Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 July	19 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rd South Indian International Movie Awards[edit]

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

Crystal ball. Incomplete article without independent sources The Banner talk 22:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of work has been put into this page, but without enough sources we cannot keep it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can. See WP:IMPROVE, WP:UGLY, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:HANDLE. We do not simply delete arguably notable topics if issues can be addressed through regular editing. See: WP:ATD-T. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's articles for the 1st and 2nd. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

And, per WP:INDAFD: 2014 SIIMA Awards South Indian International Movie Awards

Keep Nominator is incorrect, article does have an independent source and more are available. As policy allows we CAN speak about notable future events if properly sourced, tag it for issues and let's move on. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly OK to keep a usually notable awards ceremony, once the nominations are announced. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC).
Keep Meets WP:GNG, as well as satisfying WP:+1—LucasThoms 19:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Nothing wrong with this article. United States Man (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear keep after a cleanup of the article. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Diar[edit]

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

Subject was involved in a run-of-the-mill crime that does not meet WP:EVENT or WP:CRIME since it had no persistence, significant coverage or lasting effects on society. Murders like this are not that uncommon and the victim was no one significant. Except for a single episode of Deadly Women, there is no mentioning of this suspect in any crime documentaries. Not everyone who is featured on Deadly Women is notable enough for an article. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:26, 1 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 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - The article needs a rewrite to remove POV violations. I don't have strong feelings about this article and wouldn't fight hard to keep it, but I don't think this is an obvious case of failing to meet notability guidelines. She has enough news coverage, imo. Bali88 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:Removed some of the POV violations and inconsistent statements (You can't say with certainty that she suffocated him if the cause of death couldn't be determined)Bali88 (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the mill case. Fails one event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - enough news coverage to reach notability in my opinion. But article is in need of a shape-up.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - added a reference about her reinstated life sentence. I also found a news story of the overturned sentence on the Supreme Court of Ohio website here. There is also articles about a clemency request she made and then dropped in 2013.
Keep I cleaned up the article, it has enough 3rd party to be notable. Frmorrison (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - enough news coverage to reach notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree that it reaches notability. United States Man (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Young (actress)[edit]

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

She has not appeared in a leading role, as far as I can see. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Notable in many ways. One of five stars listed on this poster for WKW's Fallen Angels for example.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you checked the corresponding article on zhwiki before your nomination, nominator?--114.81.255.37 (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am afraid not. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes actor notability threshold. Multiple reliable sources available in English and Chinese. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
even better than the above link she's front and centre of this on-wiki poster for Floating City, a much more recent film and another leading role.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lee Thompson Ska Orchestra[edit]

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

Non notable group put together for a concert. No notable or charting recordings, little or no reliable references. Mostly unsourced information. Egghead06 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am tending to think we should keep this one based on personnel involved. Will depend on sources though...might have a look if I get a chance...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A keep might be justified on the basis of notable members (WP:BAND #6), but a merge to Lee Thompson (saxophonist) would also be quite sensible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Lee Thompson (saxophonist). The nomination completely misses the point. The band may have been formed to play a concert but have since gone to play many gigs, including the Glastonbury Festival, performed on TV on Later...with Jools Holland, and have put out an album. The band includes two notable musicians, so deletion is really a non-starter. Keeping or merging to Lee Thompson (saxophonist) are the only sensible options. As for little or no reliable references, searching before bringing it here may have found BBC, Gloucestershire Echo, The Journal, The Clitheroe Advertiser & Times. --Michig (talk) 09:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do four gig reviews/ adverts really make a band notable especially when the venue is little more than the local pub?--Egghead06 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the band isn't independently notable, that would support merging, not deletion. And do you think their set at Glastonbury, broadcast by the BBC, is a pub gig? --Michig (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glastonbury is awash with artists. Appearing there does not confer notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "the local pub". From the above links they played various festivals, notable venues such as The Jazz Café and Band on the Wall, and large clubs such as Hoult's Yard in Newcastle. - Colapeninsula (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many musical artists that performed on the major Glastonbury stages would be not considered notable by Wikipedia standards? I would suggest probably none. Egghead's link includes off-stage performers of poetry, circus skills, etc. so is misleading. --Michig (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The band's website includes reproduced reviews from The Sun, The Mirror, The Sunday Times, The Sunday Express, and Blues & Soul, and further coverage from Mojo. --Michig (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there are reliable references out there, the burden is on the article creator and editors to add them to the article. You can't really expect people to trawl though the newspapers every time. As it is it has no refs which support notability.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not acceptable as it is. If you don't want the deletion you work on it and we change our minds maybe. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added add'l refs to the article, including to newspapers and the BBC and the ABC. Between the coverage cited there and their performances as headliners at significant festivals and on national television (Jools Holland), I find them sufficiently notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CODESH School[edit]

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

spammy article with no independent refs about non-notable school Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one is straightforward enough. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. TheBlueCanoe 12:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it is straightforward. As a secondary school it should be kept by long-standing consensus and precedent. Actually appears to be called Codesh School, without the capitalisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian schools because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this school cannot meet notability requirements. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep high schools, See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It will add one more valuable school to List of schools in Maharashtra. And it will enhance this resource. it would be helpful for person who is searching for schools in Maharashtra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joytreejanata (talk • contribs) 07:41, 25 July 2014‎

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Carvalho[edit]

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

Extremely badly written and non-encyclopedically formatted résumé-style WP:BLP of a musician who has a potentially valid claim of notability under WP:NMUSIC, but no actual reliable sources to support it — and as always, a person does not pass NMUSIC just by claiming they pass NMUSIC; they pass NMUSIC by virtue of the quality of sourcing that can be provided to verify the claim. This requires such a fundamental WP:NUKEANDPAVE rewrite that I initially prodded it as promotional/advertising — a decision I'm still completely comfortable with — but it was then recreated a second time in exactly the same bad and unsourced format and still isn't entitled to be kept in this form. I'm happy to withdraw this if the article can be rewritten and sourced properly, but in this form it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. I searched but could not find sources. The award could be not true. How come even Pt:WP not discover this artist? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The award is true and the source confirms it. And he was part of at least two notable musical acts: Soraya Moraes (with whom he earned the award) and Oficina G3. I'm not saying I support the article being kept in its current state, but it wouldn't take more than some minutes to save it. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 01:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we require is reliable source coverage of the topic — for example, while I don't have any substantive reason to doubt that it's true, we don't have an actual source for his birthdate, for the fact that he's from Brazil or for his membership in Oficina G3. While it's certainly possible that there are enough sources to clean it up with, a WP:BLP is not allowed to stick around in this state while we wait for that to happen months or years from now; a BLP has to have one or more reliable sources in it immediately. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to sandboxing this instead of deleting it outright, if it hasn't had one or more good sources added to it by close, but BLPs require proper reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I'm just saying his notability is guaranteed. I'm not asking anyone to wait, articles can be easily recreated in a better shape later anyway. Had I come across this article, I'd probably redirect it to Oficina G3 as per WP:MUSBIO - indeed, that page was a redirect before @Marcioflycarvalho recreated it. I'm tagging him here because he expressed interest in keeping the page but was not alerted of this discussion. Maybe he's got something to say. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 00:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. As I've often pointed out, an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article; it just means they don't get to keep this version. A subject that's previously been deleted by AFD can be recreated in the future if a good article citing good sources can be written (we've got plenty of topics where a bad early version got canned, but then the topic attained a stronger claim of notability and/or better sourceability, so somebody wrote a better article that now qualified to be kept.) It's also worth noting, however, that Oficina G3 mentions, but does not actually source, the past membership of a "Marcio Woody Carvalho" — which means that Marcioflycarvalho is the subject himself, and this is therefore also a conflict of interest. (Not that that's a deletion reason in and of itself, but it does help tip the balance if the article's already problematic for other reasons.) Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you believe if I told you I hadn't noticed the editor's name is the same as the subject? Anyway, he has the right to comment, even though I agree he is not the best editor to work on this. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:23, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am sure Victão Lopes will save this article in a quarter of an hour or so, possibly with multiple independent reliable sources in the Portuguese language. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and what makes you be so sure that I'm going to do it? Victão Lopes ^Fala! 00:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not you, but somebody has to. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO.--Rpclod (talk) 05:51, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Nuclear Labs[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated - fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - Phenoix Nuclear Labs has been around for 9 years, it was founded by Dr. Greg Piefer, who has been a pioneer in IEC and Fusion for over 15 years. This company routinely receives press in the Wisconsin area , here are three examples:

http://www.jsonline.com/business/89368117.html

http://www.ibwisconsin.com/In-Business-Wisconsin/August-2012/SHINE-brings-a-light-of-hope-to-cancer-and-heart-patients/

http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/article_374ce040-d022-11df-bfd9-001cc4c002e0.html

The company has grown to 30 employees and the technology they have developed is really cutting edge stuff. Their patents discuss gas-based IEC devices. These machines do nuclear fusion reactions which produce neutrons. PNL has developed some of the worlds best commercial neutron sources - 10^14 Neutrons per second is no joke. This technology puts them in a unique position to developed radioactive isotopes. These isotopes (like MOLY-99 or Mo-99) are very rare, and very expensive. They have been made in giant machines (such as particle accelerators) in the past, PNL has scaled down the size of these machines considerably. This gives their spin-off company: SHINE technologies, a very unique and exciting position in the market place. PNL is one the best examples of commercial applications of fusor devices. WikiHelper2134 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the company has a credible, extensive list of partners and staff: the US Army, the NNSA, TechSource and (a few years ago) Los Alamos National Labs. As a kicker, they have a NASA astronaut on their board of board of directors.WikiHelper2134 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ukexpat. No evidence of corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Note~~,Keep, I don't know much about this company, (not affiliated in any way, etc, etc), but Phoenix Nuclear Labs (PNL) and their partner SHINE medical technologies are routinely in the news, at least in southern WI, due to the process that they developed to produce MOLY-99 or Mo-99. Apparently the company SHINE was formed by several of the people involved with PNL to actually use the process they developed. The way it is portrayed in the Wisconsin State Journal is that they will build a plant near the airport in Janesville, WI and produce Mo-99, which has a halflife suitable for shipping, to be shipped to hospitals through out US who then use it to make isotopes with short halflives that are suitable for nuclear imaging. One of the issues mentioned in the newspaper is that the main source of this Mo-99 is a Canadian reactor that uses highly enriched uranium, but the PNL process doesn't use HEU, thus reducing the risk of proliferation, etc. Additionally, the Canadian reactor is supposedly shutting down in 2016 making this process even more important, at least that's what they claim to the press anyway. It seems to me that this is something that is notable, but I don't know where that process would be best covered on wikipedia or if an article about the lab is necessary. Nuclear medicine#Source of radionuclides, with notes on a few radiopharmaceuticals seems to cover some of this ground. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The jsonline source and external links to regional newspaper constitute significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. We don't delete an article on notable companies just because the article is poorly sourced. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:07, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, an editor, affiliated with the company has cleaned up the article, but now it reads like a press release or advertisement and has no / few third party sources. I think the company is notable, but it's a COI and press release now. I think it could be kept on wikipedia, but it needs someone more knowledgeable than I am to tone it down without stripping it to nothing. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the COI editor didn't really change the prose in any significant way, just added press release references. An anonymous editor did some removal of promotional fluff, improving the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? this diff removed several secondary newspaper sources and replaced them with press releases and added 4 sections with no citations. Since I made the above note, it has been toned down a bit and citations have been added. I wasn't saying it's wrong or that it's a bunch of lies, just that it lacks third party sources and and has a press release / advertisement feel. I'm not saying I can do much better with the article, but it does have some issues. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I agree with @Dual Freq:, it's a notable company but the current version of the page should probably be erased and started over, maybe even as a stub. Andrew³²⁷ 08:30, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's notable it is notable and that means "Keep". If its current article is imperfect and should be edited, that does not mean "Weak Keep". Editing is not for AFD, that is for Talk page of article and/or tags on the article (hopefully with clear corresponding explanation at Talk page). --do ncr am 15:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Workers and Punks University[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the article is out of date: it is apparently no longer organised by the Peace Institute – Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies, Ljubljana, but by the Institute for Labour Studies[1]. Also, its Slovenian name is Delavsko-punkerska univerza (DPU), which is often translated as Workers' Punk University or Workers-Punks' University or anything similar. There's little WP:RS coverage in English, but I suggest that people with relevant linguistic experience are encouraged to search for appropriate sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems there are two newspaper articles having The Workers and Punks University (TWPU) as their primary topic, one published in 2011 by Delo and authored by Jela Krečič, and another one by Dnevnik in 2013. I have added them as references with this edit together with other changes. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, as per DancingPhilosopher. Beside the mentioned references, there's the Culture.si article in English. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both the delo.si article and the dnevnik.si article were written by lecturers of the University, therefore the articles do not qualify as an independent coverage. Also, the culture.si article does not qualify as an independent mainstream coverage in any regard, as it is a wiki open to too many potential editors and includes a number of non-notable topics. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Independency can not be interpreted as being tied to the individual journalist (and even if it could be, in case of Jela Krečič, she was invited only once in 2009, and was never an employee nor invited again by the University), because the independency is tied to the journalist's supervisor, i.e. editor, not the journalist, as it would be in case of self-publishing or blogging where there is no editorial process involved. --DancingPhilosopher (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ Weak keep. Uh, so I gave this a go and I only had passing mentions in ProQuest and no hits in other databases (and I tried multiple names, including the Slovene name). That culture.si source is very obviously a wiki (user-contributed?) and I'm okay with the Delo and Dnevnik sources' independence unless I'm missing something obvious (Krecic is a journalist, despite her affiliations). The thing is that I'm having trouble finding much more. Even after searching those sites, I'm getting opinion pieces and listings. There has to be more published on this, but I have to say it doesn't pass the GNG from what I'm able to find with my pitiful non-English searching. @DancingPhilosopher and Yerpo, are you able to pull more sources from area papers? And might this be a candidate for merging with Inštitut za delavske študije? czar ♔ 03:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so there's multiple independent sources and you still think it should be deleted/merged? Sorry, but I don't follow your line of reasoning. Culture.si is not an open public wiki, but a government ministry-curated site that happens to run on a wiki. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an additional source, a section by Veronika Gnezda directly about this subject on Radio Slovenia. — Yerpo ^Eh? 05:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To your first question, yes. The reasoning is that the refs mentioned are still weak and there isn't enough to write an article about the topic. What is the level of editorial control over culture.si? I can't find anything on it and there appear to be multiple contributors. How are contributions vetted and what is their editorial policy? Do you have any more print sources that discuss the topic in depth? czar ♔ 06:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Culture.si states that each article is edited, and the editorial board is plainly listed. Even without that, there is enough information to support a decent stub at least (especially in the Dnevnik's feature which you can't call weak by any stretch). — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a wiki, so it's edited. My question is about editorial control and fact-checking, about who writes the pages and how they treat submissions. I did not think it would be so hard to name a few extra sources if such are available in the language. When I said the sourcing is weak, it means the available sources as a body do not indicate that a full article can be written on the topic. It's a gray area but I'm willing to err towards weak keep now. czar ♔ 23:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a wiki, so it's edited. Quite obviously, the term "edited" refers to activity by the editorial board in this context. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there any indication that there is a standard of editorial quality? Or that the contributions of names not associated with the editors are vetted in some way? czar ♔ 14:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the page I linked to above. It says that every entry is edited and proofread. It would make no sense for this statement to refer to "editing" as we understand it in the context of Wikipedia. Furthermore, this is not an open wiki, so contributors are pre-selected in the first place. So there's editorial control even before entries are created. — Yerpo ^Eh? 17:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's entirely explicit, but sounds good, thank you czar ♔ 19:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless one or more native speakers can be found who can interpret the sources including the Radio Slovenia program "Delavsko punkerska univerza found by Yerbo, and who evaluate the topic as non-notable. I don't understand the Slovene language but catch a few words and understand it is a 11:53 long program with discussion/interviews with numerous persons, including one or more "doctros of philosophy", and using terms captilist, marxist, communist, economy. It includes cuts of the Theme from Rocky during :53 to 1:13 and again at ~10:45, of Europe (band)'s The Final Countdown (song) at 1:43 and during 11:15 to 11:53, of Bob Marley's Redemption Song at about 8:00, some song about "Revolutzia" at about 6:25. Honestly it seemed like an in-depth serious discussion, and Yerpo has asserted this radio show is on the topic, so this item does seem to be a significant source. I recommend playing the whole radio show while you're doing something else, just to hear the tone and interesting language and the inspiring music. :) --do ncr am 22:38, 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 keep. Editors now agree with the given sources the article passes GNG. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Oskoui[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. While a successful small businessman, Smiley Media is one of thousands such companies. Raising $3mm for a SuperPAC is no big deal in this era of billion dollar election cycles. – S. Rich (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note – see the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Harmon. – S. Rich (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor businessman and one of a bunch of founders of a PAC. No actually claim to notability and no widespread coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -he's the founder of a fairly large business and an important political player. Orser67 (talk) 20:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm usually a deletionist but found the Statesman and Salt Lake Tribune aricles sufficient by themselves to meet the requirement in WP:GNG for multiple reliable independent secondary sources. We commonly accept much, much less at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per comments and sources cited by Msnicki. Just enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass GNG. Merely starting a company and funding a PAC does not qualify.--Rpclod (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think of the sources I cited in my own !vote? You didn't find them helpful? Msnicki (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your research was good. However, Smiley Media shut down in 2012. It might have supported notability had it continued its trajectory, but instead wound up on the trash heap of entrepreneurial start-ups.--Rpclod (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't decide notability based on whether someone's business succeeded. Per WP:GNG, we decide based on reliable, independent, secondary sources. They either exist or don't and it looks to me like they do. If you agree the sources are there, I don't understand your objection. Can you point to anything in the guidelines as supporting your position that it matters what happened to Smiley Media? Msnicki (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pichilemu#Education. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Escuela Digna Camilo Aguilar[edit]

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

NN kindergarten and primary school. Was tagged for notability. Tag was removed, by editor who asserted the school was notable. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or better Redirect to Pichilemu as Kudpung suggests. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pichilemu#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) 06:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I see no argument gains a merge and redirect, merging just the basic data. I have never seen a valid argument for not doing so in a school, and the nominator does not offer one. The practical reason for doing them outside AfD is that they clog up the AfD process, and they are usually not controversial. If one is disputed, then we can deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's notability for a stand-alone article was controversial. As is reflected in the nomination, above. Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per DGG and Kudpung - As stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES primary schools get redirected (and very rarely merged). –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:11, 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 Nom Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Race Differences in Intelligence (book)[edit]

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

This book, published just as Wikipedia was beginning to establish notability guidelines for books, appears not to meet any subpart of those guidelines as they are currently implemented on Wikipedia. The book has had little notice from the public and no uptake by serious scholars on its topic, which is very controversial. The core policy of WP:NPOV may also be implicated here. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Richard Lynn. I don't see a violation of NPOV: there is a lengthy section of criticism and responses. Although you say there is no uptake by serious scholars, the page cites 2 articles in scholarly journals, one of which is a review of this book, and Google Scholar claims 161 cites[2]. There's also a review in Education Review[3]. For me the only issue is whether it should be merged to Richard Lynn (whose article already includes a briefer discussion of the book) or kept; there maybe aren't enough sources yet to establish separate notability, and many sources seem to group together Lynn's ideas from multiple publications, so discussing them all at once makes sense. Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED which means we don't delete discussion of ideas just because we find them distasteful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worth thinking about A merge without redirect might be a good outcome here. I am intimately familiar with the research literature on this topic, and following the Google Scholar link you kindly shared, I see that many of those hits are to articles by the same few authors who are funded by the author's funding source or are hits by keyword coincidence and not specific citations to the book. (The book is unfortunately titled in that regard.) If other editors are interested as part of this AfD discussion, I could cite quite a few current reliable sources on the broader and narrower topics of the book to show that the book is not mentioned even by scholars who are surely aware of its existence and writing about the same topic in more recent years. Thank you for your prompt reply. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

since all of his works use the same wacky data sets and come to the same wacky conclusions and have the same reception and impact, perhaps a merge to a Works of Richard Lynn for all of his stuff. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am not a personal fan of this book, this and this, I think, count as significant reviews, and thus it satisfies criteria one. Or am I missing something here? Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the gushing "review" by Rushton is by no means significant third party notice. Rushton and Lynn are part of the little walled garden of people that get published using scienc-y sounding content to support their fringe views and publish through the Pioneer Fund -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not hung up on this vote of mine; if consensus were to say that the sources are fringe, then I may reconsider. Is a fringe review the same as a trivial one? Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fringiness of sources does not relate to triviality of coverage, it relates to reliability of sources. Furthermore, that matter is less of an issue as the source in question is also not independent, per RedPen and re the Pioneer Fund. Anarchangel (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What counts as "independent" reliable sources about the book? I see that the notability guideline for books asks us to look for books that have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." I don't think that has happened here. Moreover, the general notability guideline reminds Wikipedians to look for a topic that "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" when creating an article. Wikipedia is not a directory, and indeed a different crowd-sourced project is already attempting to have a webpage for every book. I ask, because there is a book, a reliable secondary source by a professional scholar published by a university press, that points out that many books by Richard Lynn are "reviewed" by reviewers who receive funding from the same ideological funding source that Lynn receives funding from. Below I will include a block quotation from the book (which, oddly, does not appear on Wikipedia with its own stand-alone article, even though it has many independent favorable reviews) to respond to another editor's question here about the reviews that Lynn's book has received.

In keeping with the Satterfield plan's desire for maximum publicity, the different projects supported by Pioneer often functioned in a nicely coordinated fashion, the fund's journals providing multiple sources of promotion for work done by the fund's scientists. Jensen's book, Straight Talk about Mental Tests, for example, received effusive praise in reviews in both the Mankind Quarterly and the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies. (However, true to Pearson's obsession with racial purity, in the former he complained that Jensen's discussion of racial differences in IQ considered the correlation between the test scores of blacks and their 'estimated degree of Caucasoid admixture' but neglected the effects 'of black genes amongst segments of the population classified as white'; the true racial difference was reduced not only by blacks whose 'white genes' raised their IQs but by whites whose unrecognized 'black genes' lowered theirs.) The reviews thus completed a convenient cycle in which Jensen, a scientist whose work was supported by Pioneer, wrote a book, which was then highly recommended in two journals whose publication was funded by Pioneer and finally sent gratis to college and university officials throughout the country by FHU, whose purchase and distribution of the books was also paid for by Pioneer.
American Renaissance also joined with Pearson's journals in highlighting the work of Pioneer grantees. In 1997, for example, Richard Lynn published Dysgenics, arguing that the eugenicists of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had been correct in predicting the deterioration of Western civilization as a result of modern medical techniques and charitable assistance to the poor, which had combined to allow the transmission of 'defective' genes and the reproduction of an underclass that was genetically less intelligent and less moral. Between AR and Pearson's two journals, the book was discussed at length four times, all these reviews agreeing that the West, burdened with its black population, was heading for a 'genetic dead end' and certain that, as one reviewer put it, 'some sort of compensatory meddling will be required if human evolution is ever to return to its once healthy course.' The most obscure works supported by Pioneer, unlikely to be noticed elsewhere, received much attention in these interlocking outlets.

— William H. Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002, 2007 reprint [4] )

Thanks to everyone participating in the discussion here, which will help me know better going forward how to maintain and build a better encyclopedia in collaboration with all of you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Vanamonde93 and a lesser extent the comments by Colapeninsula. This book is not A Brief History of Time notable, but it is notable. Multiple different search sources confirm that. Subject meets WP:NBOOK, specifically Criterion 1, and per NBOOK (and all other criterion) all a subject has to do is meet one to meet notability guidelines. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Inasmuch as Vanamonde93's and Colapeninsula's comments preceded the citation of a scholarly study of how books like the book under discussion gain multiple nonindependent reviews, all supported by the same funding source, are we sure it can be shown that "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself" have provided sufficient sourcing for an article about the book? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response Simply because otherwise non-related reviews and publications might have had the same funding source and are possible part of a vast conspiracy to propagate scientific racism seems quite a stretch, and not the topic of this debate. The book itself meets WP:NBOOK which is what this deletion page is about, the sources are valid. Just because the American Immigration Council and Amnesty International both receive funding from George Soros does not mean that they are invalid as sources just because they are both funded by him. When I first read this nom, it struck me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and I really want to reiterate, Wikipedia is not censored and just because we might find a book's topic abhorrent does not mean it is not notable just because we say it isn't. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say that this book meets WP:NBOOK, presumably you mean to say it satisfies criterion #1. In that case could you cite the multiple independent sources which have covered the book at length? aprock (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page 1 of a Google search gives many sources that directly reference this book. In addition to what was pointed out above, this book is clearly notable. The Southern Poverty Law Center directly references this book describing the Author in it's case for his racism. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at those sources and none of then appear to be independent if the book. Were there specific sources that you had in mind? Have you reviewed any of them in particular? aprock (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there is a degree of IDHT being displayed at this page, as well as a tendency to confuse notability with being fringe. The fact that the book is very much fringe, and has been largely discredited, doesn't make it not notable; if anything, a book like this has greater need of a carefully neutral article than a more mainstream one. I don't believe neutrality is a criterion for reviews establishing notability; so long as they are non-trivial, which I believe them to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanamonde93 (talk • contribs) 07:17, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

Comment I concur, there seems to be much WP:IDONTLIKEIT here, there are topics on UFOs, psychics, even the Flat Earth Society. All of these things are fringe and hugely discredited, but that doesn't make them any less notable. If anything, what is paramount and most important is for Wikipedia to cover these topics from a neutral point of view, as is policy. To censor and withhold information simply because it is not mainstream is no better than supporting the material they purport as true. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lynns notable book would be the two books on IQ and global inequality that he wrote with Tatu Vanhanen, this book is so unimportant in his oeuvre that it isnt even listed in his biography currently. Perhaps his book on Dysgenics is also notable. This one is just a o so repetition of the same argument that he always makes, and no one seems to have paid it much mind.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, this book [is referenced directly] by the Southern Poverty Law Center. They directly cite this specific book three times in making the case why he is guilty of scientific racism, not to mention the other references mentioned by myself and others. To me it seems all of the merge and delete votes have cited little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT ever since the notability has been established. I would like to remind all Wikipedia is not censored. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned by SPLC also does not constitute nontrivial coverage, and in fact the guidline syays quite clearly that it has to be the primary subject of multiple nontrivial publications. Keep banging on the notcensored drums loud enough and someone might hear you. This has jackshit to do with censorship, Lynns views are already represented prominently in many articles. Since the consensus here seems to be towards merging by the way the censorship argument is completely irrelevant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen there is little consensus here. Some want it kept, some want it merged, others are on the fence. I would like to see what we can do to build some consensus here. To me, being cited by one of the largest racism fighting institutions in the world, while not establishing notability by itself, coupled with the host of academic sources posted here go above and beyond what is required by WP:NBOOK Criteria 1, if someone can point me to a policy/precident that specifically says academic reviews and papers do not establish notability, I would be happy to admit I'm wrong and drop the argument, but the coverage I find for this book specifically to me lends more than enough notability and credence to having its own article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything on the SPLC about this book from the link you provided. What exactly is that link supposed to show? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

racial differences in intelligence are one of the most important reasons for the differences in the wealth and poverty of nations that are present throughout the world (the other main reason being the presence of a market economy or of some form of socialism or communism). Intelligence is a major determinant of competence and earning capacity, so inevitably the European and Far Eastern peoples whose populations are intelligent achieve higher standards of living than other peoples who are less intelligent. directly quoted from his book, This is on top of the other sources linked. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 04:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, all that's been produced are a couple of book reviews, and a couple of sources which cite the book. If that's what it takes to satisfy WP:NBOOK so be it. I view the guidelines a little differently I suppose. aprock (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand of WP:GNG it is so the subject matter can be covered neutrally in line with content guidelines. As that is clearly the case here, this is the primary reason I argue for inclusion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you've made it clear that you have a different understanding of the notability guidelines. As best I can tell, book hasn't received significant coverage independent of the sources. You disagree, based on ... google searches that bring up contemporaneous book reviews, and some critical articles? That level of notability is so low that almost every book published would qualify. aprock (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete or Merge to Richard Lynn If Richard Lynn has written notable books that deserve their own articles separate form his biography this is not it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question If I may ask is this based on any specific policy or guideline? ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 02:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:NOTABILITY and in specific WP:NBOOK it fails all of the 5 criteria. Reviews of academic books, especially bad ones, do not in inherently constitute non-trivial published works. BAsically all academically published books are reviewed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this book notable is the widespread criticism specifically The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. Review after review about this book, points out its notability. Not to mention what I pointed out above. Academic reviews are still reviews. and fulfill notability requirements. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I (nominator) will accept a close with keep I appreciate everyone's thoughtful discussion here. I was genuinely puzzled about what the 2014 standard is for notability of a book to bring about a stand-alone article about the book on Wikipedia, because there are many reliable books on closely related topics that have never had articles about them on Wikipedia, and at least two or three from the "other side" of Lynn's argument that were previously AfDed and merged into other articles. I note for the record that some of the other editors participating in this discussion, namely Aprock and Maunus, are aware of a 2010 ArbCom case with several findings of editor misconduct (none applied to any of the editors commenting here so far) and ongoing discretionary sanctions. I'm here to reality-check a recently contentious article to see if one of the reasons it is contentious is simply that it is much ado about an otherwise non-notable book. Editors here who commented on rationales for keeping the article helpfully suggested sources that can be used to improve it, and I can now tell that I have been much too stringent in my past evaluation of notability about books here on Wikipedia and may as well create a dozen or more new articles about books that are far more notable—and better works of scholarship besides. I may even need to revisit the issue of hiving off separate articles for articles about books that were merged out of sight in years before I became an active editor here. Where I come from on this issue is simply that I have been researching the topic with the resources of an enormous university library system at a university with an active research program on the topic for more than two decades, since long before Wikipedia existed. Gradually, especially since I read the ArbCom case file, I have begun to figure out why Wikipedia is so askew from the balance of points of view found in the professional literature. I will do my part to seek out sources impartially and with full regard to core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I wish all of you who celebrate the Independence Day holiday a happy holiday and look forward to seeing you again on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 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, SpinningSpark 17:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does technically meets the current standards for books , having received "non-trivial" reviews. This is in my opinion a very low standard, as a high percentage of non-self published fiction and all serious academic books get non-trivial reviews. Since that the actual standards are not very helpful, in practice we deal with notability concerns by arguing about the substantial or independent nature of the reviews--for almost all books brought here, including this one, I could argue these in either direction, and depend like most of us on our own intuitive sense of importance in the field. But Maunus has raised a much better criterion above which can be useful for controversial non-fiction, one which I think will often clarify discussions like this: the importance of the book in the author's overall work.

Lynn's IQ and the wealth of nations has over 1200 holdings in Worldcat; this has about 120. Insignificant as part of his total work--apparently a rather routine recapitulation of his ideas. For controversial authors, attempts to make separate articles for each of their less important books amounts to promotional overemphasis. There's not even a need to merge--anyone actually looking for this particular book will know to look under the author. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Haggége[edit]

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

Not notable enough to have a separate article in WP. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Haggége has done voice acting in many noteworthy films. Media coverage for voice actors is generally sparse. In my opinion still notable enough. Inwind (talk) 06:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mere list of roles does not suffice. Does not appear to meet WP:ENT.--Rpclod (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is not a voice actor in notable films if I follow things right, he is the German-voice dubber for some-what notable cartoons, that were made in English and then dubbed into German. Being a dubbing artist is not covered by the notability guidelines for actors, we need reliable sources for a person like this, and we lack them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:48, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Milos[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NACTOR. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps I am missing something, but isn't having a reoccurring role in a number of nationally syndicated television programs in line with WP:NACTOR? Article needs better sourcing, but looks a-ok to me. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep "She is best known for her role as Yelina Salas on CSI: Miami (and on) The Sopranos". A regular role on a network program. WP:BEFORE not done; do it before you bring an article to AfD and please actually do more than "WP:" drops to form poor nominations like this. Nate • (chatter) 02:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no speedy keep reason here that I can see. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was pretty surprised to see this at AfD, until I did some searching for sources. I would personally count the role on CSI:(city name here) toward a presumption of notability under WP:ENT, but I'm not sure how significant any of the others are. More to the point, I can't seem to find sufficient coverage. Google news brings up nothing useful and a general web search is cluttered with "look at the photos!" kind of coverage of no meaningful substance. Sources? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking you would be hard pressed to find reliable sources for some of these actors, sure they exist, but they are buried behind layers of gossip sites and "he said, she said" blogs. However, her notability can be demonstrated through her direct work, she as mention, plays a significant role in the CSI series. Plus a number of other roles in other syndicated series, seems notable to me. Marcusmax(speak) 04:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, we have one source: her personal website. We do not have "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", only a presumption of notability. "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." - SummerPhD (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could use an overhaul, but the subject is notable. This type of source may not win any awards, but when it's from a reliable source it helps establish notability. Andrew³²⁷ 01:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Marcusmax and Andrewman327. Agree article needs revamp.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

İpek Özkök[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NACTOR. I would prod the article but references to two news items stopped me. All the same I believe she is not notable. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to have yet met WP:ENT. Starred in one relatively minor movie.--Rpclod (talk) 06:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is notable enough to get media coverage in Hürriyet [5], one of the major Turkish newspapers. Inwind (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think mention in an article in one major newspaper edition meets any criteria of WP:ENT.--Rpclod (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She had a leading role in The Ringing Ball and played in a number of television films. In my view this is enough for WP:ENT. Inwind (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you change the rules during the discussion later please do not accuse me of violating them. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two things she has been in which have links to articles, show she was a main character in them, so she passes WP:ENT #1 just fine. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." They have articles so they are notable by Wikipedia standards. Remember, we don't judge what is notable on our own, but determine it by WP:NOTABILITY. Dream Focus 07:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No argument advanced in favor of notability. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Drye[edit]

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

This is NOT a notable person. This is a self-serving autobiography and it should be deleted.

Reason Krisje9 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was prodded back in March 2011 by Tracer9999 (talk · contribs) but unprodded again. More recently the nominator, a single-purpose account, reprodded the article three times (despite being told not to) before creating this discussion. It was not linked properly in the deletion logs, but I added it there. I also removed two of the three recent re-prods, but only for technical reasons (a prod can only be attempted once); I have not yet formulated an opinion about the notability of the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur about the SPA; the only purpose for this account seems to be to try to get this article deleted. Also, I do not know where the nominator gets the idea that this is an autobiography, as he claims in his PROD rationales, and in a bizarre Deletion Review request where he states that "The author has continuously re-posted this page about himself"; as far as I can tell, User:Paul Drye has never edited this article. BOZ (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we can find more sources, otherwise move to Draft:Paul Drye so it can be worked on. BOZ (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paul Drye has an account on here, and there's no indication that user has ever used this article for self-serving purposes. XiuBouLin (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article does not meet WP:AUTHOR.--Rpclod (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to pass GNG. No multiple, indepth, secondary source coverage. Pretty much all the sources are linked directly to him in a very clear manner. That some other person may be the one who found the sources and made the article here does not change the fact he comes no where near passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 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. The consensus here is that the article in its current form does not have sufficient sourcing to establish notability, but there doesn't seem to be any fundamental issue with idea of an article at this title, provided appropriate sources could be found. Thus, if anybody wants to continue working on this, any admin can recover the original text and move it to draft space. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaolin 72 arts[edit]

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

This article was recently deleted after an AfD debate (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the 72 Shaolin martial arts) but the speedy delete for repost was declined because the article was not identical. Considering that in both cases the article is primarily a list of the 72 techniques I don't believe that to be the case. The arguments in the first AfD still hold - further sources in the new article are all derived from the single source in the first. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm expanding the article, don't delete it, please. this is just one day after i've begone editing the article. naturally, i first had to list the 72 methods and after that write down them one by one. so after just 1 day you would definitely just see a list. it takes me several weeks or maybe a few months to complete it. there are also other sections i'm going to add to it. so, let the article be expanded, not deleted.

about the further sources of the new article, they are totally different, much more respected, sources that it is the first time that are talked about in the English language community. previously, the page just had one source, Jin Jin Zhong's book, but these new sources include Shaolin monk Shi Deqian's "Encyclopedia of Shaolin martial arts," and the great video series by monk Shi Dechao, both from Shaolin temple. if you refer to the stub list i've already created in the article you see that even the list is different from the previous one, not just in the order, but in the items, too. though i use Jin's book, but it's now just 1 source out of them, and it's even one less important source now. there's also Wu Jiaming's book, i think you mean it, because, as you said, this book is derived from the first source. but monks Deqian's and Dechao's sources are totally different, just take a look at their methods list for reference. because of the new sources and the approach in this new article, it will definitely be totally different from what you'd expect from Jin's book. and don't forget, what you believe is not the case. you had better talked to me before nominating the article for deletion, dear PRehse, this is a bad practice. the article just needs an expansion, which i'm definitely going to gradually do. so, i ask you to withdraw the deletion request for now, and let me do what i'm supposed to do. thanks man. SHemmati10 (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. If the 2 lists are different, how can both sources show the notability of the article's list? What does "what you believe is not the case" mean in terms of this article's notability? If the article wasn't ready, why did you put it out there instead of working to get it right first? Especially when it had already been deleted. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

at least in the framework of Shaolin kung fu, almost everything has got several versions. because unlike Karate and Taekwondo, it is not something created in the 20th century and doesn't have those kinds of 20th century sports standards. every lineage have their somehow different list. in this regard, there are more than 72 of such methods altogether, i can even name 108 or more of them. but they are known as being 72, anyhow. this makes the lists somehow different (though i intend to cover almost all of the known methods, as far as the sources can support.), but this doesn't at all reduce the notability. at least among Martial Arts, these 72 Shaolin methods are kind of the most famous exercises. WIKIpedia should have these in the entries.

here, you all compare this entry with the previous version, which seemed to be mostly a list based on one reference. and it was said that the article "seems" to be so and so, ... some personal presumptions. i meant to say that what the article is going to be will be different from your personal imaginations. talk with reasons, not those personal beliefs and presumptions.

at last, it's not mandatory for WIKI articles to be created all at once. i prefer, based on several reasons for myself, to work gradually on articles. this is not supposed to be any problem whatsoever. SHemmati10 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. None of the coverage seems independent and the claims in the article are not supported by sources. Expanding the article appears to consist of expanding the description of each of the 72 drills, but WP is not a how-to manual.Mdtemp (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mdtemp, you point 2 problems: 1. verifiability, 2. description method. verifiability is not rigorous here. WIKI is somewhere to find the answers to questions. one searches in Wiki for such a topic, like "iron head," "iron arm," "iron shirt" exercises, etc. WIKIpedia is the place. ok, we describe it here for them to know about it, based on official sources of Shaolin temple, the most respected ones. then are the effects verifiable? that's something else. i'll provide as much documentary video footages and scientific sources as available, or at least will redirect to other sources with scientifically reliable sources.

yes yes. i know, wikipedia content should be encyclopedic and 'descriptive' not 'instructional.' that's just a matter of changing the language of the article from instructive to descriptive. currently, the text language is directly like the instructional sources, editing the language to WIKI style is another stage. this was a valuable comment; thanks. SHemmati10 (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article currently stands I have to agree with the previous advocates for deletion. I'm not convinced that you can claim these sources are independent and there's certainly no support for the claims made in the article. Claiming these drills are the basis for all wushu mastery, especially when many styles predate the publication of the earliest source, requires significant proof. The article is full of unsupported puffery. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

these are a main part of martial arts exercises and for sure need their WIKI entry. you say "certainly..." what reason makes you certain? let me clear some points: there are many supports, but even if there's no support, such exercises (iron hand, iron head, etc) are done by many people from kinds of martial arts and thanks to these, people can break hard objects, which would be impossible for others to even think of breaking. back to the subject, there are several documentaries, and some scientific centers from the States and other countries have checked these phenomena via measuring tools, like the result confirms the claims. just that you think such sources don't exist doesn't make them really not exist. again i say, your 'personal' opinions is no reason, talk with reasons, not personal beliefs.

and about the styles. according to the historical records (which i'll cite in the article later), sine the 500s and 600s AD such exercises have been reported to have been officially practiced in Shaolin, and even before that. since then, because of the exchanges of knowledge, exercises have been exchanged from school to school. "conditioning" that is the key part of traditional kung fu training from north to south of China, all consists of such kinds of exercises (as i said they are not merely 72, but more. the 72 is just in the indicating name.) in Shaolin, these were however kept as sort of secret and published just after the wars in the 20th century, but that doesn't make other schools not know about them or practice them. this is easy to understand. after the movies, these exercises are practiced worldwide, from the Japanese Karate schools hitting walls to harden their knife hands, to the (fake) US gurus claiming to be able to affect people with their energy! (i'm a PhD researcher physicist myself and am actually familiar with the subject. i'll cite documentaries measuring the actual effects of this energy in Chinese masters and physicians. it's scientific, by actual scientists and tools. just wait for them, don't fall into personal imaginations if you don't know about the effects of body bioelectricity.) SHemmati10 (talk) 23:55, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma.io[edit]

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

~~New firm, has not yet accomplished anything. "is building an infrastructure~~ < /br> From the added sources, they're actually in operation, and apparently notable. AfD withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The existing page was out of date and lacked evidence of notability. I'm currently in the process of updating it to use a more objective tone, as well as to reflect new information and new sources which should establish notability - will comment here again once this is complete. Thanks. Dandelany ( talk ) 21:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per:

The New York Times
Techcrunch
Techcrunch
Techcrunch
AOL News

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ DGG: I've finished my edits to show evidence of notability and fill in more content. I believe the page should now meet WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY guidelines. Full disclosure: I am an employee of Enigma, but as a programmer, not as a paid advocate. I've made every effort to rewrite the article with an objective, neutral point of view, but feel free to make any additional edits for neutral tone as necessary. Thanks, Dandelany ( talk ) 17:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, based on the refs, especially the March 2014 NYT article & the July 2014 TeleChruch that NorthAmerica1000 added, they apparently do have a released product, and one that has gotten considerable interest. The greatly improved article is much clearer about that. Experience here is that it is difficult from someone in the company, whether programmer or publicist, to focus an article adequately, which is what we mean by CO; someone without it would not have assumed the material presented wa sufficient to show the notability. . DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG. Out of curiosity - "which is what we mean by CO" - what does CO mean here? Thanks, --Dandelany (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my typ, it's COI, Conflict of Interest. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 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 speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G4, "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phines A.H. West[edit]

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

Seams like a hoax. The article claims that he composed album "Bad Boys" by Alexandra Burke, but such album does not exist. There is a single "Bad Boys" by Burke, but he did not compose it according to that article. This article also claims that he produced and composed "Kiss" by Carly Rae Jepsen, but he is not mentioned in that article neither. I did not bother to check other "albums". Vanjagenije (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J A Roman[edit]

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

This article was created by a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, most likely, the subject of the article. Prhartcom (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. As the books have received 5 out of 5 stars in evaluation, possibly this will be a 5-star deletion. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article has shown savvyness in gaming the system to appear to be gaining attention, but until we see that this has actually been noticed by reliable sources, it is not in and of itself sufficient to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 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 speedy delete via WP:G7. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of intellectual or highly gifted characters[edit]

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

This is a useless list with poorly defined inclusion criteria. This is a cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a crosscategorization, just a categorization (it's "Xs that are Y", not "Xs that are Y that do Z"). But the lack of any meaningful inclusion criteria seems to be a fatal flaw, and I can't see how this list isn't WP:SYNTH. I'd imagine most fictional protagonists could be defined as "highly gifted" even if they're not necessarily Sherlock Holmes-level geniuses. That's usually part of why they're the hero of the story. postdlf (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:LISTN and is way too indiscriminate in its scope. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello ! I'm the main author of this article. Don't worry I will improve it just as you can do. By the words <<highly gifted>>, I especially mean <<very good at class>> if it's clearer. I think that lists on wikipedia are a great way to learn and not only for entertainment. There are many links to others encyclopedia articles to be (re-)discovered Éthann (talk) 17:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no specificity, and the offered clarification "very good at class" only makes the inclusion criteria even harder to understand. It's just too vague. Baconfry (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baconfry Maybe I could submit another title like : List of intellectual, geek or (highly-)gifted children characters. Éthann (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "List of child prodigies in works of fiction" would be better suited? Baconfry (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would definitely be a better scope, but it would still have to demonstrate notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply listcruft. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is listcruft and subjective as well. Frmorrison (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK everybody ! My mistake. The page about child prodigies in works of fiction already exists :List of fictional child prodigies. So you can erase this page if you want even if my subject was a little more complete. I just want, by the way, say my surprise because some of you told it was a bad subject as an argument for deletion, whereas IT IS a wiki page. See you a next time ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Éthann (talk • contribs) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, that's far too subjective. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:33, 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 speedy delete. G11 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melady app[edit]

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

Non-notable app. Not convinced it meets any speedy criteria, but it has no reliable sources and the only possible source I found, here, is bloggy and not enough by itself to establish notability per the GNG. BethNaught (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 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 15:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crafton family sailing voyage[edit]

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

No indication of notability - a number of people circumnavigate the globe but not everyone is notable Gbawden (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not everyone who circumnavigates the globe is notable, but not everyone gets news articles written about them in the Washington Post and USA Today either. That complicates things for me, though I'm still undecided on this one. TheBlueCanoe 12:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete A well-documented human interest story, but in the end, that's all there is to it. Mangoe (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enough people have circumnavigated the globe that this is not such a notable accomplishment, any more than climbing Mount Everest. They're not Ferdinand Magellan. If somebody ever creates List of people who have circumnavigated the world, they can go on there. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. if Wikipedia can have separate articles on episodes of sitcoms, then this is easily more notable than that. this was a genuine national news item. I do think this meets the standard of notability. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've said it yourself: "news item". Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:06, 15 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 15:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Very little here appears, as it is written, to be based on Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. Please remember that AfD is not a vote, thank you. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What, NONEWSPAPER doesn't count? Alright then, it fails WP:EVENTCRIT. It has no lasting impact and hasn't been the subject of post-event analysis. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails notability, per nominator. United States Man (talk) 20:23, 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 redirect to Category:stop-gaps. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop-gap measure[edit]

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

Dictionary description plus examples. No useful content The Banner talk 15:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Roll back to the soft redirect to Wikitionary,~~ or else delete (in which case it might become necessary to re-add a soft redirect). This is unsourced, apparently original research about a vaguely defined class of "temporary fixes". Cnilep (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is no Wiktionary page for "stop-gap measure", though there is wikt:stop-gap. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unsourced random drivel, much of which is pure nonsense, and little possibility of it ever becoming a useful page.NiD.29 (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIT: its my fault for writing this article. I saw the term stop-gap on the Sega 32X page, then looked up meanings for the term, and that one example of an infamous Sega product serving as a "stop gap" until the Sega Saturn's introduction really influenced me to find other meanings to this term. But I still say we KEEEEEEP the page! --Highway 231 (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But ya know, my username was named after the M-231 highway being constructed in Michigan. Come to think of it, since M-231 is being constructed as a two-lane expressway, it possibly means thats a stop-gap until funding is available for it to be a divided highway soon. --Highway 231 (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I change my VOTE from "keep" to REDIRECT, to Category:stop-gaps, since a redirect to a category can be a good way to repurpose an existing page to aid in Wikipedia navigation. --Highway 231 (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - A redirect sounds like a good idea. NiD.29 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elchin Suleymanov Economist[edit]

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

As far as I can discern, given the very poor quality of the translation, the subject does not satisfy WP:NACADEMICS. PROD declined without explanation by article creator. Safiel (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note Article has been moved to Elchin Suleymanov. Safiel (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Total fail of WP:Prof. [6] Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Should the other language one be deleted too. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fate of the article on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia is entirely up to the editors of that particular Wikipedia. I believe each Wikipedia has its own unique policies regarding notability. In any event, this AfD is only concerned with the English Wikipedia article. Safiel (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the above. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Fielding[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, many mentions but no signiciant coverage. All I found was this [7] article, but nothing outside that. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article appears to be an advert. She hasn't starred in any films, tv or theatre, she's a bit part player. Szzuk (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's also this [8] article, which together with the one above seems enough to satisfy WP:GNG to me. She's had significant roles in the film Kill Keith, the musical American Psycho and plays including All New People and an RSC production of The Merchant of Venice, so would appear to meet the first criterion of WP:NACTOR too. Qwfp (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The film Kill Keith is about Keith Chegwin, do you know who he is? This film is worse than the kids tv shows he used to present, and has a smaller budget! And an article in a lads magazine. Szzuk (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider 2 articles "significant coverage". So still fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A detailed, substantive profile in The Independent (and I see no basis to disregard this as an "advert"); numerous other sources commenting on her theatre work. Many of those articles focus on Tom Hiddleston, but even there we find comments like the one in Scotland on Sunday in 2011 about her having a "annus mirabilis herself after scoring raves as Portia in the RSC's recent production of The Merchant Of Venice"[9] (the Guardian described her performance as "stunning"[10]; the Daily Mail apparently disagreed [11] Seems to me that at this point, she is, at least, a notable stage actress. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason those refs are hidden? I'd like to see them. She appears better at self promotion than acting to me. Szzuk (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC (e.g. [12], [13]) and passes point #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 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 redirect to Reasonable doubt. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the shadow of a doubt[edit]

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

This article seems to consist primarily of original research (in the sense of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research).

After removing original research and unsourced material, very little would be left here.

I feel that this is at best a candidate for a short dictionary entry, but not an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpegden (talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 July 2014

I've had to set up this entire page so I apologize if I've missed anything out or buggered anything up. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mixup with the page. I thought I followed the directions, but I'll be more careful next time. Wpegden (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question to be considered here is whether the TOPIC of the term "Beyond the shadow of a doubt" merits an article. Specific criticisms of the current state of an article are always of minor importance.

In my opinion the nomination's suggestion that the article be moved to the wiktionary is based on a mistake. The term is widely used in an ironic manner, with no meaningful association with jurisprudence. Educated people for whom English is a second language, may come across this term, over and over again, without ever realizing it is derived from jurisprudence.

Here is an example where the term is used merely for emphasis, with no meaningful association with jurisprudence:

In fact, writes Coontz, the traditional family of the 1950s was a qualitatively new phenomenon. At the end of the 1940s, all the trends characterizing the rest of the twentieth century suddenly reversed themselves. This clear-eyed, bracing, and exhaustively researched study of American families and the nostalgia trap proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Leave It to Beaver was not a documentary.

Here is an example where the term is used by neuropsychologists, theoretically discussing the mechanism behind the subjective feeling of certainty:

In fact, when validity represents the over-riding concern, individuals may be motivated to postpone closure and, in extreme cases, to avoid it altogether. This is not inevitable, however: If a particular closure appears valid beyond the shadow of a doubt (e.g., because of the impeccable credibility of its source), the fear of invalidity may increase the tendency to embrace it rather than prompting its avoidance or postponement. Thus, closure avoidance should be conceptually distinguished from the fear of invalidity. Although closure avoidance may be often induced by such fear, this may not hold invariably.

Here is an example from nuclear physics that addresses the slim theoretical possibility that a side effect of building and using even higher powered atom smashers may trigger the disintegration of planet Earth -- again, a usage that has nothing to do with jurisprudence:

We pose the question of whether one can, on the basis of established facts, exclude beyond the shadow of a doubt the “BNL doomsday scenario”

So, in my opinion, the article should be retained. Geo Swan (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geo Swan. What mistake do you think my suggestion to delete the article is based on? I never suggested that this term is only used in jurisprudence. To the contrary, my sense is that this is an English phrase used in many situations. It has a definition which should be in a dictionary. I don't think it is a notable topic for an Encyclopedia. (Are there any non-dictionary primary sources at all whose topic is this term?) Wpegden (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication that the phrase itself is a notable subject. Geo Swan's cites show that the phrase is used a lot, but the cited sources are not about the phrase; they're merely examples of its use. As the nom points out, once you remove all the WP:OR, all you're left with is a dictionary definition, and Wikipedia:Not a dictionary . Does Wiktionary do phrases as well as words? If so, that would be a better home for it (absent the OR). TJRC (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary does treat phrases, including wikt:shadow of a doubt. Cnilep (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This expression is at least a plausible redirect to Certainty and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. I think that redirection would be a better outcome than deletion. James500 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. I am the original nominator for deletion, but would be willing to embrace the redirect option also if that has more support. (I see some people above me suggesting that the article should be kept on the basis that the phrase appears in some articles. As TJRC notes, these are just examples of usage, not examples of considering the phrase as a topic unto itself.) Wpegden (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Reasonable doubt This article reeks of WP:OR, but we need to look at the notability of the phrase itself. The phrase is notable but I don't see a need for a separate article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 23:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Agreed with Solarra. Lots of original research, and, even if that wasn't there, there is no need for this separate article anyway. United States Man (talk) 04:38, 29 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. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Scotland[edit]

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

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (The following excerpt from my Keep argument in 2011 still applies in general): Seems an obvious topic for a Wikipedia article. Periodic cleanup is an obvious requirement for such a list, to restrict it to things which have or which are notable enough to potentially have articles, and to remove vanispamcruftisements. The topic "Scottish cultural icons" is itself found in five results at Google Book Search, and "Scottish Icons" turns up additional relevant books such as [14] which lists "tartan, whiskey, smoked salmon, bagpipes and the Scottish landscape," as well as Harry Lauder, ancient castles, the kilt, bloody clan history, & Braveheart. [15] lists as "Scottish icons" Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Battle of Culloden. .... A candidate for membership on the list should have a reference stating that it qualifies, if not in those exact words. Not everything in Scotland is or was a "Scottish icon" but many such can be readily referenced. (I would keep "cultural" in the title to make it clear it is not about Greek Orthodox religious images). One book noted that they are the things depicted on postcards one sends home from Scotland. Edison (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among the Musselburgh Golf Club, the Glencoe Massacre, and Dr. Finlay's Casebook. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So this list includes some dubious entries? Then that calls for EDITING, but is not a compelling reason to delete. Edison (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are only observations, not an argument; for that, please refer to the Poland link. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid sources exist and the a list of cultural icons is very encyclopedic. While the list has its flaws, I'm not seeing justification for deletion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:17, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list may need some editing, but it is good Wiki content. Frmorrison (talk) 21:50, 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Spain[edit]

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

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. Edison (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among the tuna pot, the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, and Penelope Cruz. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So we should delete all articles which need editing? Edison (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I still fail to see how these lists are unencyclopedic. Sources exist and the topic certainly makes for a good, high quality list. To address concerns mentioned above about how the list promises to make connections between "the tuna pot, the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, and Penelope Cruz", the connection is that they are claimed cultural icons of Spain. So long as they actually are cultural icons of Spain, their inclusion on the list is appropriate. (And if they are not cultural icons, then deleting those specific items makes more sense than deleting the entire article). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So true, SoE, and thanks for the laugh. The "these things don't go together" argument is more than usually obtuse to the entirety of the process. Anarchangel (talk) 21:46, 17 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) 12:48, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Russia[edit]

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

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. Look for "cultural icon" refs for some of the music, literature, science, political history and military history. Edison (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among dressed herring, Ivan Shishkin, and Hedgehog in the Fog. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSome entries should probably be removed. That's because this is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" and some such editors add fluff. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. Edison (talk) 02:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not seeing how this is not encyclopedic. Yes, this article has many issues, but listings of cultural icons is easily verified and encyclopedic. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think reasonable Wikipedians would agree that such articles or lists for larger nation-states probably are notable, so such articles on France, Poland, and Russia would be notable. I'm not sure about smaller states. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 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) 12:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The prior AFD for all these articles resulted in them being kept, no need to go on a cultural icon crusade. This issue of the notability of these articles (or the need for a rewrite) can be discussed in a more productive way than AFD. Marcusmax(speak) 00:10, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Italy[edit]

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

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. Itayl is clearly blessed with numerous structures, artists, cities, and other "cultural icons" called such in books. Edison (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among Parma ham, Luigi Nono, and the Etruscan civilization. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, A list contains some entries which are dubious? Then they should be removed, leaving those which have references saying the are the country's cultural icons or equivalent language. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. It is hilarious to deny that Italy has cultural icons. Edison (talk) 02:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid sources exist and the list is encyclopedic. All of the issues that have been raised about this article can be addressed through editing, so deletion is not necessary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:32, 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) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This list is encyclopedic if it is sourced accurately. Editing might need to be done, but deletion is not needed. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Germany[edit]

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

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. It is not hard to find reliable sources for Bach and Beethoven as "cultural icons" but some of the other entries might be deleted if tagged for a few months as needing citations. that said, deletion is not an acceptable substitute for editing. Edison (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among Vita-Cola, the Christian Democratic Party, and Rammstein. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually the articles do not "promise connections" among the icons, but just lists them. Your naming the weakest entries does not disprove that there are quite a few cultural icons in Germany. If there are fluff entries, they can be tagged as needing references or removed, but leave Beethoven, Brahms, and the Brandenburg Gate, just to name three. Edison (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid sources exist and the list is encyclopedic. All of the issues that have been raised about this article can be addressed through editing, so deletion is not necessary. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:33, 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) 12:47, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of France[edit]

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

The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland says it all. In addition , this article is next to unreferenced, unlike the Polish one. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Such lists by country are highly encyclopedic, if reliable sources exist which say "X, Y, and Z" are cultural icons of Country A". If you see a dubious or unreferenced entry tag it as needing a citation, or just be bold and delete it if you search and cannot find reliable sourcing for it. Edison (talk) 01:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not with sources. The problem is that "cultural icon" is an overused buzzword with blurry definition. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I left remarks at the initial discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland which I would like to fully apply here as well. I note that this particular list promises "encyclopedic" connections among the Dreyfus affair, Brigitte Bardot, and the Alsace hamster. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not yet read the previous discussion. However, I challenge the reasoning that the article should be deleted because of the charmingly eclectic cultural preferences of French people. Anarchangel (talk) 01:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you find an entry in a list which you do not feel belongs, you can tag it as needing a reliable source identifying it as a cultural icon, or you can be bold and remove it. We do not require laser sharp objective definitions for list membership. The fact that reliable sources say something is a cultural icon of a country is sufficient. It is a red herring to argue that the lists say there are "encyclopedic connections between all the icons" when no such claim is made. They are just individually identified as cultural icons. When someone adds vanispamcruft items with no refs calling them "cultural icons" or equivalent, , anyone else is welcome to remove them. Edison (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "When no such claim is made"... then why compile a list? Each of these lists accomodates anyone and anything that has ever been called a "cultural icon" – a term which can be fairly described as a recentism with considerable promotional value and a controversial definition. The term is not uncommon to find, but it is not used purposefully enough in actual literature to be considered an encyclopedic topic. These lists will always be viewed as contests or rankings, and they will always be incomplete. Each source is specific to one particular entry and wholly unrelated to all the others: they don't add up to a convincing sum. I have never seen a broad survey of "'cultural icons' of France" (or any other country) that could be considered scholarly, and it's no accident that the sparse sourcing on these lists comes from fan websites, popular magazines and travel guides. Without a compelling reason to exist, they are WP:INDISCRIMINATE collections and attempts to stitch them together, however sincere, are ultimately WP:OR. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But, sadly, you are quite wrong and your arguments are not well conceived in this instance. Books, movies, tv shows, magazine articles and travel guides concur that numerous countries have numerous "cultural icons" known not only to everyone in the country but to educated persons worldwide. They are the things, persons, and places one thinks of when one thinks of the country. Your comment suggests that there would be neither agreement in France nor in other countries as what things characterize France, and that there would be no commonality in naming Notre Dame, Paris,the Louvre, the Left Bank, or the wine country. Please get it through your head that things cited to reliable sources are not original research. Edison (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mr. Admin, I'll go do that. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison. A list of cultural icons of a country is encyclopedic, countless reliable sources exist and I believe that Edison's point more than addresses the concerns raised by the nom. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think reasonable Wikipedians would agree that such articles or lists for larger nation-states probably are notable, so such articles on France, Poland, and Russia would be notable. I'm not sure about smaller states. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really resent your clear implication that I am not a "reasonable Wikipedian". You and Edison, as admins, should adhere to a higher standard of discourse. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not wish to jump on Bearian's Band wagon, then do not. I think reasonable Wikipedians would agree it would be counterproductive to ban rhetoric, as most are alert to it, and dabble in it from time to time. Anarchangel (talk) 21:54, 17 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) 12:47, 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.

Fetion[edit]

The result was Withdrawn. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This software seems to be non-notable. Links in the article are nowhere close to establishing notability, and all that I could find on the web is some news wire with trivial coverage – mostly announcements of plans by China Mobile with no in-depth discussion of the software itself. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Reply~~ Some in-depth coverage of its market share:[16][17][18]--180.155.72.174 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of its market share belongs to China Mobile article – this one is about piece of software, and unless some in-depth coverage of software (as opposed to market wire) is present. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I'm confused with your words. The decline of Fetion's market share is closely related to the poor performance of the software, as discussed in these sources. For exapmle:"凭借其PC与手机互通，短信与消息的无缝互转功能，并依托中移动庞大的网内基数，飞信发展迅速，至2011年中期飞信活跃用户数接近8270万。在国内IM软件市场，飞信曾跻身前三名。""而在增强用户粘性、引异网手机用户的竞争中，飞信作为中移动的战略产品也发挥了重要作用，但拥有了庞大的用户群，却没拥有良好的口碑，这为日后飞信的衰败埋下了伏笔。""即便在飞信发展迅速时，在很多业内专家看来，飞信作为一款互联网产品并不成功，移动互联网专家王煜全曾表示，飞信就是一个免费发短信的工具，除此之外，还有什么作用。""飞信的衰败与产品本身的问题有关，快速成长之后，飞信又瞄准QQ，希望能在商业收入方面开疆扩土，于是纷繁芜杂的功能被加入，越来越多按钮仅为收费而存在。""飞信基础功能则停滞不前甚至后退，PC端越来越臃肿，手机端飞信的不稳定和消息的延迟有目共睹。"(taken from the first source) I wonder whether you've read the provided sources in detail, or maybe I have to know what's the expected "discussion of the software itself".--180.155.72.174 (talk) 07:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Market share does not speak of particular features, user interface, development history of this software, or at least anything that would allow to distinguish it from other instant messengers. See this for example of coverage that would count for WP:GNG purposes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Czarkoff:If all that required is "particular features, user interface, development history of this software", I can provide more sources.[19][20][21] In my point of view, the reception of the software, which is usually shown by its market analyse, is more important than its function, just as a book review weighs much more than a plot summary.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these seem to be OK. Still, I am not sure whether the topic may be considered notable if it was not found worth mention in any English sources at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English per GNG.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is ambiguous on this topic, actually: non-English sources can contribute to establishing notability, but it does not state that non-English sources alone can be sufficient. At the same time, coverage limited to particular language indicates lack of notability outside the country where this language is used. I don't think that "notable in country XYZ", even if XYZ is large and important country as China, is equal to "notable". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attention by serveral national sources is enough. See WP:AUD--180.155.72.174 (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD deals all different organizations and products. If we were discussing China Mobile, I would happily accept this argument, because Chinese telecom company is naturaly limited to the country and national sources are OK. Instant messaging applications are international by their nature, so national sources are not enough for this kind of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability threshold with significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. There is no requirement that references are in English, and the argument that because it is only of national interest is fallacious. There are many Western topics that have no coverage in Chinese sources but that does not make them non-notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Philg88: You've missed the point: unlike most products communication software is inherently international. Notable Chinese brick and mortar business will definitely be worth mention if several Chinese only nation-wide sources will cover it, but the lack of coverage of instant messaging software that is by its nature supposed to be used worldwide means that this software in not notable outside the area of coverage. At least to date this worked as a rule worked for Russian IM software: mail.ru Agent was deleted for the very same reason and Yandex.Messenger was never created. I don't really get why any bias towards China must be in place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry Dmitrij, but I don't think I have. There are multiple national sources with in-depth coverage of the topic. As far as the Chinese IM landscape is concerned, the idea of a global messaging service is anathema to the powers that be. Since China Mobile is owned by the government, it is in their interest to restrict the service to China so you won't see any outside coverage due to non-availability. See WeChat for an example of Chinese censorship of IM products. Philg88 ^♦talk 11:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Philg88: To my understanding, this makes Chinese government-controlled IM products inherently non-notable, though it is worth explanation in instant messaging. FWIW these days nearly every ISP, phone manufecturer or internet giant has his own set of web services (mail, IM, storage/backup, news reader, etc), and I don't see how Wikipedia benehits from having numerous articles on nearly identical entities with no chance of more or less comprehensive individual coverage even in abstract distinct future. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nearly every ISP, phone manufecturer or internet giant has his own set of web services but few of them gain in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. The history and feature of these services differ from each other, thus they can be described in different ways.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Communication software is not inherently international, since they can be limited by ISP or the government, just as other products can be limited by the company which manufacture them. Take fetion as a example: It can work only through China Mobile's network. If government-controlled IM products is inherently non-notable, can we regard all the companies or products in North Korea as inherently non-notable? Indeed WP:AUD deals all different organizations and products in the same way. IM product is not something special. WP:AUD says "at least one regional source is necessary. If a product has received sufficient coverage in multiple national sources, it's clearly notable. It's the sufficient (non-trival) coverage that makes one topic distinguishes from another. --180.155.72.174 (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, later today I will expand the article with the sources you've provided. I would kindly ask you to provide more reliable sources to make sure I could describe it as thoroughly as possible. And then we'll se whether this description would allow to distinguish it from off-the-mill instant messanger. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        With all due respect, I see no indication that you understand Chinese, so I'm not quite sure how you intend to address the referencing. The sources don't need to be cited in the article, they just need to exist. And they do. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I have automatic translation that gives a grasp on content. Sources somewhere out there don't really improve articles' quality, and this particular article contains absolutely no encyclopedic content for all 6 (six!!!) years of its existance. Now that the service itself is on steady decline even after second attempt at its revival, these sources in the wild don't promise better coverage at some later date any more, so either someone has to fill this article with actual content or it will remain useless clutter forever. And it is obvious from this discussion that I am the only person here who is concerned about its content – despite your !votes to keep it, neither You nor IP did even try actually getting the article to the state when there is at least something worth keeping at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        This is afd, a place to decide whether an article should be removed from wikipedia instead of how an article can be improved. As an active user on zhwiki, I don't have enough time to expand the article at present. Maybe I will improve the corresponding article on zhwiki later.--180.155.72.174 (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Dmitrij There is no deadline by when a Wikipedia article must be complete (or be "filled with content" to use your expression). Notability is not transient, once it has been established it remains pretty much immutable. If I get some time tomorrow I will do some work with the Chinese sources and add appropriate references. In the meantime, I'd really rather you didn't try anything with machine translation. In my experience, it just causes more problems, which then require fixing. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 14:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Expanded with three references from reliable sources. @180.155.72.174: 请检查变化,谢谢. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but this is basically business wire, information that does not consititute the coverage of the software itself. If these sources basically boil down to information like this, they don't contribute to notability of this product at all. That is: as of now this articles clearly fails WP:PRODUCT and is to be merged with China Mobile. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an IM platform just like WeChat or Tencent QQ and there is coverage of the product in multiple sources sufficient to establish notability according to Wikipedia requirements. The sources cited are not "business wires" - China doesn't have such things. A Google search in Chinese for the exact product name returns over 31 million hits. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS? Really, the sources about "China Mobile" efforts around its products and services are sources about company, not services. If there are independent reliable sources discussing this software in depth, please, demonstrate them. I am entitled to ask for demonstration by including material in the article, because Chinese-only sources are unaccessible for most Wikipedia editors and can't be verified otherwise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to accept the Chinese sources in good faith as they are perfectly acceptable under Wikipedia guidelines. As for the Google hits, they give an indication that this is a widely covered topic – the product's Chinese name is very specific and doesn't refer to anything else. Coverage of the IM offering from the world's largest mobile operator, even though it is a "foreign" topic is also important from a CSB perspective. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could accept Chinese-only sources as this subject seems to be naturally limited to China. But I can't accept foreign language sources with no indication of demonstrating notability of subject, particularily after several such sources, which were used for supporting keep !votes, turned out not supporting notability of the subject. Please, provide independent secondary reliable sources that would discuss the subject of the article – software – in depth, preferably by demonstrating their coverage via inclusion of the sourced material in the article. Right now, following your edits to the article, I have to assume that you are mistaken (in good faith) about availability of sources supporting subject's notability, and the amount of discussion without any good sources provided makes the good faith assumption vaporize rather quickly. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:05, 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 08:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Are these any help? 1, 2, 3, 4. JTdale ^Talk 13:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Note If your looking for some form of notability because of the software being original or doing someone other software does not, then you should probably delete most software articles on Wikipedia. The notability of this is from massive numbers of users, not features. Also, I notice Google Hangouts has an article. How exactly is that different to this having an article? Both are nothing more than one of the many many proprietary messengers half of the Internets major companies have, since that seems to the argument against this having an article. JTdale ^Talk 13:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR version: no, I don't request any claim of novelty. All I ask is sources describing software aspects of Fetion.

See, the article about software may and sometimes even should contain information about development history, marketing compains, development contracts and other business affairs revolving around the software in question. All of this is compulsory information with some relevance to the subject – the piece of software.

Still, to show notability of software one should demonstrate that this software recieved significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. That means that there should be sources that actually describe the software properties of the subject: user interface, features (even if these features are ordinary, typical for genre), compatibility, underlying protocols, etc. Without this discussion the real subject of the coverage is not software, but its author.

The sources you provide, as well as the sources provided by IP and Philg88 lack such information. These sources cover China Mobile, its marketing efforts and strategies, its struggle against competitors, profitability of its assets, etc. – topics that fall under "business" category, not under "software". These sources could be plausibly used to extand China Mobile, or a "Marketing" section of Fetion article, but they don't really demonstrate that the publishers of these sources consider Fetion as software that is worth non-trivial mention.

— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a normal type of software - a game, an anti-virus; then I might agree with you. When it comes to a social media software though, the user numbers are really all that counts. You don't see people writing reviews of the softeware specs of Kik, Snapchat or Facebook. JTdale ^Talk 16:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many, many sources discussing features, UI, usability and other ergonomic aspects of Facebook. Actually, enough material for separate articles on every historical UI widget there, as well as on many aspects of their technical infrastructure.

Also note, the Fetion is not a social network, it is an instant messenger like Skype: Desktop software, not even an online service per se. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's most like Kik actually. Kik Messenger JTdale ^Talk 04:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, like Kik. You imply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not invoking any policies. You compared it to Skype, which it has very little relation to, so I corrected you. JTdale ^Talk 12:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, may be you could point me to some text in WP:GNG or WP:NORG that says that something is notable if it has many users? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to something in WP:GNG or WP:NORG that defines which part of a topic it must cover to count as significant coverage? I don't see anywhere that makes coverage of sales, success, business strategy, and so any less valid than articles explaining software features? JTdale ^Talk 11:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued In English alone, for a Chinese product, I can pull up articles from ZDnet, Global Times, Asia Times, China Daily, The Next Web, Xinhua News Agency and South China Morning Post. How many articles do you need to prove this is notable? JTdale ^Talk 11:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly two (in English or different languages per WP:AUD), which would satisfy WP:PRODUCT: discuss this software as opposed to China Mobile's marketing attempts, contracts and usage stats. Could you please link the sources instead of their publishers? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing in WP:PRODUCT says anything about what needs to be covered. Why can you not work that out? WP:PRODUCT is discussing products in the context of on the main page. WP:Software notability failed, so there is no specific guideline that says anything more than WP:GNG and that states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Do you read anywhere in here that it says it must include software features description? Plainly multiple articles on the software, including one that shows it has more users than many countries have people, makes it notable. Oh and WP:NOENG is the correct policy, not WP:AUD by the way. JTdale ^Talk
    - WP:PRODUCT says: "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." This situation describes China Mobile and Fetion, but China Mobile is not too long. Next, WP:PRODUCT states: Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." This is the exact description of situation with Fetion, because it is not covered in reliable sources unlike information about China Mobile's marketing efforts and product placement. You are right, there is no guideline saying that sources for articles about software should actually cover software. Usage numbers are a good point to note, but they don't really say anything about the software: regardless numerous noted usage statistics, this article does not provide encyclopedic coverage of application whatsoever; it does not even provide a way to distinguish this application from any other software in its genre. Now, can you provide sources describing Fetion as software, and not as a generic product of China Mobile with number of users and outsourcing contracts? The answer to this question is actually the answer to the question "Can Fetion be presumed to be notable under WP:GNG or WP:NCORP?" — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I get what your saying but it is immediately notable under WP:GNG as soon as it has significant coverage. Half a dozen articles in major news outlets is significant coverage. Yes it is not optimum that in English there is no discussion of features but a) I'm quite sure our editors who understand Chinese can provide that and b)WP:GNG still does not require that. Under your interpretation, it is similar to saying there was a billionaire who has significant coverage because of his wealth but is reclusive and so no one covers his personal life, then he wouldn't qualify for WP:GNG which is a interpretation based in nothingness. "a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy" - still talking about products on the corporation page. This doesn't even touch account when products are themselves notable. "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product". This article is already half way to not being a stub, and could easily be expanded from being one. JTdale ^Talk 07:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It would be immediately notable under WP:GNG as soon as it would have significant coverage. Coverage of related topic with trivial mention of subject is just not significant coverage. Apparently the discussion about Chinese sources above resolved into warning against my attempt to add material from Chinese sources using automatic translation and these edits: 1, 2 and 3. This also does not help with notability, because it covers China Mobile's contracts and business issues, and agian not software. Provided the length of this discussion and my explicit request to add the sources to the article I take this situation for the proof of the fact that two Chinese-speaking editors participating in this discussion could not find sources to support the notability claim. Now, this article is still as much a stub as it was in 2009: it contains zero material about the subject outside infobox, and I see no reason to believe this situation would change, so WP:PRODUCT still requires it to be merged (problematic from WP:DUE standpoint – the article is full of trivia and lacks material worth merging) or deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        FWIW if SD Times (or any other tech magazine with strong tradition of publishing nonsense) happens to write an article of Fetion, stating that it supports Skype protocol and allows moving physical objects with voice commands, there won't be sources to back the statement that this is fringe view. Really, the there can't be article about a product that was never reviewed by reliable sources in meaningful way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        "Coverage of related topic with trivial mention of subject" < How in the world is this trivial mention of subject? The article focuses on it. Your issue is that it doesn't focus on software and of course there isn't going to be reviews by western outlets - they don't have access to the product since it only operates in China. However, that makes it no less notable because it has other areas (i.e.: It's massive user base) that have been covered. JTdale ^Talk 11:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It is exactly trivial mention. The article is about China Mobile's competition efforts. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And I agree with our chinese speaking editors. I just tried to auto-translate some of the articles linked here and it just spits out gibberish; you can't base your claims about those references on the rubbish google translate gives you. JTdale ^Talk 11:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        See, I specifically asked "our chinese speaking editors" to extend the article with sources about this software, and all I've got was business wire. I have no reason to believe that any article there is actually about this software and provides significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Articles stating that China Mobile revamps Fetion to compete with WeChat, be there million of them, are still of no use per WP:GNG, as their coverage of Fetion is not significant at any rate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep lots of regular coverage which takes some wading through but includes in-depth coverage that supports notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allamurad Karayev[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter, not likely to ever meet WP:MMANOT Peter Rehse (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has no top tier fights, so he fails to meet WP:NMMA. He's only 22 so he may one day become notable, but that would fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Papaursa (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Article was created WP:TOOSOON. Mdtemp (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Emmy winners[edit]

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

I propose deletion of this list, rather than redirecting. Each Emmy list already points to the other 2 lists - I can't see a reason to have a separate list like this, which in any case is an orphan so no one is accessing this page Gbawden (talk) 11:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emmy Award#See also, which contains all three links. bd2412 T 14:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Emmy Award's infobox has a link to the awards listed there. That, or the See Also or the section wikilinks, do the job just fine. — Wylie pedia 04:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Agreed with Wylie and nom; no need for this page. United States Man (talk) 20:26, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COD - Crews On Destiny[edit]

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

Articles is overly promotional. It promotes the band without citing sources. For example, the article claims that the bent "were an inspiration to the young generation", that they "had set a benchmark in Nepali music industry", and that their songs "were some of the biggest hits in Nepalese music", without citing any sources to prove this. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The informations provided are true but no sources regarding those facts were found. So, I removed those texts. Its better removing the unreferenced promotional texts rather than deleting the article. — Ascii002 ^{Let's talk!} ^{^Contribs} 23:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. The references added seem to be mostly to the kind website where a band creates a profile to promote itself. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:30, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Anna Frodesiak - Fails BAND, Plus all these references are just promotional crap, I myself would remove them but since the article's being deleted anyway it's just a waste of time. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignoring the current shocking state of the article, fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG.SPACKlick (talk) 13:47, 28 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 05:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Gracie[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Not a strong record, does not meet WP:MMANOT and inactive. Not likely to gain another top tier fight. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an MMA fighter (WP:NMMA) since he has no top tier fights. I also don't think he meets WP:MANOTE, although he's closer there. His Pan IBJJF championship was in a division with 2 other competitors and they were all from the same school, so I don't think that's sufficient. His third place at one of the early No-gi events is better, although many divisions didn't have enough competitors to fill the podium, so I don't think that's enough to meet WP:MANOTE either.Mdtemp (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It's clear he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. I agree with Mdtemp's assessment of his BJJ record--it's not enough to meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Rajput clans of Rawalpindi Division[edit]

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

Just useless. Two identically sourced/formatted articles have recently been deleted at AfD - see

As I said then, what is the point of this, bearing in mind that the lead says "The appearance of a particular tribe as ~~Jat~~ Rajput in the list does not in itself confirm that the tribe is ~~Jat~~ Rajputs or otherwise. Identity may change with time, and some groups in the list may no longer identify themselves as ~~Jats~~ Rajputs." Also bear in mind that the 1911 census was not reliable, being subject to the huge misunderstandings resultant from the influence of H. H. Risley and other scientific racists. It's basically just a transcription of a primary source. I've struck out "Jat", as used in prior deletions, and replaced with "Rajput" as used in this article's lead. One past AfD was contested at WP:DRV but the outcome remained the same. Sitush (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As either a non-notable stand-alone list with no significant topic coverage in reliable sources or a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, or both. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as non notable list. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:51, 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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Padraic Kenney[edit]

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

Just being a historian who has written multiple books does not make someone pass notability guidelines. The sources seem to be either passing mentions, one review of a book by him, and either his own websites or bios from organizations he is very closely connected with. No indication he passes GNG or notability guidelines for academicsJohn Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. GS h-index of 6 for history books with high cites, just pips WP:TOOEARLY. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xxanthippe (PROF 1), also meets GNG I think with coverage like [22], [23], [24]... in Polish, for example interview in [25] (pl:Kultura Liberalna). Not sure if membership in AHA ([26]) meets PROF 3. For PROF 2, [27]: one of his books "received the 1998 AAASS/Orbis Prize for best book in Polish Studies;" and it may help him pass WP:AUTHOR, along with the fact that he got some high profile reviews like [28] (in Foreign Affairs). Ping User:Randykitty and User:DGG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, as Piotrus says. . Full professors at Indiana (which is one of the half-dozen best of the state flagship universities) generally will. Perhaps I should say always, but we've so far covered only a very small percentage of them. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the sources provided by User:Piotrus, and per the usual assumption that full professors at major universities are notable. It occurs to me that Padraic Kenney should be included in Category:Historians of Poland, a group that so far includes few people at universities in western countries, of whom Kenney would be one. EdJohnston (talk) 23:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imprisonment of Roger Shuler[edit]

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

This article should be deleted based on its subject's "newsy" nature and non-notability as an event. While Shuler's arrest and imprisonment did generate some news coverage, it is unlikely to have lasting historical significance. Further, the fact that most reliable sources covering the event date from a burst of coverage in early 2014 suggests that continuing coverage is unlikely. Few non-Alabama RS covered Shuler's subsequent release from jail or his subsequent arrest warrant. Finally, this situation is analogous to coverage of a criminal act; although there are other issues implicated in Shuler's arrest and imprisonment, at its base this is a criminal act and has generally been treated in non-opinion sources as such. Dyrnych (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Keep. I wrote the article but it's a borderline case ~~and I'll leave its disposition to my esteemed colleagues~~. I'll copy over what a wrote on the article talk page:

Erm, maybe. You might be right. A WP:AfD discussion would certainly be quite justified. Article'd probably be kept is my guess, on the basis of a New York Times article and totality of the other refs, plus his status as the only person in the Western Hemisphere on the (what I think is still the most current) Committee to Protect Journalists list. You never know, though. You also have a WP:BLP argument in that, although I tried to be evenhanded, there's really no way to avoid Shuler coming off kind of badly in some respects, notwithstanding being a martyr of sorts, and you could make the case that at the end of the day he's just an idiosyncratic private citizen and doesn't deserve to be exposed to public scrutiny in the world's most popular encyclopedia. There's also the issue of "Rileys's son" and the "the woman"; although I didn't name them, I suppose it'd certainly be possible to find their names somewhere (certainly for the former), and an article here greatly increases the visibility of the (certainly salacious and, according to a judge, defamatory) claim about two completely private citizens, and it'd be hard to have the article make sense if you redact that material. So, reasonable WP:BLP case on those grounds also.

On the other hand, it's not just a oddball-criminal human interest story. There's First Amendment aspects which the New York Times noted and the argument could be made that that makes it of encyclopedic value if you're looking into application of law in that area in 21st century America.

UPDATE: The case was unsealed, so the original complaint is public record and so it is indeed fairly easy to get the name of the the plaintiffs for anyone who cares to. Also, he was released in March, to little mainstream press notice that I could find right off. An arrest warrant has recently been issued for him and from there the trail goes cold. Any road, the case is probably over and the relative lack of mainstream notice of the end of the case would be another possible point. Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to Keep simply because there doesn't seem likely to be any discussion, and I actually do prefer that the article be kept, so with one Delete vote (the nomination) and one Keep vote and reasonable arguments for keeping, the discussion can be closed as No Consensus To Delete I suppose. Herostratus (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no real objection to this. While I think that the article probably should be deleted and stand by my arguments for deletion, I'm not terribly invested that outcome. Absent any further discussion, No Consensus seems to be correct. Dyrnych (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is sufficiently a public issue of some significance, and the present article seems fair. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Jarvis (author)[edit]

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

The novel he's "best known" for writing doesn't appear to be significant - at least, I can't find any reviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's best known for reading other people's audio books. NN. Szzuk (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable author. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 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 redirect to Made of Hate. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michał "Mike" Kostrzyński[edit]

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

This unreferenced WP:BLP-violating musician's only real claim to notability is through membership of Made of Hate, which itself is a band of questionable notability. I have tagged this for speedy deletion and PROD, both of which were removed without explanation by the author of the article. This guy appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, and so I suggest deletion. — sparklism ^hey! 09:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 10:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Made of Hate. No sourced content that isn't in that article. Plausible redirect. --Michig (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I can see the logic in redirecting to the band article (and thought about this before nominating it for deletion), but a couple of things gave me pause. Firstly, I am not convinced that the band itself meet the notability criteria anyway (though admittedly now I'm looking at it, I don't really know why I didn't bring Made of Hate here instead, though I haven't done any proper research on them as yet), and secondly, I'm not sure how plausible a search term Michał "Mike" Kostrzyński is given the non-English characters and the "Mike" bit. Plain old Mike Kostrzynski would perhaps be a better title to redirect from. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, Michig (and everyone else, for that matter). Thanks.

Also, when you say "no sourced content that isn't in [the band's] article", there is no sourced content whatsoever in this article, and very little in Made of Hate. — sparklism ^hey! 14:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right on the value of this as a redirect. The band may or may not be notable, but while we have an article we should assume notability - I've seen a lot of poorer articles prove to be on clearly notable subjects once a proper search has been undertaken. --Michig (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by redirecting as unrefeenced BLP. Perhaps he will gain notability and/or sources will be found eventually, but as written he fails GNG/BLP policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by redirecting I agree with Piotrus' argument. Maybe redirect should be from Mike Kostrzynski or Michał Kostrzynski? -- Marek.69^talk 16:01, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humberto Heyden[edit]

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

Notability not established. Only references are primary and does not meet WP:MANOTE Peter Rehse (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely non notable. --Diego Grez (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no independent sources and makes no claims that would show he's a notable martial artist (as defined at WP:MANOTE. Founding karate schools is insufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 18:01, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plant Design System[edit]

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

I thought about this for quite a while, but this article is mostly a plug for a piece of software by Intergraph. The references are various links to product pages and the article is more or less the same. I think the general idea of plant design software may meet WP:GNG this article would have to be completely blanked to not be promotional, and if it wasn't created 4 years ago might meet CSD G11. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. I think this article represents kind of sneaky attempt to have it both ways with an article that ostensibly is about a broad concept but in fact is an improperly sourced plug for a particular product. Sources offered don't establish notability for either the product or the concept and Googling didn't turn up anything better. Msnicki (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no sinificant coverage of the subject – Intergraph SmartPlant 3D. The fact that the article name implies different subject changes nothing in this regard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:06, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find independent in depth RS regarding this Intergraph product and there were also no RS regarding the term in a more general setting. There is a short blurb on plant design at Chemical engineering#Plant design, but I would recommend against a redirect, as this term is a proper noun for the Intergraph product. With no RS, this topic fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage. This software is non-notable per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 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 keep. Without prejudice to redirecting one of the titles with an article on this subject to the other. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Anthony´s College, Mijas[edit]

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

No indication of WP:notability. There is a claim that it is the oldest British school on the Costa del Sol - being founded in 1968, but that is only backed up by the schools own website. Very little coverage on Google and only reference is to the schools own website. noq (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per long-standing consensus and precedent. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as secondary schools are kept - see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicate of St. Anthony's College, Mijas. --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, but the solution for this is a redirect, not a delete. (Which does not obviate concerns about why the creator saw fit to create both of these articles on the same day.) As noted by others, this is a bona fide secondary school, and one copy of the article should be kept based on our longstanding precedents. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Redirect~~, absolutely per standing practice and per Arxiloxos above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Mohammad Waris Hasan Naqvi[edit]

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

An old obit posing as an article, I discovered this tramping through very old NPOV tagged articles. I don't see the sources here as meeting WP:BASIC, and I haven't found much more -- sadly lacking Arabic, I am unlikely to find the best available sources. I was tempted to redirect to Madrasatul Waizeen, and that should be considered before deletion is, but in case someone can suggest a better way to work with this content, I'm here. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not for obits. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails WP: NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Waris Hasan comes from notable family of Shia Muslim clerics and he himslef was prinicpal of Madrasatul Waizeen an important Shia seminary in North Indian Shia centre of Lucknow. He had spent many years in Iraq seminaries and lived in UK and obtained Doctrate in Islamic studies (PhD Doctor of Philosophy from University of Edinburgh) there. He has also authored many articles, books, etc. He is notable in Shia circle of North India. Also I'm surprised to see delete reccomendations from users who are remotely connected to any of topics associated to Waris Hasan, and they themselves have created unuseful articles which have been deleted. IMHO, people who are connected or associated with the topic should look into merit of article. Following are some links of naotability I was able to collect recently:

At last even above links fail to establish notability of Waris Hasan, then I'll suggest "redirect to Madrasatul Waizeen" with some content moved there.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Joe! I have listed so many RS stating notability of the subject. Do we still need discussion? or are you looking forward for more support for deletion? I fail to understand.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from relister: Sayed, my role in this affair it largely to assess what the community (yourself included) says. Relisting gives a chance for the community to state its views on the sources you provide. When pressed, after a couple relists, it is sometimes necessary for a closer to invoke their own best judgment, particularly with respect to biographies, but in most cases we wait, whenever possible, for a WP:CONSENSUS to become obvious. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:08, 17 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, Davewild (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, may be a rewrite is required with inclusion of links provide by User:Faizhaider as above.--121.244.54.32 (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)— 121.244.54.32 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. S. M. Waris Hasan was a prominent member of Shia Clergy and a profilic writer in field of Islamic studies and specialist on Nahj al-Balagha [29], he worked/co-authored with prominent people/authors like Allamah Tabatabai, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and Hamid Dabashi on books like Shi'ite Islam, an important text on the history and thought of Shi'a Islam (Chapter 4 The Shi'i Interpretation of Hadith Literature [30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39]).--180.215.85.240 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)— 180.215.85.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - Is there any means of putting this discussion on hold and allow Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider et al to add the links and, hopefully, provide a little more detail regarding the content of Dr. Hasan's scholarship?--Rpclod (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates are open for a minimum of a week. This one has been open for nearly three. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I'll be more than intrested to reform the article but right now I don't have much time due to my personal life's busy schedule ; especially due to month of Ramadhan & subsequent travel plans I'll be tied up for next 3 weeks. Anyone else if wishes is welcome to reform the article till I have time for same, I have already put the links on article's talk page too. I hope that users/editors will agree that although article may be poorly written/structured/sourced but the subject is WP:Notable.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 20:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources given above are negligible and almost all primary. Multiple independent reliable sources are needed for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Reply. Apart from 'Edinburgh' (which may be used for Waris Hasan's academic qualification and then as such valid), most other links are publication of repute who are using Waris Hasan's work as reference, hence, they are secondry/tertiary sources which are using his work for reference, hence, establishing reputation of Waris Hasan's work and in turn proving acceptability of Waris Hasan as important persomn in academic circles. As pointed above by an IP, Waris Hasan is one of the contributors of Shi'ite Islam, an important text on the history and thought of Shi'a Islam (he is co-author of Chapter 4 The Shi'i Interpretation of Hadith Literature), if a book is accepted as important in academic circle then by default prooves caliber and status of author(s)/contributor(s). Waris Hasan was most of time active in Iraq where he spent his time with likes of Allamah Tabatabai and later part of his life wast spent in India (in interim he was in UK at Edinburgh) so it is likely that he may not have much coverage in western media but that doesn't reduces his notablity, and he was principal of two major instututions in Lucknow viz. Madarsatul Waizeen (Shia Islamic Seminary, one of the oldest and most important in India) and Shia College (around hundred years old Post Graduate Degree College providing Secular Education including B.Sc, M.Sc, B.A, M.A, B.B.A, M.B.A, B.C.A, M.C.A, etc) that too is proof of his academic brillaince and acceptability in academic circles (both religious & Secular) of Lucknow. IMHO, over one dozen links are not negligible and they conform well to WP:RS and establish importance of Waris Hasan, at least as an writer of Shia Islamic topics.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is essentially minimaly sourced and I am not immediately finding much on the topic in English that would count to GNG, but there does seem to be a web footprint for the name that indicates (to me at least) that sources are out there if one knew where to look, and in what language. I believe WP is better off with this article than without it and that deletion would not serve any positive benefit. Keep under WP:IAR.-116.202.132.83 (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)— 116.202.132.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. I have done some re-structuring at the article. I'll try to do more if time permits, meanwhile other editors are welcome to do same.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:22, 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 keep. Concerns about WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:BLPCRIME are well taken, but there is no consensus that this topic is non-notable and these issues can be worked out on the article and the talk page. Nothing said here today prevents a merge at some point and the project should revisit this issue in a year or two to see whether it's still discussed. One other thing: this was an awful discussion to read. I hope in the future everyone can take a deep breath and tone down their language. Mackensen (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Spring, Texas shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:EVENTCRIT in that altho this is horrid disgusting etc, it is nothing more than an extreme case of domestic violence and now that the initial couple of news cycles have ended, we are not hearing much more about it outside of the immediate area it occured (Houston). Terrible event, but other than lots of pain for the families and a probable execution of the perp (it is Texas), nothing much more is going to come from this. John from Idegon (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wrong. This is the second largest mass shooting to take place in the US this year, it has plenty of significance. I believe me and another editor went over the articles importance all ready on the talk page, and when John didn't agree he thru a hissy fit and nominated it for deletion. If you're going to delete this, than delete every single article about a mass shooting that has occured in the US that haven't had "major lasting importance", or even delete every article ever on mass shootings in other countries for the same reason. There's literally 100s of them. As a matter of fact, delete every single article on Wikipedia ever written about an event that may or may not have lasting cultural significance. That would only get rid of at least half the articles on the site alone. This shooting, however, was significant. It might not be in 10 years, but it's worth remembranc, just like any event where many lives are taken should be. Secondly, if we shouldn't be reporting on current events, then let's delete that whole page on the plane crash in the Ukraine, or how about just everything going on in Ukraine in general? This hasn't even been a current event for a week and now suddenly it being a "current event" is an issue. If these are the "standards" you all follow, then you're not following your own standards at all. Benbuff01 02:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- as you point out, shootings and mass shootings are a dime a dozen in the US and there is no indication this has any more legs for any long lasting impact or notice than dozens of other bloody fests that scream their gory headlines and are forgotten as the next batch of corpses are wheeled out. that other prurient bloodfest articles should be deleted is not a valid reason to keep this one.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you serious? That's a perfectly valid reason. If there's no reason those shouldn't be deleted, than this one shouldn't be deleted either. Not my fault you're a lazy hypocrit. This nomination is a joke. We've had discussions twice on the talk page whether or not it should be deleted and both times most people ruled it was fine. Benbuff01 03:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Benbuff91, you are not helping your case by attacking other editors or by misstating facts. Having edits or even whole articles reverted is just a part of how things get done on Wikipedia, and you need to stop taking it personally. I just counted thru the discussion on the articles talk page, and there were 5 separate editors speaking about deleting the whole article, and only you, who is article's creator and an IP speaking for keeping it. So your above statement is patently false. Incidentally, one thing that might be in order if you want to keep this article in the encyclopedia would be to actually indicate so here by prefacing your first comment with "Keep", as I have prefaced this one with "comment". John from Idegon (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read again, I was not the only one, as a user specifically replied to you today also about reasons for keeping it. There were others as well, including one that replied to Magnolia as well. So, as a matter of fact, your statement is patently false. It's funny how you and the above user apparently only adhere to standards when it's convenient enough for you both. And that's just an observation, not a personal attack. I have said it before and I will say it again: This article is about an event that is worth remembering, and did affect a community. If this article isn't worth keeping but there's so many others that exactly the same as this that are not up for deletion? I'm just saying you gentlemen clearly don't keep to your own standards. It's ridiculous that this is even up for debate. Benbuff01 04:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The personal attack was referring to TRPoD as a "hypocrit" (sic). And you are welcome to nominate any and all articles about mass shootings for deletion. As a matter of fact you are welcome to nominate any article you choose for deletion. Just make sure you can cite a valid reason as I did here. As far as the talk page goes, Magnolia677 stated under a heading "Speedy deletion" that after he cleared all the BLP violation from the article there was nothing left. It is fair to assume that is a delete. Bobsd states, "I personally do not believe this event merits an article at this point in time." 2 deletes. commenting on the RfC question, Malerooster says, "This shouldn't even be an article, but meh". That makes 3 deletes. You chime in after that wanting to keep it. that makes 3 deletes, 1 keep. Following that, the IP editor that I mentioned above that you chose to ignore also expressed a good faith argument to keep. that makes it 3-2. I then made my statement expressing a desire to see this article deleted. 4-2. Following that, TRPoD stated his opinion that the article should go. That makes 5 editors for deletion and you and an IP for keeping, which is exactly what I said above. Again, you are not helping your case by misstating facts and calling other editors names or insinuating they are lying. John from Idegon (talk) 09:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except I'm not the only person who wanted to keep the page. An editor replied to YOUR post that the page was worth keeping as well. And another editor also stated the page was fine with keeping because it was well written and cited. I'm not lying about anything, I'm just reading what's there. You should try doing the same. And Malerooster's claim wasn't in favor of deletion. He clearly didn't care. Don't twist words around to be completely in your favor. I will say it again: There is no reason whatsoever for this article to be deleted, other than that you, Magnolia, and the above user have no idea how to follow your own "guidelines". I've all ready stated my case, which is much more solid than yours. This was a major news story for several days, talked about by just about every major news network in the country, and is going to end up being one of the biggest stories of the year. I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the news, but unfortunately, it is. It's our job to document important events, and this one was important: One of the biggest crimes of the year, one of the biggest mass murders of the year. Am I willing to edit down some of the information on this story: absolutely. But to say it doesn't deserve it's own page is ridiculous. You have no case. Period. Benbuff01 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came looking this morning to see if Wikipedia had an article on this event, which I have been following with interest. (If that's the right word for such a tragedy.) I admit to being a bit surprised and dismayed to find that the article has been proposed for deletion. For whatever that's worth. Yes, I realize Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Yaush (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please consider that there is a reason for Wikinews which is run by the Wikimedia Foundation, and is tailored toward breaking news. This article, and others like it, may be more appropriate there, and then as the situation unfolds, and gains some historical, encyclopedic value, an article could be created here on Wikipedia. Bobsd (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Nothing more than extreme domestic violence"??? If this event weren't so tragic, that comment would be laughable. I would say that a husband beating his wife to a pulp and breaking about 10 bones is "extreme domestic violence" that may not deserve a Wikipedia article. This is far more than domestic violence; it is mass murder. "Nothing much more is going to come from this": One of the few advantages of Wikipedia over other encyclopedias is that the number of articles is limitless (and no, I'm not suggesting that everything deserves an article). Wikipedia's standards for notability do not include whether an event will "create some sort of lasting change in society". If we apply that standard, about 75% of articles on the English Wikipedia should be deleted (for example Ali Lohan). But let's start with other mass killings. Look at the hundreds of entries with articles at List of rampage killers and all the links to other lists on that page. I think it's safe to say that at least half of those are no more important or have had no more impact that the Spring killings. The arguments for deletion of this article are deletionism taken to its absurd extreme. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - A large part of the article is a discussion about the person still accused of the crime, in violation of WP:BLPCRIME. As well, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and there is extensive unencyclopedic detail about "what happened next"; a car chase, spike strips on the road, and so forth. The important facts about this terrible crime have already been added to the history section of the Spring, Texas article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A large, extensive amount of media coverage, especially the special focus on the sole survivor of the shooting, indicates enough notability for this to have an article. Also, if this article is marked for deletion, then it honestly wouldn't make sense if the 2013 Santa Monica shooting, 2013 Hialeah shooting, 2012 College Station, Texas shooting, Clackamas Town Center shooting, Southern California Edison shooting, etc., etc. articles aren't. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that we have WP:OTHERCRAP that we shouldnt is a very poor rationale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, now we have to hear the obligatory "other crap" argument that inevitably is summoned from the vast, arcane storehouse of wikirules when someone disagrees with keeping an article. If it was an article that you wanted to keep, everyone else would be invoking "other crap" and you would be defending the article. "Other crap" that makes up about 75% of the English Wikipedia and at least half of articles on mass murder? Sorry, you couldn't be more wrong. Your calling it crap doesn't make it crap. Now, since WP:OTHERCRAP is an essay, and policy trumps essays, would someone like to bring up a policy that might mitigate a mere essay? How about WP:CON since that's what's going on in this very place? Or maybe WP:IAR? Or WP:BURO? Anyone? Anyone? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the continuing media coverage isn't? We still have very recent news articles that are covering the funerals of the victims. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it seems the obligatory "othercrap" is necessary when all the supporters of the article can muster for their rationale is a rationale that has been explicitly identified as NOT being a valid rationale. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Seriously, what? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Libertarian. Huh?? 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are numerous shootings where only 3 or 4 victims are murdered (and media coverage is similar) which have article pages on WP. Fuutil (talk) 00:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, much coverage in reliable sources covering the event, the ongoing prosecution, and the repercussions. Antrocent (♫♬) 02:56, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSo that's 5 keeps versus 2 deletes, and 2 comments mostly in favor of keeping the article. This has been up for 3 days now, I think it's obvious it should be kept. Benbuff91 13:42 20 July 2014

Excuse me, as much as I think this article is notable enough to be kept, I don't think you should be rubbing it in the faces of those who want it gone. I've seen debates like this that have lasted longer than this. Also, the fact that you're the one who created this article in the first place makes your case on this worse. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Libertarian. An uninvolved party, preferably an admin, should decide on the consensus and close. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not rubbing it anyone's face or making any kind of decision. Benbuff91 21:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, your post was entirely pointless. No one needs a running tally of "votes", a statement of how long the AfD has been posted, or what you consider "obvious" about the consensus. You're not helping the case to keep the article by making such posts. Unless you have something new to add to the discussion, don't add anything. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I honestly do not believe you. Please don't make me reconsider my decision, based on your opinion alone. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine don't believe me, it's not like you can understand people's tones through text. I apologize for my comment, I merely jumped the gun, not my intention to brag. I merely wanted to move this along. I am new to this, never dealt with article deletions before, so normally I'm not aware of how long something like this should take. This is my last post on this until a decision is made. Benbuff91 15:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Came here myself to check and see if there was an article on this also. I'm in a criminal justice class and was doing a paper on mass shootings and was interested in using this as an example. I think it's an event worth having an article about, but I'm not voting yes or no, just putting in my input. Even among mass shootings it is fairly unique and noteworthy, and definitely one of the biggest of this year. OlafOneEye (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 9[reply]

Comment Has there been a judgment about whether this article should be deleted or not yet? I think this has gone on long enough. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might get an admin's eyes on the AfD by posting at WP:AN, although I think a week or so is not an unusual amount of time, especially with just 8 or 9 commenters. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD's go for a week at least unless they meet the criteria for snow close, which this doesn't. It's only been 5 days. John from Idegon (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, gotcha. Sorry, this is my first AfD; I've obviously got no clue how long this actually must go. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would behoove you and some others to do what the box at the top of this edit page suggests and actually read WP:DISCUSSAFD. This discussion would quite probably been much less contentious. John from Idegon (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is a good one, John, but your tone serves no purpose and doesn't make the discussion any less "contentious", nor does it help your arguments for deletion no matter how good they are. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 1979 U.S. embassy burning in Islamabad. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Crowley[edit]

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

Tragic but fails WP:MILNG. WP:NOTMEMORIAL also applies. ...William 15:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions....William 15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions....William 15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions....William 15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, His death, while tragic, falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. EricSerge (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this title to 1979 U.S. embassy burning in Islamabad article. RIP. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:42, 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 05:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Anderson (actress)[edit]

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

this page has been incorrectly edited in the past to reflect an incorrect DOB. I have deleted the incorrect DOB but it gets changed later to the incorrect date so Whitney would like the page taken down permanently Uberstud (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best she may have had one top role in one film that might just pass the line as a major film. She is clearly not a major actress, and I quickly realized that the majority of links in her filmography either went to disambiguation pages that did not cover the linked topic or to totally wrong articles. She just does not seem to cross the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with John. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 04:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Why should I have a User Name?. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT and WP:NOTABILITY --Jersey92 (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CompareXpress[edit]

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

No Indication of significance. A vanity article and it doesn't appear to me that this small company meets our notability standards. Ireneshih (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A vanity article that references multiple news reports in The Straits Times and several other reliable sources? --Hildanknight (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an advert cobbled together from a bombardment of minor mentions, none providing any depth of coverage about this business. Per Wikipedia's five pillars, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, delete this spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:02, 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 01:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are reliable independent sources here. Though I agree with User:Duffbeerforme, this is an advertisement, this article needs Cleanup. XiuBouLin (talk) 02:20, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter J. Zuckerman[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN (local town board), no other evidence of notability, also no references for WP:BLP ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally lacking in any sources whatsoever because there just plain aren't any. I looked. Subject is a minor local politician and that simply isn't good enough to establish notability without sources. And though not by itself a reason to delete, I note the article is clearly the work of an WP:SPA, suggesting this may be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Msnicki (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local guy with a local job. TJRC (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a clear case of lack of notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:POLITICIAN --Jersey92 (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Municipal councillors are not deemed to pass WP:POLITICIAN in small towns, and the article as written is not reliably sourced enough to deem him a candidate for the WP:GNG bypass. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete North Hempstead is not a big enough place to confer notability on councilors, although with well over 200,000 people, I would hesitate to call it a small town. It's a well developed, significant suburb of New York City.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 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.