may vary. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree over the definition of 'historically significant'. It's *all* historically significant, if you're focusing on the RN as an institution worthy of recording in itself. Now I don't think that we should have a list for every year, but about every five years would work. Thus what this nom proposes doing is destroying such a basis for detailed research before it has gotten started! Buckshot06 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recording every year = WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:24, 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. Clearly, there's no agreement here as to whether the sources provided by User:Aymatth2 are sufficient to push this person past the general notability guideline. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Karfunkelstein[edit]

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

Not sure about notability - I don't think the Iron Cross 2nd class is notable enough to merit an article Gbawden (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Notability does not seem to be established as yet. The Jewish Encyclopedia reference comes from the German book "Jews as Soldiers", I don't have access to that source but if the coverage is significant that would flip my vote instantly. SPACKlick (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited as having seen the original work and a couple of other mentions this appears not to meet General or Military notability guidelines.SPACKlick (talk) 07:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited again, change vote, following the below discussion SPACKlick (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of [32].TheLongTone (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a copyvio, the Jewish Encyclopedia is in the public domain, whatever Jewishencyclopedia.com would like you to think. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Iron Cross 2nd Class is certainly not enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is the original entry in Juden als Soldaten (also available on Google Books[33] as part of Die Juden in Deutschland). I do not understand why the Jewish Encyclopedia, whose standards for inclusion seem to have been higher than Wikipedia's, felt that Karfunkelstein merited an article. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 14:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: The significance of Karfunkelstein, as can be seen by reading the surrounding text in the sources, is that he was a Jewish war hero, and was thus mentioned in several works trying to counter antisemitism, though the same sources include many others, and Karfunkelstein is not particularly remarkable among them. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 19:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER, unless the Iron Cross, 2nd class, was much, much more significant back then. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG or SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. Various sources discuss the subject

Die Juden in Deutschland / hrsg. von d. Comite zur Abwehr antisemitischer Angriffe in Berlin. Vol. 2: Die Juden als Soldaten. Berlin: Cronbach. 1897. p. 104. Sketch biography
"Karfunkelstein, Siegfried". Jewish Encyclopedia. 1901–1906. Mini-bio based on the above (The editors found the subject notable enough for inclusion in their encyclopedia)
L'Intermediaire des Chercheurs et Curieux. 1960. p. 5. Snippet view - comments on the Jewish encyclopedia entry
Geiger, Ludwig (1925). Die deutschen Juden und der Krieg. C. A. Schwetschke & Sohn. p. 59. Account of the flag-rescuing incident
Apotheker-zeitung. 1916. p. 151. Snippet view (search for Karfunkelstein). Different account of the flag incident

Other books give passing mentions, as do various websites. E.g. his name in on a Silesian war memorial. The online sources alone are easily enough to show GNG notability. A search would have been in order before nominating for deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Aymatth2.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aymatth2's sources, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the availability of the encyclopedic sources identified above, it appears that notability is established. Alansohn (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources provided by Ayamatth2. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aymatth2 Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though he is mentioned in sources, he is still not notable. Notice that even the general he gave the flag to, Budrisky, is redlinked, and that is a general, not a simple soldier. Debresser (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have difficulty seeing baseball players as notable. They are certainly less heroic than this guy. But they are notable in the Wikipedia sense. If a number of sources cover a subject in some detail then it is by definition notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: None of the sources mentioned really have significant coverage. Most of the works cited above are lists of Jewish soldiers, with half a page devoted to each—why does such minor coverage count toward notability? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If several printed books give mini-bios of the subject, that is enough to justify Wikipedia giving a mini-bio too. We have no shortage of space. I do not see anything offensive or discreditable or any other reason to remove the article. Am I missing something? Aymatth2 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your understanding of significant coverage? I take it to mean that an article should be based on sources that say more than "he existed, he died". הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Encyclopedia entry copied in the article says much more than "he existed, he died". Die Juden in Deutschland gives more detail again. Other sources describe his final act of conspicuous bravery. This is significant coverage by any measure, let alone for someone who died so long ago. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several independent, secondary reliable sources mention him; no reason why we shouldn't. This doesn't fail WP:DEL#REASON as far as I can see. - SchroCat (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the sources supplied by Aymatth2. There are many other soldiers like Siegfried Karfunkelstein who deserve their notability. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Aymatth2. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing to add to Aymatth2's post, just reposting a vote. SPACKlick (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A soldier who had a minor role in various roles, and was given a low-level decoration. That is not enough to make him notable. Anything else would give us a different standard for keeping articles on Jews as for other people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jagat Singh Chouhan[edit]

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

Complete absence of evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First a comment: The article isn't about Jagat Singh Chouhan, it's a loose collection of facts about sports in which he was involved. My reason for delete is that I can't find significant coverage of the man anywhere. He did some things that were notable but the things were notable, not who did them. SPACKlick (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While coat-racking does not normally doom an article, there is no rack here to put the coat on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 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 Delete - Speedy deleted per CSD#G5 - article was created by blocked sock in violation of their block. Tiptoety ^talk 02:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers-Dino Charge[edit]

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

Not a notable TV series and lack of sufficient references. Also, it seems to be advertising. Good afternoon (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This will be the next season of power rangers, confirmed by sources. 09:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Redirect to Power Rangers#Television series and rename without the dash Probably is the next series (USA Today source is legit), but knowing how Nickelodeon takes months to air a series of PR intermittently I'll believe that February 2015 airdate when it's much closer and confirmed than now. Nate • (chatter) 11:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there many more sources aside from UsaToday confirming that next season will be named "Dino Charge" . Just do a google search. 174.252.1.128 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC) IP is being used by prolific sockpupeteer to evade their block. Tiptoety ^talk 02:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Said sources are unreliable forums and the usual kidvid blogs we disqualify as sources for interjecting opinions and cheerleading for networks. We need neutral and reliable sources to confirm this. Nate • (chatter) 01:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 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 redirect to Swedish Football Division 4 . j⚛e decker ^talk 00:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IFK Täby FK[edit]

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

Seems to fail critarias according to WP:FOOTYN, as Sweden have a cup system. There are no claims supporting notability in the article. PROD was contested. Grrahnbahr (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swedish Football Division 4 as likely search term, but not independently notable. Giant Snowman 08:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per GS. I contested the prod as the team have played in the fourth division of swedish football. However, thinking about it, this is a regional level of league competition and I can find no evidence that they have competed in the national rounds of the swedish cup, so probably fail WP:FOOTYN. Fenix down (talk) 10:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like a suitable outcome, given even the Swedish version has no information! Nfitz (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as a speedy keep – withdrawn by nominator. – S. Rich (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photomedicine[edit]

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

No references. (Is this Fringe science or perhaps a scam?) – S. Rich (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no opinion on whether or not it's fringe or a scam or a legitimate field, but I'm bringing up a lot of hits in various academic journals and publishers. It seems to be notable enough and being a scam or fringe doesn't automatically mean that it can't be notable. I'll try to hit up one of the medicine WP to see if they can flesh the article out. Right now I'm just sort of piling sources up on the article for others to use. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not fringe, use of light therapy in psoriasis is a classic treatment. Maybe a merge or a rewrite, but the article is only in poor condition, not on a fringe subject. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with light therapy. JFW | T@lk 12:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely support merge, per JFW. 109.157.86.177 (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by OP. With special thanks to Tokyogirl, I will do a speedy close on this AfD. Before considering a merge, I think developing the article as she has is the best course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Even if he were notable the text would need a complete re-write to become a Wikipedia article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Demetrios Panagiotacopulos[edit]

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

Issues with notability and sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 No credible claim of notability. Article subject is a non-notable individual who fails to satisfy the academic notability guideline. Outside of social media, no reliable sources found. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Holly and Ivy[edit]

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

Article makes no assertion as to the notability of this book, and an Internet search does not indicate any awards or unusual recognition. I can't find any indication that it has received the level of attention necessary to make it stand out from any other children's book. Notability can't be inherited from the author or from the illustrator-- the book has to stand on its own, and as near as I can tell, it does not do this. KDS4444^Talk 04:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am finding some information for the book, such as it being listed here as a recommended read for children. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's also some evidence that it was/is being used in the classroom as well: [34], [35] Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It took some serious, serious digging to find a lot of these sources, but I've found enough to show that the book passes notability guidelines. It's listed as a recommended/summer read for a lot of classrooms ([36], [37], [38], [39], [40]) and I've found some coverage for the animated special. There's a stage production as well, but I'm not entirely going to count that towards notability since all I can find is a routine notification. I included that in the article, but really just as a small trivial detail than anything else. It seems to get mentioned quite frequently in various "you should read this during the holidays" articles and given a mini review. There's also a Publishers Weekly review, but I'm trying to find a better link to it than the one I have. That it was mentioned in a 2013 NYPL panel on dolls in literature says a lot for its notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mariangeli Collado[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, unreferenced WP:BLP of a child artist. Only one mention in a reliable newspaper which does not attest to notability. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article clearly fails WP:GNG. --Rpclod (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Seems WP:PROMOTION. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:GNG –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We generally do not retain unreferenced articles. This is even more pressing when the subject is under the age of 12. This has huge BLP concerns magnified by the subject being a minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am enclosing numerous references.I am new to article writing and new to Wikipedia. From what I gather, the article Mariangeli Collado is under discussion for deletion. I also gather that the reason may be that there are not enough sources of reference for the article to be valid. I am enclosing a few of the references that I found on the Web and I ask for help on how to defend the issue of the validity of the article.

Comment Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS for an explanation as to what references need to be. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your list was not showing up due to formatting. I reformatted it and put it here:

http://www.thetoptens.com/best-singers-born-after-1995 http://jackiefans.forum-motion.net/t700-mariangeli http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/19/4188660/hitstreak-the-made-for-mobile.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_singer http://www.starpowertalent.com/ClientData/Modules/Dance-tabulation/WebsiteResults/2013_Ft_Lauderdale,_FL_website_result.htm https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYBFx-THKRWqAxq66qZk_ww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqkfBzRb43o&list=PLp5hgt56uufa2hjD1Q8NUEu3Lkz-YEp1L https://www.showmobile.com/ http://www.kidzworld.com/article/28746-hitstreak-made-for-mobile-original-music-theme-series http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/10/23/582834/10053800/en/ShowMobile-Launches-With-Its-First-Made-for-Mobile-Original-Program-HitStreak.html http://www.cnbc.com/id/101136950 http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2013/10/23/showmobile_launches_with_its_first_made-for-mobile.htm http://www.j-14.com/posts/meet-four-rising-stars-from-hitstreak-studios-19240 http://southfloridabound.com/hitstreak-1st-scripted-original-mobile-series In the subject of notability, Mariangeli has been recognized in YouTube with over 25 million views and over 29,000 subscriber. She has also been recognized by the Major of Miami, Tomas Regalado, who invited her to sing "God Bless America at his swearing ceremony http://www.frequency.com/video/god-bless-america-by-mariangeli-collado/131640997/-/5-103856

Delete - This remains insufficient to provide adequate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made the list visible above but forgot to sign when I did. But the subject still fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:00, 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) 06:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Ross Hinton[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, no other notability, no problems on article recreation should candidate win or meet criteria. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being a "candidate" is not notable. The only source is the subject speaking about himself? The only reference is his own website? --Rpclod (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenon-notable and self-sourced promotion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Seems WP:PROMOTION. If he wins it is still WP:TOOSOON right now. Also poorly written: does not even have a political party listed. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth that seems to not be a draw-back to the article. It appears Hinton has decided to not bother with being part of a political party.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the event that he wins he will clearly be notable, but for now he is just one of many independent candidates running in the hundreds of congressional districts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unelected candidates in future elections do not pass WP:POLITICIAN (especially when they're relying this heavily on primary and unreliable sources.) No prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the election, but he is not entitled to keep a campaign brochure on Wikipedia in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:31, 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... Group nominations are only really appropriate when all members are clearly in the same category of notability, and I'm uncomfortable with a seven item nomination where one of the items was very clearly notable. The nominator should feel free to renominate individual articles they believe warrant deletion, but I don't believe that the six remaining articles in this nom will receive enough analysis to justify any result by the end of the discussion, so I'm closing it early. It is also worth keeping in mind that AfD is not the ideal forum for merge discussions (which is what most contributing editors have suggested so far.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Beverly[edit]

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

Temporary military facility that existed at Beverly Municipal Airport for three years during World War II. So far, one source that covers the subject in detail has been provided, therefore it fails the WP:GNG requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages because like Naval Auxiliary Air Facility Beverly, they were temporary military facilities at existing civilian airports that are only cited by one source and do not appear to have received significant coverage in any other source.:

~~Martha's Vineyard Naval Auxiliary Air Station~~

--Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of these facilities are notable and have coverage out there. We have an entire page dedicated to Outlying Landing Fields, most of which are modern facilities. There is a distinct lack of coverage for these facilities is that they closed almost seventy years ago, so I highly doubt there are digitized newspaper records for many of these things (although the Martha's Vineyard one has an entire chapter in a book dedicated to it). That being said, a cursory search for any of these facilities will have mentions in other sources. They aren't in-depth, but we are working with online sources for things that closed many decades before the internet started. I have written multiple military facility articles with less coverage than this (literally a sentence in some cases in some obscure book), but to say that an established military facility has supposedly no coverage for something just shows that virtually no research has been done. Also, Martha's Vineyard also did not exist before it was created as a Naval facility, so that directly contradicts the nominator's statement. Finally, just because I am lazy and don't feel like digging up the sources, does not mean that there is only one reputable source out there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close - I'm not necessarily convinced that all of them are notable but the source provided by Kevin Rutherford suggests that at least one of them is, making collective nomination ill advised. I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be nominated at all, just that I don't think there's any way to consistently deal with all of them together. Given the history, Naval Auxiliary Air Facility New Bedford should probably be redirected to New Bedford Regional Airport rather than deleted (if it's not kept). Naval Auxiliary Air Facility New Bedford could be merged to Norwood Memorial Airport which doesn't have a history section. I understand the nominator's intentions but this should probably be split into separate nominations. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have removed the Martha's Vineyard facility from this list now that significant coverage has been established. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that fully clarifies the nomination or a potential result but it's a good start. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge relevant cited information into applicable articles. There does not seem to be enough for these auxiliary military facilities to be stand alone articles. However, their content could make an appropriate section on the history of these airfields as they are today. EricSerge (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with EricSerge, these articles should be merged as history sections (or additions to existing history sections) of the related airports. Abroham1024 (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per EricSerge and Abroham1024. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have added a sentence to the Hyannis one and greatly expanded the Nantucket page. Granted, I am almost sure that the NAAF's will have an Army report on cleanup of the base, although I haven't looked yet at this time since I have other things to do. That being said, the Nantucket facility should be removed from this last as well, as a merger would overwhelm balance on that article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the Nantucket page is a primary source, which does nothing to demonstrate notability. Neither does the self-published source used for the Hyannis page. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:04, 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 redirect to Tom Hiddleston while she does have notable roles in theatre, doesn't meet WP:GNG at the moment but might in the future which is why it's the decision to redirect opposed to deletion. (Non-administrator closure.) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Hiddleston[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. See in particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. She has had no significant or important roles, she does not have a significant fan base, nor has she made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. This page seems to exist for promotional purposes which are not appropriate to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringandFall (talk • contribs) 01:44, 14 July 2014‎ (UTC)— SpringandFall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 10:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom Hiddleston, I feel like she is notable enough for an article, she has had starring roles in theatre and she also has a role in an upcoming mini-series, so maybe redirect and if she becomes more notable down the road, revert and add to it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Looking through references, didn't find much, although I included a reference to a photo of her in Glamour magazine. It is possible there are more sources and that I simply didn't look long enough? To meet the GNG, we need several in-depth independent sources focusing on her, and I looked through 10 SERP pages, didn't find that, but may change my vote if new evidence is presented, so please present them. However, about the fan base, consider pageviews in the hundreds each day, although that could be related to her brother Tom's pageviews in the thousands each day. I realize pageviews is an unofficial measure but it can indicate things; my experience is subjects with substantial pageviews tend to be notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't think she quite meets WP:ACTOR through not having enough major roles in notable/widely reviewed works. As far as I can see, she's originated a role in one fringe theatre production (Precious Little Talent) and done some revivals and non-notable plays, but none of her TV roles are major. That leaves WP:GNG which again she doesn't quite meet independently, though her brother has helped her get some press. Could redirect/selective merge to the article on her brother Tom Hiddleston. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I don't think she meets WP:ACTOR through her work. The standards are pretty clear, and I don't see how she meets them. I think to meet the standard for WP:GNG there has to be much more support through secondary sources, In other words, articles or interviews that show how she is notable. I did some googling, but I don't see anything about her individually, only articles about and interviews with her brother where he mentions in passing that he has a sister named Emma. I'd have to see some evidence of notability that is completely hers to say keep. Expiredramen (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 06:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Bachour[edit]

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

Promotional article with no sources that can be verified. Google News/Archives, my university's online database, and other searches do not turn up quality sources. CorporateM (Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His company was "sold to an unnamed tech giant for an undisclosed amount" and there's "speculation" it was Apple? This is what Wikipedia has become? Surely not! Completely lacking reliable independent secondary sources as required by WP:GNG. Googling turned up absolutely nothing. Stick a fork in it. This one is done. Msnicki (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Concur with Msnicki.--Rpclod (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Msnicki. NQ talk 11:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the unlinked sources offered are supposedly tech stories well within the range of what should be available online and yet none of them seem to be available. I'm not going to outright suggest they aren't legit but if someone like this had been the subject of significant coverage it shouldn't be that hard. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and the above comments. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:BIO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—per nom, not much else that needs to be added. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:40, 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 Dhoom (film series). Protection request can be made on next offense. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 15:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ACP Jai Dixit[edit]

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

Except for one line, this is all duplicate information from Dhoom (film series) BollyJeff | talk 00:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this new article adds nothing beyond the contents of the older article, it may qualify for speedy deletion under WP:A10. Unician ∇ 09:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this searchable character name to Dhoom (film series) in which he is written. No need for an unsourced separate article. And too, a redirect might prevent this from happening again. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: As suggested by MichaelQSchmidt, above, merge the “one line” of new content into Dhoom (film series) and redirect this title to that article. Unician ∇ 23:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Dhoom (film series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappu Guptah (talk • contribs) 09:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Pappu Guptah is a sock puppet of User:TekkenJinKazama, this article could be deleted or redirected as WP:G5. Given Jin's past history, if a redirect is created that it be protected for a fairly long period. Jin is a prolific sock master who does not respect consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Kay[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable-looking references to establish notability. The article's existing references are not available online; they may be independent and have significant coverage, but as this is an obvious WP:AUTOBIO, I am not giving it the benefit of the doubt. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:54, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article fails WP:BIO.--Rpclod (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written article. Subject clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY. Other issues also per nom. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:02, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific International 2014[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL. No WP:RS says when or if this event will be happening. Facebook is the only source for it being in South Korea. The article itself says November 2013! ...William 19:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 19:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The title is perhaps a little misleading. When clicking on the listed official web site, this appears to be associated to Miss Asia Pacific World, or at least the company running. That website calls this Miss Asia Pacific World Super Talent Search in its about page, and goes on to lay claim to "Miss Asia Pacific International" as a brand. Miss Asia Pacific International apparently went defunct with the cancellation of their 2008 pageant. Perhaps the brand was bought out by the Pacific World group. Who knows because I can't any coverage in reliable sources to confirm any of the information in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there is a notable subject here, which I doubt at this stage, there's nothing really worth keeping in this article. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 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 redirect to List of power generating stations in Ontario. While I feel that the consensus is "delete" here, the merge by User:Natural RX means that we can't actually get rid of the article, as we need to retain the history. Therefore, I've redirected instead. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wesleyville Generating Station[edit]

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

Article is about a non-notable planned building that was never built to completion and that never did anything: a dead project that amounted to nothing. The mention-in-passing of a chimney is not worthy of encyclopaedic entry and, in any case, is not even of record height. It would not be included in the Guinness Book of Records. — O'Dea (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the fact that it was planned but never completed doesn't mean its not notable. Likewise, the fact that what was built wouldn't qualify for the Guinness Book of Records also doesn't mean its not notable. Like everything else, the question of notability comes down to whether or not we have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. In this case, there's coverage not only of the white elephant that exists today but of other proposals (like that for a nuclear power station) on the same site. One imagines there would be quite a bit of off-line coverage in newspapers from the 1970s. That said, most of what I could find was local coverage (likely because anyone from outside the area long ago stopped caring about it enough to cover it). The result is that most modern online coverage is from a handful of local papers. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe it needs to be pointed out that no nuclear power station exists there, so you are talking about something that does not exist. And coverage in the past was of something that was going to be a working entity, but it never amounted to that. Intentions don't cut it. — O'Dea (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of planned projects are covered on Wikipedia. Again, the fact that it was planned but never completed doesn't automatically qualify it for deletion. Coverage of planned nuclear power stations would still be coverage. Intentions can cut it and are often notable - the Planned French invasion of Britain (1759), the Staten Island Tunnel, and the Irish Sea fixed crossing. Note: I still think this should be deleted, I just don't think it should be deleted because it wasn't finished. Plenty of things that don't exist are notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above, the fact that it was not fully built does not mean it was not notable. Furthermore it still exists today. This article can be included in my (weak) attempt to create more robust entry on all Wikipedia articles listed in {{Fossil fuel power ON}}. This article in particular was not listed in a previous version, but it has now been added. I would only support deleting it if it and other articles could be included in a list; but that would be a future scenario, so I would keep it for now, it is a legitimate enough stub. --Natural R_X 20:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have now added the article information to List of power generating stations in Ontario, a new article I created to list all generating sources in Ontario. --Natural R_X 01:29, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A. B. Stoddard[edit]

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

PROD was contested by a user with <10 contributions returning from several years inactivity [41]. Semi-procedural nomination. This BLP fails to assert notability, has been unsourced since 2010, and was initially created by User:Qworty (see WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up) Seth Kellerman (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 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, Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability sustained, Stoddard is well regarded In the media industry as a professional, more ref's would be helpful to substantiate, alternatives to deletion per our editing policy. talk→ WPPilot 06:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not sustained, that is the reason we are here at AfD. I would be happy to withdraw my nomination if sources are forthcoming. However, on an admittedly cursory search, I found many articles written by Stoddard and a number of interviews conducted by Stoddard, but next to nothing about Stoddard herself - only vapid puff pieces by people with an interest in promoting her. Seth Kellerman (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biographical pieces about Stoddard would be nice but they are somewhat arbitrary. For someone who does creative work for a living (political pundit, journalist, producer), significant is if their work is notable. Per WP:CREATIVE that is if others have written about Stoddard's works. Here are some recent examples:

breitbart.com
Media Matters
Ben Cohen (Huffington Post)

I don't think these are quality sources and I can't find much better. I'll change vote if there are better sources about Stoddard or her work. -- GreenC 00:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a common fallacy that any appearance in media counts as a reliable source, but in this case while Stoddard seems to have contributed to a number of major and reliable news sources, they're not a big enough player that anyone independent has actually written about them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:29, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that the subject passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CREATIVE and that this article should be kept, but improved per WP:DEL-CONTENT. The number of parties quoting her, or asking her to appear in their media, is an indication. A Google search and Google news search shows sufficient media including WP:RS quoting her or having her appear in their media. "widely cited by peers or successors" is sufficient for creatives to be notable. - per WP:CREATIVE. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Trends returns positive on this name search. But, of course, only in the United States.Solatido 17:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solatido (talk • contribs)
- Irreleant; see WP:GHITS. Also untrue, as Stoddard's google trends have been flatlining from spring 2014 onwards. Seth Kellerman (talk) 02:42, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of creatures in Primeval[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Primeval through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. This differs from something like a character list in that it is mostly a Villain of the week listing, taking minute details belonging on the episode list and placing them here only for the sake of in-depth plot regurgitation. For the grand majority of them, simply linking to the dinosaur article would suffice in the first place. There is also the issue that much of the information is original research detailing the real creatures rather than the fictional versions. TTN (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Characters is fine but "creatures" is OTT, All this crap's better off elsewhere. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same reason as the last two AFDs were defeated. What has changed since then? The show is cancelled, the deletionists are the only ones active now. Well, how about Category:Lists of fictional animals by work? Will these all be deleted? If not, why just this one? I know about WP:OTHERCRAP, but a category of 27 articles indicates a consensus allowing this type of article. 202.81.248.238 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of Primeval was driven by the success of Walking with Dinosaurs and, while the human stars are important, the real stars of the series are the dinosaurs. There are simply too many to include in the the main article so this article was created. The article doesn't just cover the creatures from Primeval, it also includes creatures from its spinoff, Primeval: New World. As 202.81.248.238 has alluded to, nothing has changed since the article was kept at two previous AfDs. The content can't be merged back to the main series article as it would bloat that article significantly, even if any non-encyclopaedic content was removed. The nominator is incorrect in stating that "most of the information is made up of plot details". In fact, much of the article consists of descriptions of the real creature and comparisons between the real and fictional versions of each creature, with some plot information naturally included. It should also be noted that more than 50% of citations used in the article are secondary sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is obviously an appendix to the main article about the show so there's a clear alternative to deletion — merger back into that article. There's more real world information in this case than you get in most such fictional lists because these creatures were, for the most part, real at one time and we have articles about them. Compare daleks, ewoks, klingons, &c. The general notability of this sort of material may be seen in sources such as Dinosaurs in Fantastic Fiction. Andrew (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is 125 KB. The program article is 52 KB. A merged article would be well overweight. 202.81.248.238 (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it were to be merged, it could easily be cut down to less than 20kb, so that isn't an issue. Just getting rid of the infoboxes and episode play-by-plays, which don't belong in even a regular character list, would probably bring it down by half in the first place. TTN (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you aren't really talking about merging, but deleting in two steps. 202.81.249.176 (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The infobox was recently at TfD and nobody could credibly explain why the infobox content should be removed and, obviously, the infobox survived TfD. In order to cut the content down to 20kB, you'd have to eliminate virtually everything, leaving only a list of the creatures, without any encyclopaedic content. That isn't making a better encyclopaedia. I really doubt that you could cut this article down to anything small enough so that, immediately after merging you wouldn't have to consider splitting the article again. I note that you were the nominator at the first AfD and I think that if you could cut the article down to 20kB you would have done so in the past 6.5 years. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite easy to gut a crufty character list. I just don't see the point when I think it should be outright removed in the first place. The infoboxes are pure cruft, and you won't find any in a proper character list. Rather than there being no argument to remove them, I don't think there could be a solid argument to include them in the first place. For these entries, they are mostly plot information, which should be removed except the most relevant details like a brief description as to their introduction to the story and any extremely large impact they may have on it. Then there is stuff like the Dodo section which is mostly original research taken from unrelated sources for some reason. The entire point of a character list in the first place is to provide a brief summary to act as a reference when the subjects are mentioned elsewhere, rather than the bloated mess that makes up this one. The least important ones should have no more than a few sentences on a bulleted "others" list, while even the most important, the Future Predator, looks as if it could maybe take a paragraph at most. If this has to survive for a third time, even though it is no different than the hundreds of other lists that have been deleted, I'm definitely planning on doing at least that much. TTN (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've earlier indicated, the article consists mainly of descriptions of the real creatures with comparisons between the real and fictional creatures. This is not cruft, it's encyclopaedic treatment of fiction. There are some plot points but this is normal in such lists, as it provides context. This is not cruft either. For the most part, the article doesn't go overboard on this; in fact some sections don't include any plot information. There are some sections that could be trimmed, such as the sections titled "Coelurosauravus" and "Future Predator" - Both of these were very significant in the series, which is why they are larger than the rest. Some of the infobox content such as "Humans killed" and "Returned to ear" is a bit crufty but claiming "the infoboxes are pure cruft" is very wrong. Some of the creatures appeared only in primevnal, others appeared only in the spinoff and others appeared in the books. The infoboxes provide a quick indication of when and where the creatures appeared. The alternative is to have 3 overlapping articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring that many of those comparisons are original research besides the few sourced to the series creators, how is any of that important? As I noted down below, this is a common occurrence in fiction. Noting every single instance is pointless. There is the encyclopedic treatment of fiction, but there has to be a limit. For most series, that is a list of actual characters, while those of plot elements like these are usually cast away for Wikia to catch. As for proper character list formatting, they are not meant to show every detail of a character. It is supposed to be a succinct summary of their most important aspects, so most of the info in the article needs to be cut just to follow that, ignoring the idea of cruft. Infoboxes should not be in character lists at all. That's just how they work in general, and all of the pertinent info can easily be told in the first sentence. If sorting them is important, it would be easy enough just to put them into different subsections. TTN (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comparisons are not OR. They're based on observations of the creatures as shown in each episodes. Episodes are acceptable primary sources and any reader can simply refer to the episodes and arrive at the same conclusions. There is no reason why infoboxes cannot be used in the article; this was discussed at the TfD. They are used to summarise pertinent points about the creatures instead of including additional, repetitive prose in each section which would only serve to bloat the article further. As for sorting, I don't see that is an issue. The content is already sorted into separate subsections. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was in the last AFD, and I don't see as how anything has changed. The series is notable for its creatures, that is what its all about. Some of the first ones on the list are just real life dinosaurs, but then it gets into many fictional characters not found anywhere else. All notable series have character lists and creature/monster list if there is enough content to fill them. A perfectly legitimate fork. Dream Focus 10:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really mean much. There are thousands of series where such things play a vital role in them, but this is one of the few lists of them still left over. Lists of weapons, lists of locations, lists of factions, lists of powers, and such have all been pruned over the years, mostly only leaving those that have been abandoned and those from really large franchises. For the most part, they have been migrated to Wikia where they belong. You can say that the series is about the creatures, but changing the links on the episode list to the real creatures and just providing brief descriptions for the original creatures would hardly change the average user's experience. At most, the "Future Predator" species could use an entry on the character list, while everything else original like "giant worms" and "killer birds and beetles" are pretty self-descriptive. As with any other briefly summarized plot element, the reader can find more in-depth information elsewhere. TTN (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases the creatures are fictionalised versions of the real creatures, so links to the real creatures aren't appropriate. There needs to be some comparison, which the article provides. An encyclopaedia is not a bunch of misleading links. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Such details are largely inconsequential for the most part. I don't think the average person will really care that a giant centipede was actually slightly smaller and an herbivore in real life. It's no different than wolves being portrayed as more viscous than in life or other animals being slightly changed for plot convenience, which would not require separate character entries to clear up any misunderstandings in any other series. Such detail is better left to a Wikia article that could point out every single minor detail that was changed. Basically, this is an overly in-depth analysis hardly relevant to anything but a fan interested in the minutia of the series, as would someone looking up specific weaponry in a video game. TTN (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creatures are the main point of the show, not peripheral details. Appealing to the "average person"s interests is absurd, you could delete 95% of Wikipedia if that was your criterion. The person who looks up the detail of a creature he sees on the show wants to know things like how real it is, and its significance in the show. And if they don't find that, some will will do research of their own and start to insert it in random places in the main article. The list article began as a distillation of creature information from the main article and several separate articles about the creatures and sections inserted in articles about the real creatures. Having a article about the fictional appearances of the creatures gives it all a clear context instead of it turning up in "In popular culture" bits in articles about real dinosaurs. 202.81.249.176 (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's misleading to readers to point them to an article that doesn't represent the creature portrayed in the series, given that there was some serious artistic license taken with the creatures. Readers should be directed to an article that describes the creatures as portrayed. The beauty of this article is that it does take the time to point out, where necessary, how the fictionalised creature differs to the real one. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of series with fictionalized real life objects and creatures. Your argument seems to be that we must provide context to each of these, but that is the very definition of cruft. It is not "misleading" to link to an article about an elephant if a minor character in a series happens to be riding a giant, fire-breathing elephant. Yes, it is a bit different for extinct creatures, but there is no reason to have something like this solely for the sake of such a non-issue. Such divergences are something that should be noted in the main article under a general production section, not a listing for fans. TTN (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be "tons" of series but we treat each article on its own merits. Just because one article does something doesn't mean that another has to do the same. It is misleading to link to an article about an elephant if a significant creature in the series is a fire breathing elephant type creature that isn't actually an elephant. You're confusing cruft with encyclopaedic treatment. An encyclopaedia isn't a series of links. We usually have to describe something. It would be crufty to add minutiae about the creatures but, for the most part, the article doesn't do that at all. Even in the two sections that I mentioned, the cruft level is very low and I'd oppose any effort to hack the article as others have been hacked. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. Other article is too big. Thus it is better to have this article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the overwhelming consensus in the two previous AFDs (from the same nominator!). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:00, 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.