Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 July	27 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Idahota Williams[edit]

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

Strange article, claims this actor is "award winning" but only lists a scholarship, and a Red Ribbon Award that went to a campaign she did a voiceover for. I can't understand why she is categorised as a child actress, when her 'years active' begin when she was circa 22. But, besides all these quibbles, I can't find any news sources about her. Seems to be not notable yet, though may be moving in the right direction. Sionk (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete while she does seem notable, I can't find any reliable, significant coverage on her, just mere mentions. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are very few Ghits about this person, other than social media. I can't verify many of her roles. "Award winning" generally means an Oscar, Tony, Obie, or similar major acting award, which she hasn't gotten. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG lack of significant coverage in reliable publications. Fails WP:NACTOR. Overclaims. --Bejnar (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Tempest[edit]

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

In terms of this subject's notability, there's a single source that is a book review.

(Page creator has a history of creating articles later speedy-deleted due to vanity and promotion.) Holdek (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both the tagged editor (here) and her book The Future of the NHS appear to fail WP:GNG. The book she edited is from a specialist law publisher, publishing books for practitioners. The sole cited source is a related source, being a publication of the institution where she teaches (more in the way of a press release). No in depth coverage of Michelle Tempest was found, in any type of source, and none in independent reliable sources. Her publication "Ethics in public relations practice an analysis of the ethical dilemmas inherent in public relations practice and a consideration of the effectiveness of the industry's codes of conduct." (1994) has not been cited, at least as per GoogleScholar. (I do not have access to Social Science Citation Index.) She also fails WP:ACADEMIC. --Bejnar (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addressing the issues raised by Bearcat, the matter of deletion on the grounds of lack of sources actually in the article is separate from the matter of notability. It is long established at AFD that notability does not depend on what is actually in the article, but on what can be found in any sources whether cited in the article or not. It is my judgement that participants here have successfully argued that sources conferring notabililty exist. On whether this article should be deleted as a BLP violation I am guided by the requirements of WP:BLPPROD. This requires only one reliable source verifying one statement in the article. It does not require that source to be independent. It is surely unarguable that a political party is a reliable source for who its leader is. To be sure establishing notability requires independent sources but notability has been established. Thus, the article gets past the BLPPROD hurdle. Remaining BLP issues can be dealt with by normal editing. I see no benefit to the encyclopaedia in wiping the history of a subject that has been established as notable. It would be a different matter if the article was littered with BLP violating negative claims, but as about everything in the article is referenced to primary sources it is unlikely the subject is going to find anything objectionable in it. SpinningSpark 15:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Serge Brisson[edit]

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

This article was redirected at a previous AfD and has been recently recreated. A PROD was placed but as I believe the article to be ineligible for PROD, I removed it. Regardless, notability is disputed, so taking this back to AfD. Safiel (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to what's in the article, there is the book here, and he seems to have been involved in a case regarding bilingual signage that received some level of coverage: Telegram, Epoch Times, Telegram, La Releve, National Post. CBC. L'Etoile, Toronto Sun, L'Express, Huffington Post Canada, Le Trait d'Union, Sudbury Star I think there is probably enough in the news articles to reach GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the book mentioned above, there is also this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only real coverage of him is all in regards to the bilingual signage case. This does not make him notable, per WP:ONEEVENT. If the case itself is significant it would warrant it's own entry, but that does not appear to be the case. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, [1] seems to be a reliable source from a reputable publisher providing signficant coverage of him with respect to the 2004 election. Also [2], [3], and a couple news bits that aren't too hard to find. I think that's enough to get past 1E. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I shouldn't have been so lax about policy abbreviations. There are three potentially relevant policies, WP:BLP1E, WP:BIO1E, and WP:EVENT. BLP1E does not apply because the subject is not a low-profile individual. BIO1E could apply to someone like this fellow (it doesn't require he be low-profile), but I find that it doesn't apply, since there is more than one signficant event in his biography that we have coverage for. As BIO1E does not actually apply, we don't have to consider refactoring this into an event article and the WP:EVENT rules . --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A person who has been a leader of a duly registered political party, even a minor one, is considered a potentially valid article topic. However, the resulting article must be properly sourced — as written, this article relies entirely on primary sources and fails to cite even one source that can actually confer notability. The existence of possible sourcing improvements is not sufficient, either — in a WP:BLP, the sourcing must be present in the article as written, or else the person is not entitled to be anything more than a redirect to the party they led. In addition, the recreator's rationale ("he isn't the party leader anymore and should therefore be reverted back to a standalone article") doesn't wash — a person with an unreferenced or poorly referenced standalone bio can be redirected to the political party if they ever led it at any time in history, and does not have to be the current leader to merit that treatment. Accordingly, I'd be prepared to revisit this if some sourcing improvements actually find their way into the article by closure — but if all that happens is that the existence of possible sourcing improvements is bruited about here, without any substantive improvement to the article actually happening, then the article must be redirected back to the political party again until somebody is prepared to write and source it properly. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, although I'll leave my statement above with respect to notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brisson is a notable individual in and on his own, and should have his own Wiki page. If there are updates, then add them to the page. DrivingForce3 (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply asserting that "Brisson is notable because I say he is" isn't how things work on Wikipedia. As the person who wants the article to exist, the onus is on you to demonstrate, via the use of reliable sources, that he actually passes our notability rules for politicians — and an article cannot be kept if you do not do so adequately. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are ample references above demonstrating his notability. This is beyond "because I say so." Why would I take the time to update an article you're threatening to delete? DrivingForce3 (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. There is no significant coverage of him. The bilingual signs case is the only thing that has been covered in the media, but that's not enough to confer significance. West Eddy (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This discussion was closed two days ago as a non-admin closure, with the consensus read as "keep" — however, with three keeps, three deletes and a redirect, there is not actually a clear keep consensus established, and thus it can't be non-adminned. Relisting for further discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat - I closed it as notability was found, The nominator stated "notability is disputed" ... Yet Joe found sources so thus notability was there, So there was a clear consensus, -

(I realized the AFDs been closed but was unaware it was reopened & feel I should explain my reason for closing. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:52, 27 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) 18:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jitterbug Vipers[edit]

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

I just reviewed the article for Sarah Sharp, which took me here. It seems like several interrelated articles were created for the Jitterbug Vipers which made them seem like they had sufficient notoriety, but looking around, it seems like they don't meet the criteria. Also, looking at the history for this page, it appears to have been written by Sarah Sharp under User:SarahSharp09 and by User:Jitterbugvipers.

Upjav (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are members of the aforementioned group:

Upjav (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Richey is now in the crowded field of jazz guitar where prominence is secondary to playing gigs, etc. But in previous decades he was very well known as the person to mail for music instruction aids, books, tapes, and CDs. He had a worldwide mail order capability and also produced, manufactured, and distributed records for his suite of Texas record labels. He has sufficient notoriety despite his band members enthusiastic efforts hereDeweybright (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)deweybright — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deweybright (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a student studying Public Relations in the music industry and was assigned to work on Austin band Wiki pages and chose the Jitterbug Vipers. Will additional press for the band help salvage the page? They are a very notable band in Austin! HillaryOchoa (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Additional reliable sources can sometimes salvage an article that is having a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jitterbug Vipers - In addition to the lack of notability, the articles were created by two editors with conflicts of interest, User:Sarahsharp09 (note case not as above) and User:Jitterbugvipers.

The latter user has now been blocked; this is not a case of an article created by a blocked user (because they weren't blocked then), but it does raise COI and notability issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Jitterbug Vipers is deleted, Delete Sarah Sharp and Slim Richey. If Jitterbug Vipers is kept, Merge Sarah Sharp and Slim Richey. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note This AFD was not properly transcluded. Transcluded to today's log. GB fan 16:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jitterbug Vipers - While I commented and proposed this for deletion, I want to formally add in my vote. Notability is weak for the group as a whole and for individual members Sarah Sharp and Slim Richey. Their notable hit "Stuff It" only has 1,500 views on YouTube despite being up for 7 months, which I feel speaks significantly to notability. The band members seem to not be members of any notable outside projects either, including Slim Richey, despite his extensive discography listed on his article page. The conflict of interest in the creation of the article just makes this look even more like a group trying to promote themselves. I also support Robert McClenon's Merge suggestion. Upjav (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all three articles as lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, and hence failing [[WP:GNG]. In addition, the group is of purely local interest as indicated by the sources. It also fails WP:MUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Martijn Hoekstra per CSD A7, G11. (non-admin closure) BethNaught (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank and Beans[edit]

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

small retailer; the references are unreliable uncritical PR blurbs in various websites. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 23:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 23:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The statement in the infobox that the retailer has 5 employees is pretty much a concession of non-notability. The concession is borne out by the absence, so far as I can tell, of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't even seem to make a claim of notability Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominated for speedy deletion on the basis of lacking significance and being unambiguously promotional. AlanS (talk) 10:13, 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. I'm not going to transwiki this myself, as I'm unsure what form should be used as the headword—my copy of the Concise Scots Dictionary treats the word under the lemmas forenent and fornentis, considering for(e)nents a spelling variant of the latter). If anyone needs the text of this article for use on Wiktionary, I'll userfy it upon request. Deor (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fornenst[edit]

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

This is a dictionary entry, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it's not very encyclopaedic. Added as it was in the requests list at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Linguistics (as *forninst*). Alex Steer (talk) 20:32, 20 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, czar ♔ 22:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jinkinson talk to me 22:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikt:fornenst. That does not exist, and this is clearly a real word, so it makes sense. BethNaught (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary definition. No objection to transwikification. Carrite (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj K Shah[edit]

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

Article fails WP:MOVIE, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:you name it, it fails it. Shirt58 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:56, 19 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:56, 20 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, czar ♔ 22:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like self-promotion at least WP:COI or WP:PUBLICIST.--Rpclod (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Seems more promo than anything, certainly fails MOVIE. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article appears to have been created by a WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI. Anyway fails WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural keep. Most of this discussion has to do with the circumstances under which the AfD were created, and not about the article itself. So, this keep closure has no prejudice against speedy renomination, if anyone wants to discuss the merits of the article rather than the merits of the deletion nomination. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 02:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Stroitz[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. This was listed for CSD on the basis that the notability claim appeared to be false, ascribing her with a beauty pageant title that was actually held by someone else — however, the speedy nominator appears to have erroneously conflated two related but distinct titles, Miss Austria (granted to the winner of the competition) and Miss Universe Austria (granted to the runner-up), and the subject did actually win the title that she's claimed to have won. Accordingly, I've declined the speedy and am bringing it here for wider consideration. That said, however, there is not currently any consensus that beauty pageant titleholders are automatically entitled to a presumption of notability just for holding a beauty pageant title — only two of the subject's predecessors as Miss Universe Austria actually have Wikipedia articles, and only a couple of the women who have held the Miss Austria title have articles either. Rather, a beauty pageant winner has to actually be the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to get past WP:GNG on her own dime — and with only one blurbalicious "reference" in a primary source, that has not been demonstrated here. I'm willing to withdraw this if the sourcing improves, but it frankly needs to be deleted in its current state — officially, however, I'm not casting a "vote" as this is a purely procedural nomination. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 22:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR This is not a valid AfD nomination, but WP:IAR can still apply if this is a "high priority" AfD. While it is a BLP, I don't see contentious material in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a valid AFD nomination, as the article does not contain a single reliable source to properly establish her notability. Her notability has to be established by sources that are specifically about her, not by merely asserting it — and so far, every last one of the new sources that have been added since I initiated this nomination are still either primary sources or unreliable Blogspot blogs. I'd be happy to withdraw this if legitimately reliable sourcing can be added, but as winning a beauty pageant title does not confer automatic notability on a person even in the absence of reliable sourcing, she's not entitled to keep an article in this state. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep. I seem to remember from previous discussions/AFDs that if it's a national/international title in a properly notable pageant, then that is notable. She won Miss Universe Austria, which means she will go on to represent Austria in Miss Universe, and that seems sufficient. I will note that I don't necessarily agree that she deserves an article, but we have a precedent for accepting basic articles on holders of such titles (definitely not runner-ups or anything lesser, though). For the record, I have equal feelings of indifference to people getting an equally flimsy stubby little article just because they were on a sports team at some point, and that's not even holding an international title like "Miss My Country." Mabalu (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We keep properly sourced articles about beauty pageant titleholders, yes. We do not keep such articles if they're referenced exclusively to primary sources and Blogspot blogs. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If one google-searches her name using the "News" filter, there is much media attention, mostly in different languages, probably translatable. Another indication is pageviews which, while not an official test, correlate (in my experience) with notability. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 10 results, non of which have any significant coverage. That is not "much media attention". Pageviews are also irrelevant here, because many of them are result of the article being nominated for deletion, not of subject's notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but she's fast; she placed third in an important race. Enquiring minds might like to know not only her notable speed, plus the fact that she is from Carinthia, is a health trainer, height 175cm, plus she probably likes apples and likes to be groomed and might have four matching shoes. 175cm! Big news. Yes, Vanjagenije coming around to your way of seeing things, kind of weird how much attention a person gets by simply being beautiful.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - per the discussion above. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 10:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Saini[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, therefore fails Wikipedia general notability guideline and Wikipedia notability guideline for biography of living person. All sources listed in the article, are written BY the subject. There's nothing ABOUT the subject. Subject does not even appears to be meeting WP:ANYBIO standard. So, the article on subject qualifies for deletion for failing notability. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly-written POV article (A statement such as "[h]e raises the voice of unemployed qualified youth" does not seem encyclopedic at all) and no evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Claims of notability without support. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:V. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 15:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, per nomination. Fai zan 17:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ this page as it is very notable topic based on references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.122.133 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strike as per WP:DISCUSSAFD and possibly WP:COI. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 14:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find WP:RS, third party sources, hence fails WP:GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy eligible for WP:PRESERVE, Journalist is notable in his area and may be improved with rich sources.Rajsaharanwasw (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strike !vote by sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cailin Marcel Manson[edit]

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

The director of a local chorus in a Philadelphia neighborhood is not notable. suburb. The only significant coverage is in a neighborhood paper, which is not reliable for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 23:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough notability, as yet, to have a WP article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage much too thin, at this point. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:00, 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 07:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Future of the NHS[edit]

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

A source search regarding this book doesn't bring up much of anything. While the topic "the future of the NHS" is of course very notable, I'm not sure this actual book is worthy of its own article.

(It's been tagged as possibly not meeting GNG for over a year, and also tagged as appearing to be written as an advertisement for over five years. It has no references, and hasn't progressed beyond a stub for eight years.)

(Page creator has a history of creating articles later speedy-deleted due to vanity and promotion.) Holdek (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 23:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as legal and political advocacy with inadequate notability. Would creator of article like to say if he has a COI here? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Tempest. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: certainly not enough coverage in RS to satisfy the GNG. I have also failed to find evidence of passing WP:NBOOK, though a Gsearch is hard as the title is also a common phrase. BethNaught (talk) 06:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails book notability and the general notability guideline. Borderline promotional. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both the Michelle Tempest, the editor, and her book The Future of the NHS appear to fail WP:GNG. The book is from a specialist law publisher, publishing books for practitioners. The sole cited source is a related source from the publisher. The other source, cited in the Michelle Tempest article is from a publication of the institution where she teaches (more in the way of a press release). No in depth coverage of the book was found in independent reliable sources. The book has received five cites according to GoogleScholar, but all to the other authors. (I do not have access to Social Sciences Citation Index.) Also fails WP:NBOOK. --Bejnar (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal and occult hypotheses about UFOs[edit]

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

This is a synthetic article collecting fringe theories. No independent sources connect all of the examples amalgamated here. Individual points are encyclopedic, but are correctly discussed on the articles devoted to the subjects that are on the individual points. jps (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a WP:SYNTHESIS of personal ideas lacking citation to reliable independent sources and a WP:POVFORK of UFO religions. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR and WP:GNG. Article been tagged for improvement for half a decade, and have not improved in that time... let it go. WegianWarrior (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the Jung stuff belongs in the UFO main article, or Jung's - or, if he wrote enough and it were notable enough, its own page. He's obviously notable, and the stuff from his book has me kinda interested. But everything else is a mish-mash of mostly unsourced thoughts people had. I wish the historical stuff were sourced though... I am oddly curious about some of that. Come on fringie-friends! You get to have space here if you write good articles! Dcs002 (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"He's obviously notable, and ..." Not everything a notable person does has due weight to be somewhere, Second Quantization (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right. Obviously my curiosity is irrelevant too, but my intent was to encourage the people who really work hard in the decidedly uphill battle of getting fringe material published here to think in terms of relocating what good material might be worth salvaging from this unacceptable article. I had a look, and the book is covered briefly on the Jung page. As it was one of his last publications (though the only one mentioned), I think it might be significant enough to be expanded with the small bit of material covering that book in this article, which makes no supernatural or extraordinary claims, only hypotheticals, unambiguous speculations, and questions. Possibly for that very reason (my speculation only), the crowded UFO page only lists the book in its bibliography. They have their own importance expectations and evaluation process, and they're doing fine without my sticking my nose in. :P (I'm not usually a welcome presence to fringe theorists in fringe debates.) Nice to see they considered the Jung book though. Dcs002 (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been a mess for years. No reliable sources found or ever added. Goblin Face (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:SYNTH article. Second Quantization (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic WP:SYNTH and has no place here. ukexpat (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable source in the article at all. Seems like a pure synth essay. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Audrye Sessions. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 02:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low Roar[edit]

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

I can find mentions, but not significant coverage. Article has been around over a year with only the Facebook link. This would apply to the album articles as well:

Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Low Roar to Audrye Sessions - only a mention of the second album really needs adding there. There were already two sources identified in the first AfD and I also found another piece of coverage ([4]), so WP:V can be satisfied but there isn't enough to justify a separate article yet. As the former lead singer of Audrye Sessions his subsequent work is obviously worthy of mention there. The album articles are useless and should be deleted. --Michig (talk) 21:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Michig said what I would have said. The album articles should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the facebook page the band states clearly that the members are: Ryan, Logi Guðmundsson, Leifur Björnsson, Andrew Scheps. I thought of adding the info, but it seems wierd to me we should do this mix - Audrye Sessions is a dead band which was active in California. Low Roar is an icelandic band with different musical style, and different members. The only common thing is their lead singer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresh123456 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, but merge the albums into Audrye Sessions. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is- merging is wrong because it gives us the wrong sense. The sense that there's nothing more to come from leader Ryan. In order to get this info you have to read the whole history section! In the info box the section : Years active says 2002–2010. You can find only one mention in the article. Furthermore merging the albums would be even worse - making you think the whole band made it when Low Roar is actually lead singer performing and some iclandic producers helping him. That's what Low Roar consists of. If you want to merge those two you'd have to make an article about Ryan only, including these projects which would be a bit confusing on albums. Also if you do that, why don't you just merge Postal Service and Death Cab for Cutie? Right- because it's just wrong. The artist is pretty well known in his genre which is kind of linked to alternative ,mostly dream pop/folk and post-rock. Plus if his previous project deserves an article I think this one deserves it too. I'm adding more info soon, I just had something poping up. Fresh123456 (talk) 17:50, 31 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. This AfD has been running for more than a month, and it doesn't appear that a clear consensus is going to emerge.Deor (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Republic (Star Wars)[edit]

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

No sources and written from an in-universe point of view. WP:UNDUE weight is placed on this fictitious Star Wars government. I suggest it be deleted or merged into Galactic Republic. Nathan121212 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs sources and rewording, however the content is notable enough to keep. It could merge with Galactic Republic. Frmorrison (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In-universe fancruft. Wikia is thattaway-------> Jimmy Wales thanks you for your patronage and hopes you are pleased. Carrite (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination claims that there are no sources but this claim is false. It goes on to suggest merger and that's not a deletion matter. The topic is notable as it is discussed in detail by other sources such as Star Wars: The New Essential Chronology. Andrew (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This topic is covered in Star Wars: The Essential Reader's Companion p. 247ff and also (I'm fairly certain) A Guide to the Star Wars Universe, Second Edition, The Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia, and The New Essential Chronology, though I don't know how in-depth the coverage in those sources is. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:36, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I originally closed this but have reopened as personally believe there's no notability so merits a discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete -- the texts mentioned above are licensed products that generally adopt an in-universe perspective; they don't offer the independence we want in reliable sources. More frustrating, there's insufficient material to offer a real-world treatment on the subject (although I realize this latter isn't a rationale for deletion). --EEMIV (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The independence we require is the sort that ensures accuracy rather than personal bias and that's what we get with such works, which present an authoritative and expert view of the material, not a personal and subjective one. They are therefore quite satisfactory for our purpose. Andrew (talk) 22:29, 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 redirect to DMZ (comics)#Television. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DMZ (TV series)[edit]

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

Non-notable television pilot that is in development. No evidence that a script has been written or that casting has begun, despite as stated in article that the pilot has entered production. It is still a long way from (possibly) becoming a series. WP:TOOSOON Logical Fuzz (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with DMZ_(comics)#Television. The CBR and Deadline references demonstrate that coverage exists for this potential series, but it's still in the very early stages; it seems reasonable for now to keep this material within the article on the comic. Gongshow talk 02:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, since we already have this at the comics page. If it fizzles, then deletion can occur. — Wylie pedia 16:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 20:40, 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 no consensus. Editors cannot agree about what to do with this article. This is a plausible search term and we should probably have something here, even if it's just a redirect; but the existing content of this article has a number of problems and it may well be preferable to blow it all up and start again. There is substantial and well-argued support for this view, but other editors mount a spirited defence and our rules against deleting fixable content are on their side, so to close as "delete" would be stretching our rules about rough consensus too far.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Pariah state[edit]

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

The whole article seems to be an Original Research, since:

There have never been suggested any objective criteria, nor any objective figures / data, for calling a given country "a pariah state". Any person who dislikes a given country, can invent their own (subjective) criteria, in order to justify their feeling about that country.
The articles contains a "list of pariah states", although no international or well-known institiution is known - to have published a list of "pariah states" - nor to support the very concept of a "pariah state".
By googling, one can realize that almost every country in the world is called "pariah state" by its political rivals.

Would wikipedia contain a hypothetical Original Research "Pariah men and women", that gives a list of "pariah men and women", based on how those alive men and those alive women are called by their rivals, although no international or well-known institiution is known - to have published a list of "pariah man and woman" - nor to support the very concept of "pariah men and woman"?

HOOTmag (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We currently have an article on rogue state and at least this book Metaphors in International Relations Theory suggests that the concepts are not identical and details different sets of criteria that have been proposed and applied over time. See also [5]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Rogue state" is used by well-known bodies, e.g. countries, as indicated in the article Rogue state, while the term "Pariah state" is used by individuals only (towards any country they dislike).
The article presents a list of "Pariah states", although this list is undoubtedly an OR.
The book you've mentioned states: "What qualifies as a pariah state, however, is not clear. Depending on one's definition, pariah state status can be earnd by different countries for different reasons, including the mere existence of the state...what is meant by the term is far from universally agreed upon...what is clear from this lack of clarity is that the concept of 'pariah state' is metaphorical..."Paria states' thus can be seen metaphorically as...countries that are taboo,...Because of the metaphorical quality of the term, what is taboo is subject to interpretation, leading to...disagreement among scholars regarding which countries fall into this classification of states".

HOOTmag (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am only arguing that the international relations concept of a "pariah state" is an encyclopedic subject with reliable sources and that the article should not be deleted. As to which and how many examples are needed to elucidate the concept, I am agnostic. That is a content editing dispute, not an argument for deletion. As to the additional information from the reference that you've quoted, perhaps you could try adding it at the article in paraphrased form if you feel it is significant? 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the third paragraph of my last comment, I just meant that the citation I've quoted proves that any "list of pariah states" must - by definition - be an OR.

HOOTmag (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what you might really want to do is start an RFC on whether the List section of the article is OR? This is intended to be helpful in resolving what appears to be a content issue rather than an existence issue. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. In my previous comment I was just referring to the "third paragraph" (of my previous-previous comment), which is really related to the list of pariah states only. However, the first paragraph (of that comment) refers to the whole article. HOOTmag (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is itself very out of date. The book is 2011, but in the section on pariah states (in the preview version - that's all I get from that link) the relevant references are 14 years old or older. Academic textbooks are always about 5 years outdated the moment they are published. (And previews are as bad as abstracts as sources - we have no idea how much context we are missing.) If someone has once said no definition exists, that does not mean one cannot exist or accepted at a later time. The scholars are misusing the term "definition", IMO. What they mean is the reason a nation became a pariah state, or who considers them a pariah state, not what a pariah state is.

Look at the article on stupidity to see what I mean. We can not post a list of stupid people, but stupidity is a valid topic for the exact same reason pariah state is valid - we cannot agree on who is stupid, who is the authority for stupidity, or the reason(s) for and implications of stupidity (which is what the scholars are hung up with concerning state pariahood). There are many reasons and thresholds for stupidity, and we used to have designated authorities - psychiatrists - to declare stupidity in individuals. Yet a simple, non-controversial definition for stupidity is not a problem.

"... any "list of pariah states" must - by definition - be an OR." This is incorrect. The citation proves nothing of the sort. Lawal[6] provides (non-comprehensive) lists of nations that have been pariah states, classified by reason for pariahood (p. 233, 8th page of this 16 page pdf). Citing his work would be WP:RS, not WP:OR. We've got plenty of options. :)

I agree with our ip friend, that this is a content issue rather than an existence issue, but I disagree that an RfC is the best option at this point. The edit war is too fresh, and it's been going on in one form or another for so long it seems. I think an RfC will only revive the bickering. After all, we're only here as a result of that edit war. A proposal for deletion was threatened and carried out. I think mediation is needed. Dcs002 (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But mediation or arbitration is necessary. This article's current form is unacceptable. I don't see how a topic that is not defined can be evaluated for notability. But looking at just a few earlier versions of the article and the edit warring and vitriolic bickering, I wonder if that's what has caused this article to be in such a sad state after six years. I think we tend to close our eyes and our minds when we get angry, and I think that is what's wrong with this article. Has anyone really been looking for a definitive definition? Has anyone mentioned the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations? or this[7]? I think this article might well be fixable. The real problem, as I see it, is that there are some sources that say there is no definitive definition (though are they themselves authoritative enough to say there is none, or there cannot be one?), and that seems to mean that no one is thinking about proposing something as an unambiguous, definitive definition based on what is actually out there today. But at least those two sources I mentioned both purport to have one, and one (an academic expert synthesis - the kind we like in WP - from a social sciences journal) cites the other (the actual dictionary). Lawal[8], which was published four years after this article first was, says the concept is quite old - that of being an outcast nation. What is new is the basis for pariahood. It's as simple as that. A pariah state is an outcast state. (He explains even the words have the same origin - the Pariah are a people in Tamil Nadu state in India, and they are one of the historically "untouchable" peoples from the old caste system - the outcastes.) The reason for being outcast or the authority for designating a nation as such is not part of the definition of being an outcast. Lawal says that today pariahood implies lack of compliance with international law leading to global ostracization, but that's an implication, not a definition. It's like something having a stigma. (A stigma being attached to having schizophrenia does not change the definition of schizophrenia, but a guy with schizophrenia is still going to get funny looks when he talks to himself on the bus.) And check this out: From Lawal - "Random House Word Menu (2010) has provided evidence that the word Pariah has become truly a universal word. All cultures seem to have accepted the usage of the word to mean outcast." Maybe with all the edit warring and pillar 4 problems editors at some point just gave up on really re-working this article? Would a participant in one of the edit wars have even a small hope of having such a major revision taken seriously? (Reason #792 why edit warring is bad.) Dcs002 (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! After such a long post I forgot to mention the real gem that Lawal offers - Pariahood is not very useful as a yes or no question. He says, "What comes with this analysis is that the 'term' Pariah is used in comparative analysis," or, to what extent a nation is a pariah state. Is North Korea more of a pariah state than Iran? That's where the term becomes useful, not whether a nation is or is not a pariah state. Think about the bickering that might have saved... Dcs002 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In light of Lawal's explanation of the origins of the term "pariah state" and the internationally unambiguous meaning of the word "pariah", another viable alternative to consider changing the title of the article to "Pariah (state)", focusing the topic to pariahood in international relations rather than the states themselves, which might or might not qualify under various definitions and designating authorities. My !vote now is to keep. Dcs002 (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The dilemma described by the nom was illustrated for me just a moment ago. An editor just added Ukraine to the list. Interestingly, I note that Russia doesn't appear in the list, though given recent events it probably should by the same criteria, perhaps supported by this citation (U.K. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond warns Russia "risks becoming a pariah state if it does not behave properly"). I strongly suspect that the editor was expressing a non-neutral POV related to the current conflict in Donetsk, etc., not reporting that Ukraine has been added to some formal list of countries "labeled or treated as pariahs in the international system" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but without the existence of any formal list, how can I challenge this edit? Dwpaul ^Talk 04:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please understand - this is a disagreement about what should be included in the article, not whether the the subject merits an article. For that reason, I believe this whole deletion discussion is inappropriate. Adding Ukraine is probably wrong, but that is not a reason to delete the article, nor is any of the content bickering. The way to fix that is NOT to kill an article about a notable topic. It is to stay clear of the veterans of the edit wars and ask for help from the mediation cabal or something higher. And as I've been saying, there ARE RS for a universal definition, and there is at least one RS with a list of pariah states (without Ukraine). Content disputes can be settled, and nominating an article for deletion because of content disputes and edit warring is IMO inappropriate. Look at the resources I provided above. This is not a hard problem to fix. It is made hard by resentment, bickering, and edit warring, for which we have more appropriate remedies than deletion. Not everyone is going to get their way here, but that's no reason to delete the article. Dcs002 (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a discussion about the conditions under which this article would perform a useful function and be maintainable. In that sense, it is a deletion discussion; if none could be found the article should be deleted. I assume we got here because none has been found to date. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. First, your assumption is exceedingly generous - we got here because of edit warring and a threat made by one of the opposing parties that he or she would nominate the article for deletion if his or her wishes were not carried out concerning the inclusion of a certain table in the article. I actually agree with that person's position - that the table in question should not be part of the article, but a nomination for deletion to enforce that position? I think that is an abuse of this process, using it as the ultimate weapon for an edit war - the so-called "nuclear option". That is the sad level of the discussion in the article's talk page. It is also reflected in the language used to nominate this article, which reflects a lack of effort to actually find new and universal definitions that could bring consensus. A universal definition does exist, even though universal criteria for designation do not exist.

Second, performing a useful function here means providing encyclopedic information. That is our only function. This article has not been well maintained (as the battleground of a prolonged edit war), but it is definitely maintainable once the warring parties either call a truce or have one imposed upon them. We have very effective mechanisms in place to stop edit warring, but it is clear none of them have been attempted. I think that happens when both sides are afraid they might lose, or when both sides are so narrowly focused on winning that they see nothing else. We have mediators and arbitrators who can restrict and ban the edit warriors if they insist on continuing to damage this article. They do a good job. I have seen it work even in the most desperate cases. Someone will not get their way. It must be tried before deletion, IMO. Deletion would seem disingenuous to me without trying to fix the problem first, and again, I see that problem as nothing more or less than edit warring, not something inherent in the subject. We must not delete an article because it cannot be edited or maintained to meet our own individual standards. It must meet WP standards, though well intentioned editors might disagree on how to apply them. Again, mediation and arbitration addresses those issues. If the warring parties don't want to allow that kind of settlement, it can be enforced upon them. Maintainability is perfectly viable. No one has bothered to try yet. Dcs002 (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claim: "I see that problem as nothing more or less than edit warring". Really? I see no edit warring, and it seems like you confuse two different issues with one another. The first issue is absolutely hypothetical, and is concerning the two reverts of the stable version (of 21.7.2014): I tried twice to put back the stable version (not including this edit because I had immediately self-reverted it) - within more than 24 hours between my two edits - and with my opening a discussion on the talk page between my two edits, but when I realized that the editor - who had reverted it twice - reverted it a third time, then I gave up - just in order to avoid edit warring, and the edit-war was really prevented successfully (actually it was prevented by me rather than by the other editor). This is one issue, and you should not confuse the second issue - of my deletion-request, with the first hypothetical issue mentioned above - which is quite another one - and has nothing to do with any hypothetical edit war (after everything was carried out - successfully - in order to avoid edit warring).

You claim: "a nomination for deletion to enforce that position? I think that is an abuse of this process, using it as the ultimate weapon for an edit war - the so-called nuclear option". What are you talking about? "to enforce"? "weapon"? "edit war"?" I get the impression that you have totally misinterpreted other claims of mine which I have presented on the article's talk page. So let me explain myself: I really think (as I have always thought) that the whole article should be deleted - because of three considerations I've presented at the top of this page, although I sincerely respect your opposite opinion; Furthermore, I really think this deletion is "inevitable" (as I have already claimed on the article's talk page), although I think that the stable version (as opposed to the current one) which included the table - could weaken my considerations for deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my first consideration (of my three) could be irrelevant if the stable version were adopted; So yes, adopting the stable version could defend the article from deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my last two considerations wouldn't then be supported by the first one, but the current version - which doesn't include the table - makes my first consideration (of my three) relevant as well ! That's why I indicated (on the article's talk page) that the current version made the deletion "inevitable" (IMO). Got it now? You are surely allowed to present your own considerations against deletion, but again: don't confuse two different issues. HOOTmag (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have stated my position correctly. You made it clear on the article's talk page that you were proposing this deletion because someone had undone your edits, and you interpreted your edits as proper according to WP policy. Here is what you said in that regard:

"However, if Henley's table is deleted again, then a request for deleting the whole article will be inevitable, on the ground of Original Research. HOOTmag (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)"
"Note that adding Henley's table, is intended to save the article and defend it from deleting. Anyways, since you changed again the stable version of 21.7.2014, a request for deleting the whole article is now inevitable. HOOTmag (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)"

You then nominated the article for deletion, carrying out those threats. You are not the only one involved in what I am calling an edit war. These controversies are all over the talk page history, going back for years. Your involvement in what I am calling an edit war included the nuclear option of nominating the article for deletion based on one person reverting two of your edits. The proper response to repeated, inappropriate undos is not deletion of the article, but seeking help. You did not make a WP:RfC on the issue, nor did you seek mediation or arbitration. You did not follow the guidelines in WP:Deletion. You acted alone. Dcs002 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to present here any argument against deletion, but again - do me a favor: please don't confuse two different issues: The decision I made - many months ago - to ask (in the unknown future) for deletion - is one issue, which preceded - by many months - both the omission of the table and my other decision to put back the table! Yes I have always - for many months - thought, I had rather strong arguments for deletion! however, I was not sure whether they were strong enough, as long as the article contained (for more than a year) the table - which included strict objective figures and strict objective data - which could (maybe) logically weaken the reasoning I had for deletion (by their making my first consideration irrelevant), and that's why I hesitated - for many months - in deciding whether or not to ask for deletion. In other words, this logical weakening (of my considerations for deletion) - caused by keeping the table, is another issue - which has never been discussed in my three considerations for deletion.

"Threat"? What are you talking about? I get the impression you may have not read my previous response: If you did, then I really can't understand, how your quoting my logical claim from the article's talk page, adds anything new, after I had elaborated (in my previous response) on this logical claim - which you had misinterpreted as a "threat" - rather than as (correctly) an argument intended to be logically inferred from the influence the table had had on creating the hesitation in deciding whether the article was an OR or was backed by objective data clearly-related to it! I can't understand where you see any "threat" in my logical argument presented on the article's talk page, unless you have misinterpreted me again!

So yes! I really think this deletion is "inevitable" (as I have already claimed on the article's talk page and in my previous response you may have not read), and I really think that keeping the table could [ logically ] defend the article from deletion (as I have already claimed on the article's talk page and in my previous response you may have not read), however - as opposed to what you had thought and still think, I had indicated all of that on the article's talk page - not in order to "threat" (I personally dislike threats whether posed to me or to others), but rather in order to present a conclusion intended to be logically inferred from the influence the table had had on my hesitation in deciding whether the article was an OR or was backed by objective data clearly-related to it! I have fully described this logical conclusion in my previous response, but since you either - didn't read it - or misinterpreted it again, then I must repeat it! So let me explain again this logical argument, just in order to show you again - that it included no threat:

So I think that keeping the table - could weaken the logic of my considerations for deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my first consideration (of my three) could be irrelevant (from a logical point of view) if the table were kept; So yes, keeping the table could [ logically ] defend the article from deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my last two considerations for deletion wouldn't then be supported by the first consideration ! However, the current version - which doesn't include the table - makes my first consideration relevant as well, so my last two considerations for deletion - are now supported by my first consideration as well ! That's why I indicated (on the article's talk page) that the current version (i.e. without the table) made the deletion "inevitable" (IMO). Got it now? Not threat at all, but rather a conclusion intended to be logically inferred from the influence the table had had on my hesitation in deciding whether the article was an OR or was backed by objective data clearly-related to it! I wonder whether I should repeat that, just in order to prevent you from misinterpreting me again and again (as you did both - when you were reading my claims on the article's talk page - and when you were reading my previous response). HOOTmag (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HOOTmag, I am sorry we are discussing you rather than the topic at hand, but you are the reason we are here, as your own posts have made clear. Deletion is not inevitable. That is your opinion, and I see no evidence for it other than your actual nomination for deletion, for which we do not seem to have consensus at this point. (I count the !votes as 3-1 to keep, or 3-2 including your nomination for deletion.) That is not a sign of deletion being inevitable. The topic of "Pariah state" is a notable topic, meriting an article. The current state of the article is not a reason to delete it. It is a reason to fix it, which means a drastic re-write, with the assistance of neutral parties. Dcs002 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion against deletion, and you are allowed to present that opinioin freely, but for God's sake: Please don't misinterpret my claims on the article's talk page! For more details - see my previous response I added above in about 25 lines. Additionally please: don't confuse, those claims on the article's talk page (for keeping the table), with my current claims - I had for many months in my mind - for deletion (long before the table was omitted), because such a misinterpretation - and such a confusion - as you have made, may make you think - by mistake - that I am the issue, while two editors here - i.e. I and Dwpaul - think that the real issue is whether to delete! Good luck... HOOTmag (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for Lawal's work - and Lawals' list (on p. 233) - you've pointed at: yes, IMO it's really not an OR, although IMO the current "list of pariah states" in Wikipedia is an OR, just as - IMO - the whole article is an OR. HOOTmag (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of your original three points satisfy any of the WP:DEL-REASON, as far as I can tell. #1 and #3 are IMO items that should be included in the article, describing how pariah statehood can be a politically abusive label. #2 references the table, which IMO does not belong in the article because it is a WP:synth or WP:OR and off-topic without a RS clearly relating visas to pariahood (I don't recall that being in the article, though I might be mistaken), but that is a content issue, not a deletion issue. And I have provided a counter-example to show that academically accepted lists can in fact exist, though they may not be represented as comprehensive or representing the current state in international affairs, nor are they necessarily institutionally generated - all criteria that are not required. Dcs002 (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument against my #2 point. It has nothing to do with the table, and please notice that none of my three points are in favor of keeping the table, which is quite a different issue discussed on the article's talk page. As for your opinion about #1 and #3, this is your opinion and I respect it, although it's not my opinion. HOOTmag (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly thought your point #2 referred to Henley's table. However, it is still a content issue, not a deletion issue. All three of your points address the validly disputed qualification for state pariahood. Not one of them addresses pariahood as its own concept. I have read and taken great care to understand all of your posts, and I still see no cause for deletion, nor do I see any previous effort to handle what you consider to be improper reversions of your edits in any way other than nominating deletion of the entire article, as you said would happen on the article talk page, and which you yourself brought about at that time. IMO, the fact that you yourself immediately nominated this article for deletion clarifies any ambiguity as to whether your posts were threats. (We NEVER see ourselves as doing things like making threats, but when you say "If you do A, them B will happen," and "You have done A, now B is going to happen," and then act on your own to MAKE B HAPPEN, you have made a threat and acted on it.)

You cite your own logic now as a reason that deletion is inevitable. I'm sorry HOOTmag, but your logic is not a basis for determining encyclopedic content. It is not a RS, it is not verifiable, it is not NPOV, and it is not an objective criterion for deletion, as listed in WP:DEL-REASON. Your "logical claim" is your opinion, based on your own logical interpretation of the issues. People can disagree about logic, and I strongly disagree that your logic is sound and that it justifies this article's deletion. Your logic fails when you assume we need objective criteria for state pariahood in order to cover this topic in an encyclopedic article. We do not. Please review the deletion policy at WP:Deletion and tell us which of the criteria for deletion this article satisfies. Tell us how it cannot be fixed with a little work and help from a neutral party. Dcs002 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've just misinterpreted me again: I didn't intend to enforce my own logic! I just wanted to convince you that my claim on the article's talk page was not intended to threaten, but rather to present a logical argument; You are not obligated to accept it, but it was intended to be a logical argument.

My claim on the talk page, was not of the type: "If you do A then B will happen", but rather of the type "If A happens then B will happen" (e.g "if it rains then there will be enough fruit next year"), and also of the type: "Since you did A then B is now inevitable" (e.g. "since you broke the bottle, the loss of the wine is now inevitable")! Note that most of the propositions of these two types are not intended to express a threat, and so are my claims on the article's talk page!

You were wrong when you claimed that I'd made no effort to handle what I'd considered to be improper reversions of the stable version! Of course I had made such an effort, by my putting back the stable version - and I did that twice! So how can you claim I did nothing? However, after my two reverts failed, then I gave up: Why did I give up? So let me tell you the truth: because I realized that the editor - who opened with this action of reverting the stable version three times, would not listen, and would not want to reach a fair compromise! that's why I decided to give up! I dislike edit wars! so simple!

You were totally wrong when you thought I handled this issue by nominating deletion of the entire article. The decision I made - many months ago - to ask (in the unknown future) for entire deletion, preceded - by many months - both the omission of the table and my other decision to put back the table! Yes I have always - for many months - thought, that I had rather strong arguments for entire deletion! however, I was not sure whether they were strong enough, as long as the article contained (for more than a year) the table - which included strict objective figures and strict objective data - which could (maybe) logically weaken the reasoning I had for deletion (by their making my first consideration irrelevant), and that's why I hesitated - for many months - in deciding whether or not to ask for deletion. However, once I decided to give up the table-issue (because of the reason mentioned in the previous section), then - logically - my hesitation about the deletion request just disappeared ! Do you really ask "Why this hesitation disappeared, once I gave up the table-issue?" ? I have already explained why, on the article's talk page, and the explanation was totally logical! Should I repeat it the fourth time? Ok, just for you, I will repeat the explanation about - why my hesitation disappeared - once I gave up the table-issue: So I have always thought that keeping the table - could weaken the logic of my considerations for deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my first consideration (of my three) could be irrelevant (from a logical point of view) if the table were kept; So yes, I have always thought that - keeping the table could [ logically ] defend the article from deletion (not sure but maybe) - because my last two considerations for deletion wouldn't then be supported by the first consideration ! However, once I gave up the stable version - which included the table - my first consideration for deletion became relevant ! In other words, I realized that my last two considerations for deletion - were now supported by my first consideration as well ! That's why I indicated (on the article's talk page) that the current version (i.e. without the table) made the deletion "inevitable" (IMO). Got it now? Not threat at all, but rather a conclusion intended to be logically inferred from the influence the table had had on my hesitation in deciding whether the article was an OR or was backed by objective data clearly-related to it! I wonder whether I should repeat that, just in order to prevent you from misinterpreting me again and again.

HOOTmag (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was the other guy who started the edit war. It's always the other guy when we get stuck in these kinds of disputes. We don't see the fallacies of black and white thinking when we just see ourselves as being right. But you did not "give up" when your edits were reverted. You instead nominated the article for deletion - on the same day you made those two statements that I consider to be threats, all in less than two hours. That stands on its own. Your language was unambiguous. I don't have anything more to add to that. I have seen no claim that this article merits deletion under WP:Deletion policy. You did not cite any policy in your nomination. I wish you had because then we would have something objective to discuss instead of going in circles like this. (I doubt anyone else is reading this anyway.) You mentioned OR in a hypothetical comparison, but any OR in this article can be easily fixed, with the help of neutral mediators. I wish you had tried that before nominating the article for deletion. There was not a consensus formed or attempted about OR, and even that is a content issue - in this case anyway. There is plenty of RS material to make a nice, objective article about this notable topic, but the parties who disagree need to accept the article will not look the way they want it to look after 3rd party intervention. Is that really such an awful outcome that you would rather see it deleted altogether than even ask for help? (Mediation might go your way you know.) Dcs002 (talk) 08:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you insist again on the "edit-war" issue, although I've shown you the opposite? Yes, I tried twice to put back the stable version - within more than 24 hours between my two edits - and with my opening a discussion on the talk page between my two edits, but when I realized that the editor - who had reverted twice - reverted it a third time, then I gave up - just in order to avoid edit warring, and the edit-war was really prevented successfully (actually it was prevented by me rather than by the other editor). Everything was carried out - successfully - in order to avoid edit warring, so please don't mention that again.

You claim: "you did not 'give up' when your edits were reverted". In this personal comment, you've just made a pair of mistakes: 1. What was reverted was the stable version. 2. I did give up.

You claim: "You instead nominated the article for deletion - on the same day you made those two statements that I consider to be threats, all in less than two hours". In this personal comment, you've just made another pair of mistakes: 3. Logical arguments can't be threats, by definition; I have elaborated on that - in my previous response (ibid. the paragraph beginning with the word "My"), but it seems you don't fully read my responses. 4. Two hours - is too late. Actually, the deletion request should have been made within two minutes - rather than two hours! Anyways, your mistake was as following: The decision I made - many months ago - to ask (in the unknown future) for entire deletion, preceded - by many months - both the omission of the table and my other decision to put back the table! However, There is a very simple logical explanation for the historical fact, that my nominating the article for deletion - actually happened just after I gave up the table issue; Anyways, this historical fact does not prove, that my nominating the article for deletion - was an integral part of my brief struggle for keeping the stable version! The logical explanation for this historical fact, is indicated in my previous response (ibid. the last paragraph), and it seems again that you don't fully read my responses.

As for your impersonal claims: they are legitimate (as long as they are impersonal), but I can't discuss them as long as you keep leading this discussion to the personal direction, by your statements about "threats". Once I realize that no confusion is being made between the two issues, i.e. the deletion issue and the "stable version" issue, I will (spiritually) be able to discuss your impersonal claims (Btw my last comment was a spiritual claim about my mood).

HOOTmag (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A "stable version" is not by definition a superior version. Reverting to a stable version does not put your action on superior footing. You have yet to cite a WP:DEL-REASON, or any other policy for advocating deletion. You have not made a case that this article cannot be fixed with mediation or other alternatives. You have not made a prima fascie case. You nominated for deletion, bypassing these policies. I don't see how that is unclear. What WP:DEL-REASON applies here? What WP:ATD did you try first? This is about deleting an article, which needs to be done according to policy. We have not followed WP:Deletion policy in this unfortunately contentious discussion. No one here has cited a WP:DEL-REASON. That is your burden when you nominate an article for deletion - give a policy-based case for deletion. Try alternatives. You did neither of those. Once your edits were reverted, you nominated for deletion. Circular explanations are not going to change that. Dcs002 (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You claim: "A 'stable version' is not by definition a superior version". Again you keep misinterpreting me: By my using the term "stable version", I did not mean it's a superior version, but rather I meant you'd made an error by your having claimed: "your edits were reverted"; So no: what was reverted, was the stable version - rather than my edits. That's what I meant, and nothing else!

You claim: "Once your edits were reverted, you nominated for deletion". This historical fact you're pointing at - is correct, but I have already elaborated on its background, and it seems you keep ignoring my explanation: If you hadn't ignored, you'd have realized that the historical fact you're pointing at - does not prove any threat, nor does what I have stated on the article's talk page.

Unfortunately, you keep leading the discussion to the personal direction, as you're doing also on the new page of your mediation request - by your quoting (ibid.) my statements from the article's talk page - and by your claiming (ibid.) that those quotations express a threat, although I have already explained those quotations - by showing that they can't express any threat - nor can my nomination for deletion which was made just after the stable version had been reverted.

As for your impersonal claims, including the impersonal claims made on the new page of your mediation request: they are legitimate - as long as they are impersonal, but I can't discuss them - nor can I take a part in the mediation process - as long as you keep leading this discussion to the personal direction by your statements about "threats". Once I realize that no confusion is being made between the two issues, i.e. the deletion issue and the "stable version" issue, I will be in a mood to discuss your impersonal claims.

HOOTmag (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – If the issue is that everyone cannot agree on which countries, if any, are pariah states, that would appear to be a content problem, not a deletion problem. Usurper doesn't list any usurpers, and tyrant is largely devoted to the term's use in the classical period, listing no tyrants under the modern definition of the term. Despite no definitive lists of tyrants and usurpers, and no objective method of determining if someone is one ("King So-and-so did 2, 5, and 7 on the list, but not 1, 3, 4, and 6, so he isn't a tyrant"), and those terms undoubtedly being applied sometimes to people who most would not consider tyrants or usurpers, the terms themselves are still notable, and it is still beneficial to have articles explaining just what those things are and what someone is implying if they refer to a person as one. The same principle would seem to apply here. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are suggesting that, to remain, this article should be stripped of its list and only include guidance as to what might be meant by "pariah state"? That would suit me just fine. Dwpaul ^Talk 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vague term, whose definition we can't seem to agree on. Most of its uses appear to be as buzzwords. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please look over the edit history. The relevant question is not whether we can agree on a definition, but whether reliable sources can, and that's not a problem, IMO. It is an outcast state. The sticking point is what qualifies a state as a pariah, and who has the authority to designate pariah states. That is the disagreement. I gave the example of the article on stupidity earlier. We cannot agree on what makes a person stupid, or say who is stupid, but we can still define it and discuss it. Egsan Bacon made the same argument just above, using usurper and tyrant as more closely related examples. Authoritative definitions exist, though agreement as to who qualifies and why is unsettled. RS have not settled that issue, and we don't have to settle it here, nor should we try. Dcs002 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No semantics, please. We cannot agree on a definition because reliable sources can't. In your opinion, they can--in mine, they can not. 66.168.160.62 (talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not my opinion, but the RS I found after actually looking for newer sources - one academic review on the very subject and one dictionary of international affairs. Pariah state means outcast state. The criteria for being considered such and the authority to designate such are disputed, and that dispute is content that should be part of the article. Semantics are exactly what is at issue, and semantic arguments are confusing the issue. I say this issue is pretty straightforward. The universal definition is the easy part. The criteria are not, which should be covered in the article. "We cannot agree on a definition because reliable sources can't." Not true. We do not have to agree, and reliable sources DO agree on the definition, not the criteria. Again, look at the articles for stupidity, usurper, and tyrant. Very simple issue here, obfuscated by years of bickering and an irrational belief that RS "can't" agree, as you say.(That is a WP:Crystal issue - we don't know what RS "can't" do.) And we already have a good RS definition. We don't have to agree on criteria to make a good article. Dcs002 (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sources use the term. Agree the definition of 'pariah state' is nebulous. My sense is the term differs slightly from 'rogue state' with 'pariah states' being more outcast, a loner, while a rogue state is more aggressive, invasive, troublesome to its neighbors. Yes, there are some WP:OR aspects to the article but that only suggests improvement not deletion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an inherently POV term, requiring original research for the construction of the list. Alternatively, I think Egsan Bacon's suggestion is workable - Keep, but remove the list of states that supposedly qualify. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Mediation filed I have filed a request for mediation for this article. I have given my case for this numerous times on this page. There are VERY few things we all disagree on, and I think this article can be easily fixed into a nice, NPOV, non-OR, non-Synth article. I think mediation is far preferable to outright deletion. Dcs002 (talk) 03:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Thanks to David Eppstein and Tomwsulcer for transforming the article hugely. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Fry[edit]

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

I couldn't find evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very low cites on GS. Not enough sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
delete per nom. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. H. Schryer for the article on Helen Fry's pseudonym. Both created by a WP:SPA. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Waiting for sources since 2012. For me it could be PRODed. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A review of one of her books in the Guardian is a start, but not nearly enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At least four of her books have multiple reliably-published reviews in mainstream (not just specialized academic) media, which I just added to the article. One of these is self-published but nevertheless has received significant media attention (BBC and Guardian). I think it's enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David Eppstein. I added a few more references. Meets GNG. Notable historian of WW2.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, David Eppstein's sources are sufficient evidence. --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with kudos to David Eppstein and Tomwsulcer, the new sources are sufficient evidence of notability.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Grande[edit]

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

I really do not want to delete this article and I know that Frankie's sister is famous, but it does just not meet WP:GNG yet. We have to wait until he wins Big Brother or does other notable things in the future. Most of the references are to unofficial press releases and blogs. What does everyone think? ~~JHUbal27 20:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect- As the original nominator, I agree with Bearcat because his reasoning is coherent, thorough and accurate, especially the fact that Frankie does not inherit notability due to his sister being famous or by participating in a reality TV show. I would like to point out that the original creator has a conflict of interest and also there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~JHUbal27 00:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have any conflict of interest. I do not know Frankie Grande or Ariana Grande or any member of their families and have no business contacts with any of them. What made you think I did? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cited the wrong policy. I just thought because you created the original redirect and once I redirected it again, you decided to start the article. I did do some major cleanup, but we'll have to see the result of this discussion before we go any further. ~~JHUbal27 05:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Grande has produced three Broadway shows with notable casts and also has produced Off-Broadway and other productions. He has performed on Broadway and in other theatre productions and has appeared in his own one-man show Off-Broadway, and in cabaret acts in New York City. He also founded a non-profit arts organization that helps youths in South Africa and has a significant social media presence. He would be notable even if he were not appearing on Big Brother and if his sister were not Ariana Grande. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well-written article, fully referenced and clearly demonstrating the notability of the subject. Jack1956 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Too much of the referencing here is to primary sources, unreliable blogs and cursory mentions in blurbs that fail to comprise substantial coverage, with the few references that are sufficiently reliable not supporting any claims that would actually get him past WP:CREATIVE on their own. This article, in other words, exists solely because he's currently a competitor on a television reality show — but we have a longstanding consensus that people do not qualify for articles just for being competitors on television reality shows. Rather, reality show competitors qualify for standalone articles only in one of three cases: (a) you can demonstrate that they already qualified for an article before they were on the reality show — which, as I've noted, has not been adequately demonstrated here, since none of his prior activities were sufficient to get him into Wikipedia by themselves; (b) they win it; or (c) even if they don't win, they still manage to parlay the exposure they gained from the show into passing a notability guideline for their followup endeavours (e.g. numerous non-winning competitors on American Idol have since gone on to become successful and notable musicians or actors anyway.) The mere fact of being on the show does not, however, make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article by itself — and a person does not inherit notability just because he has a famous sister, either. Revert to redirect; no prejudice against recreation in the future if he passes conditions (b) or (c) after the show ends. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable actor, Passes GNG .–Davey2010 • (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the article as written is relying primarily on unreliable and insubstantial sources that don't support any WP:CREATIVE-satisfying claims of notability (which are not the same thing as claims of existence), would you mind elaborating on how he actually "passes" GNG? Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To put it bluntly - No, With all respect I've got far better things to do than to sit here and argue over my reason. –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To put it just as bluntly, simply asserting that a person passes GNG "because I say so" does not, in and of itself, constitute proof that they pass GNG — especially when refusing to elaborate on that assertion is a response to someone who has presented considerable evidence (the article's overreliance on primary and insubstantial-blurb sourcing, etc.) that the topic does not pass GNG as readily as you've claimed. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Davey2010 has a history of weak AfD votes, e.g. Aimee-Lynn Chadwick. One cannot just show up to a deletion discussion and just say "It's just notable!" without explaining why. This "keep" entry will be dismissed. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bollox do I - So far I've only made 2 !votes without explaining why - That doesn't mean "I have a history of weak AfD votes" atall, It's happened so many times where someone is simply unhappy with why I !vote keep and at times one really cannot be arsed to have an arguement over it, Anyones comment here can be dismissed and that's entirely up to the closing admin. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I see no reason for this deletion. The subject is notable in itself and should therefore remain. In time I'm sure it will improve, but for gods sake, let's give it a chance! Cassianto ^talk 08:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, this isn't a valid article to make in a deletion disucssion. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, your above post does not make sense. I wasn't aware we were making articles in deletion discussions? Cassianto ^talk 15:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is absolutely no reason why this article should be deleted. This article describes Frankie's life and career very well. Please don't delete this article!! Paul Badillo (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSNOTABLE, this isn't a valid article to make in a deletion disucssion. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Big Brother 16 HouseGuests (U.S.) for now. First off, I a a huge BB fan, and think/hope Frankie will win this year which will render this AfD discussion moot. For now though, his notability just isn't sufficient. The playbill.com sources are mostly brief name-drops, but overall they are just press releases, as is the broadwayworld.com source. The US Weekly source is somewhat better, but the only reason it exists is to report Frankie's BB house entry within the context of "It's Ariana Grande's brother!"; unfortunately notability is not inherited in the Wikipedia. Unless solid sources that pass WP:RS are found that are independent of his sister and are not press releases. Tarc (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Grande is notable *aside* from his sister Ariana Grande, even if he were not appearing on Big Brother. This is a well-sourced article, ~~except for the bloated section about Big Brother that was added last night by the person who nominated this article for deletion~~ with 24 references. Playbill and Playbill Vault are high quality sources. Most of the other information in this article is sourced to standard magazine and newspaper sources. BroadwayWorld is an acceptable source, and nothing that is sourced to it, or to any other primary source is controversial. No one has disputed that any of the information here is true. See WP:SELFPUB. Among his other achievements, Grande produced three Broadway shows with notable casts and various other productions; he has acted on Broadway, in US National tours and in Off-Broadway and regional theatre; he has performed in cabaret and in his own one-man show in NYC; he founded a charitable organization that helps disadvantaged youth in South Africa and established a school for another charitable organization; he has a substantial internet following on YouTube, Twitter, Instagram and Facebook; and he has received extensive coverage in national and international press. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2014 (amended 29 July)

Playbill and broadwayworld are just press releases, which do not satisfy the WP:GNG, as PR is not sufficiently independent from the subject. Tarc (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the Playbill materials cited here are "press releases", I suggest you clean your spectacles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think they aren't, I suggest your Frankie FanClub card may be a bit over-sized and blocking your vision, as well. Tarc (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. I am not a Frankie Grande fan. I have never met him, seen him in person or corresponded with him, and I do not subscribe to or follow any of his social media. Nor am I a particular fan of Ariana Grande, although I think she is a talented singer. But I do know what a producer of a Broadway show is, which you apparently do not. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop arguing about stupid things, and letting your interest in Frankie Grande get in the way of your thought process. Just stop denying it already! You cannot be right all the time and you cannot just remove cleanup tags because you said so- you have to legitimately fix the issue and provide better references. If you cannot find good references, then there is no point of going through the trouble to create an article for him. You have no proof that he is notable except that he is on Big Brother and is Ariana Grande's brother. I like Frankie as a person too, but he already has his own little article on Ariana Grande Wikia. He is not yet ready for the big boy version of Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but that is how we do things around here. ~~JHUbal27 08:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[moving left]. You are calling me a liar. That's not very nice, and demonstrates both arrogance and ignorance, since you obviously don't know anything about me. FYI, over the past 8 years, I have created hundreds of articles for Wikipedia, quite a few of which have been promoted to WP:GA and WP:FA class. I have contributed to thousands of other articles here, including on science, literature and history. I have served as online ambassador for several college classes participating in Wikipedia's Education program. How many Featured Articles have you written for Wikipedia? Your work on the Frankie Grande article reveals that you need to work on your referencing skills, as you often leave out important information, such as author names, publisher information and dates. You should also read WP:V, to understand what information should be referenced on Wikipedia, as you do not seem to understand it. Also see WP:SELFPUB, which is relevant to the Frankie Grande article and states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ... so long as: (1) the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; (2) it does not involve claims about third parties; (3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; (4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; (5) the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to pages on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." You may disagree with me about this article, which is, in my opinion, well-referenced, but that does not justify your calling me a liar. Please be WP:CIVIL. I think you owe me an apology, but I will be surprised if you demonstrate that level of class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed his social media followers because it is promotional and does not contribute anything helpful to the article. And quite frankly, we have 3 weak keep !votes by editors with no valid argument, 1 keep !vote by the original creator who keeps making the same argument (obviously), 1 keep !vote that is possibly valid but is still incomplete and biased, and 3 redirect !votes by two experienced editors (including myself) and one by an administrator. Let's see the end result of the debate so that I know I was right in nominating this article to redirect to List of Big Brother 16 HouseGuests (U.S.)#Frankie. ~~JHUbal27 20:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, all this is just your own POV. And to describe yourself as a more experienced editor over editors such as Ssilvers, Cassianto and even myself is actually quite laughable. All the points above to keep the article are totally valid; you not agreeing with them does not make them invalid. The article is, in MHO, well written, clearly and accurately referenced and demonstrates the subject's notability. Jack1956 (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have read the foregoing exchanges with perplexity. The content of the article makes it self-evident that the subject is notable. Nonetheless, just to check, I have looked in the British Library's press archives, and I see that Mr Grande has been mentioned in detail in the British press in recent months. If his notability has spread from the US to the UK I think it would be foolish for anyone to go on maintaining that he is not notable. I don't, for my own part, find him very interesting but that is purely a matter of personal opinion: he manifestly meets the WP standard of notability. The UK press reports could be used for citations, if wanted, though it seems to me that those already used are clearly WP:RS. I suggest this notion of deletion should be kicked into touch forthwith. – Tim riley talk 07:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What links do you have to prove that he was mentioned by the British Press and in what context? That is not a very reliable source either considering it is still press releases. Please, I am begging the closing admin to give due weight to each !vote, but especially pay close attention to the users who had quite valid explanations to revert back to the redirect. At most, we have two good keep votes and two good redirect votes (I am purposely not including myself or the original creator). The other keep votes do not have enough detail to be considered because they fail arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. They haven't not proved the notability of this article. At the end of the day, it is not my decision, but I strongly suggest that this article be redirected straightaway back to this article right here. ~~JHUbal27 08:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timriley did not say press releases, he said they were in the press archives of the British Library, which is the national library for the United Kingdom. I think that when you start begging admins to take note of your argument over that of those who do not agree with you then you are getting a little too involved and are taking it a bit too personally. The right decision will be made, whichever way it goes. Part of what working on here is all about is just accepting that and moving on. Jack1956 (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article already cites to a national British newspaper. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playbill – If I correctly read the foregoing submissions, there is a misapprehension about Playbill references. Playbill, with which we are familiar in its British version over here in the UK, is a respected source and provides reliable information such as will also be found in Who's Who in the Theatre. Naturally, the editors obtain factual information from their subjects – it would be very remiss if they neglected to do so – but the finished articles are widely – indeed, as far as I know, universally – regarded as authoritative. In this case, the information is also verified by the IBDb and numerous other listings in theatre journals. Hope this clears up the misunderstanding on the part of our well-meaning young contributors. Tim riley talk 17:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yet another one of these AFDs that confuses "fame" with being notable for Wikipedia and a stand alone article. This subject meets our standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mark Miller sums it up quite well. The subject more than meets our notability requirements away from BB. I can only echo Jack1956's assessment that the article is well written and properly sourced. MarnetteD|Talk 23:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is anyone disputing "Make room for the new kings of Broadway, former Boca Raton school chums Philip Morgaman, 27, Frankie Grande, 28, and Brian Kapetanis, 28. They are the producers of the critically acclaimed new revival of the classic 1946 political comedy, “Born Yesterday,” recipient of two Tony Award nominations." [9]? The sources are fine for GNG, even after discounting Big Brother. Johnuniq (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject and the content of the article easily meets GNG. The article is properly sourced and verifiable, is NPOV and is well written.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear now that the consensus is to keep. I think this discussion should be closed in favour of "keep" so as we can all get back to editing the encyclopedia. Cassianto ^talk 20:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cassianto. Can we have a decision one way or the other asap please as I would like to get back to working on the encyclopaedia rather than reverting the edits and tags of one disruptive editor. Thanks. Jack1956 (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Frankie has had a lot of notability because of his work on Broadway, YouTube recognition, being Ariana Grande's half brother and as well as his current appearance on Big Brother. The subject is notable in itself and should remain. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has been covered enough in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. STATic message me! 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has been in a lot of work such as broadway, youtube, being a sibling to Ariana Grande, and on the current season of Big Brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.184.147.10 (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 27 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 07:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oddhouse Phatom[edit]

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

List article of every episode of Oddhouse Phantom. I am unable to find any sources to establish notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:LISTN. - Mr X 17:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject is nonnotable to the extent it even exists; otherwise a hoax. I've only been able to find a couple (amateur) Youtube videos to even verify anything exists at all by this name (whether one gives the benefit of the "n" in the second word or not), let alone a whole history of video releases. At best this is something someone made up one day. postdlf (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Postdif. If any of these exist, even at an amateur level, it would be a WP:SELFPROMOTION list. MarnetteD|Talk 02:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails stand-alone list notability criteria. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:46, 27 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 07:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Manilow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Survived prior AFD based on now deprecated "multiple nominations" criterion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. As expected, almost all of the hits are just links to his porn films. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He may have something big, but that is not his notability. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best !vote ever. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Alexf^(talk) 23:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chichi Enterprises[edit]

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

I'm stuck with English-language source, sorry, but this does not seem to be a notable business and it does seem to be the creation of a single-purpose account. Sitush (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Delete. Looks like a visa agency trying to improve its search ranking, and the single-purpose account doesn't help. AdventurousMe (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like an advertisement to me. Fai zan 18:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promo bollox that serves no purpose here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously. I think it should be speedy deleted. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can an admin please look at User_talk:Muhammadffsh and Speedy delete the article being discussed in this AfD? --Jersey92 (talk) 22:37, 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 keep. A more appropriate venue for a merge discussion would be on the talk page of one of the articles. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 02:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Former Commonwealth monarchies[edit]

– (View AfD · Stats)

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

These pages are all very similar to one another and also duplicate material found in other articles. As of now, only one has any sources. As I suspect that there will be resistance to deletion, I am suggesting from the outset that they be merged into other articles, as below. I appreciate that deletion discussions do not generally propose merging from the start, but I suspect that the proposal will be controversial and this is one way to ensure wide consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into:

The Gambia (Commonwealth realm)

Ghana (Commonwealth realm)

Guyana (Commonwealth realm)

Dominion of India

Kenya (Commonwealth realm)

Malawi (Commonwealth realm)

State of Malta

Mauritius (Commonwealth realm)

Federation of Nigeria

Dominion of Pakistan

Sierra Leone (Commonwealth realm)

Tanganyika

Trinidad and Tobago (Commonwealth realm)

Uganda (Commonwealth realm)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nigeria, Ghana, Pakistan, and India. All of them can be expanded to cover local monarchs: interesting relevant video for Ghana, photographs for Nigeria, and List of princely states of India for India and Pakistan. The same is probably true about many or most of the others, but I don't know for sure and thus can't say. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian traditional rulers, Ashanti Empire, etc. have clear scopes and there is more than enough information for the articles on the local traditional monarchies to remain separate. The material in the articles listed for merging is specifically about the immediate post-colonial arrangement of retaining the British monarch as head of state. If the articles listed for merging are kept then the articles on traditional rulers should be linked as either a hatnote or a see also rather than duplicated. DrKiernan (talk) 07:02, 20 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, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. I checked out the Kenya article only and it is clear that this information should be already in the article(s) on the history of Kenya. I don't see any value in drawing out the one time period and having an article on it. In the USA there is a three month period when a new president has been elected but the old president is still in office. WP doesn't have articles on these and to me this seems like much the same thing. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging...". Andrew (talk) 22:43, 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 speedy close, nomination made in bad faith by sockpuppeting activist. No prejudice against proper renomination by legitimate editors, if there are reasons for deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bennett (actor)[edit]

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

Reason Fightingliars (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason- This page constitutes abuse of wikipedia as it is being used to promote the actor, for free publicity and a public CV

Creating deletion discussion for Max Bennett (actor)

Keep - especially after the recently added refs. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: This article demonstrates what is wrong with Wikipedia. A 17 item long list of productions the actor has been in is more suitable for imdb. No other actors on wikipedia have such an exhaustive list. Looking at the edit history people who have attempted to correct this have quickly had their edits reversed. The whole article stinks of promotion by a PR company.Jon Ndenge (talk) 20:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be deleted because it is abusing the intent of wikipedia. I don't think it's right for PR companies to promote their unknown actors through wikipedia. I saw Anna Karenina and never once noticed this so called major actor.Joanne Baker (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol dis guy is a joke. He's an extra he aint had a speaking bit in any those films. DeleteFuriosity514 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this guy is using the site for self promotion. Or should every extra have their own wikipedia page? The page's for emily atack, david schaal, hannah tointon are less boastful. Even Blake Harrison who had his OWN series where Max Bennett had a small guest role in a single episode has a SMALLER wikipedia page then this guy. Thefishisdelish (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I think it violates the privacy of a relatively unknown actor Bennett123987 (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuthbert Dinwiddie[edit]

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

Biographical article lacking any references to the subject. The article contains references to Angel's Glow and the bacteria causing it, but nothing showing that there ever was a Dr. Dinwiddie. I could not verify his existence through online search. -Xpctr8 (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication he passes notability guidelines. Even his existence is unclear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. The references that I could ready do not even mention the subject of the article. EricSerge (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement on what to do with this article. There seems to be some hint of agreement that perhaps the article needs to be re-titled and re-focused in some way. The argument that this article is a dictionary definition is not particularly convincing. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 02:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bespoke portfolio[edit]

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

"Bespoke portfolio" has nothing particularly to do with synthetic CDOs, it's any portfolio that is bespoke, that is, custom-tailored for the client. In any event, this is a dictionary definition without encyclopedic content. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a home for spurious unsourced neologisms. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Per WP:ATD-R. Upon further reflection, I have removed the content and changed it to a redirect to Synthetic_CDO#Characteristics which I am in the process of rewriting and sourcing. There are a number of problems in this subject matter that need clearing up. Bespoke CDO has now been redirected to Single-tranche CDO but in fact Single-tranche CDO is a synonym for Synthetic CDO and the two articles badly need to be merged into one. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digression "... in fact Single-tranche CDO is a synonym for Synthetic CDO ...". The Reuters financial glossary says "Synthetic CDOs are usually divided into tranches based on the amount of credit risk assumed." FinCAD says "Most synthetic CDOs do not have a cash flow waterfall structure, .... Synthetic CDOs without a cash flow waterfall structure are sometimes called single tranche CDOs." Investopedia says "Synthetic CDOs are typically divided into credit tranches based on the level of credit risk assumed." There appears to be much disagreement with your equation synthetic = single-tranche. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We used issue multiple "single tranches" from a single reference portfolio - in fact, it was desirable as a way to manage down risk of loss on the reference entities. However, each "single tranche" was written under a separate credit default swap confirmation and thus stood on its own, even if the several tranches were marketed together. The main reason that the two Wikipedia articles would be better as one is because they don't explain the subject matter consistently and this a reader, reading both, would be more confused than enlightened. On your last point, almost all synthetic CDOs were constructed without cash flow waterfall structures, though a tiny minority had waterfalls - probably a dozen out of some 50,000 rated synthetic CDOs. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We used issue multiple "single tranches" from a single reference portfolio" gives me the impression that you are planning to write up the topics to reflect your own practice. Please be sure not to do that. As for "almost all"—well, then, the fact that they aren't inherently one and the same means that they aren't synonymous! Anyway, this is all a digression, not pertinent to the question about the viability of the "bespoke portfolio" article as written. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"We used issue", as you may have noticed, is past tense. As to the second point, that is why I digressed on your digression. There is a tiny subset of Synthetic CDOs that aren't single-tranche CDOs so they are not synonymous.Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fiachra10003 has added a bunch more material to the article but hasn't remedied the fact that "bespoke portfolio" is not a thing that is defined entirely in the context of synthetic CDOs. Perhaps this material belongs in an article titled Bespoke portfolio CDO, but not in an article titled Bespoke portfolio. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you check wikipedia you will see that the phrase arises only in one place not clearly related to CDOs and that is Climate Care, where the sequence of words doesn't appear to be a defined term or defining a term. Googling the phrase without mentioning CDOs does throw up the word combination several times, but mostly in the context of people trying to market something. "Bespoke portfolio CDO" really doesn't mean much and simply adds to the complexity of the articles - we already have Single-tranche CDO and Synthetic CDO as discussed above.

Perhaps a sensible fix might be to create a disambiguation page.Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I check Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a reference to what can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia.

I explained to you on 15 July what I found when I Googled "bespoke portfolio". The vast majority of uses of the term are in contexts that have nothing whatsoever to do with CDOs. It's immaterial how often the phrase is used in marketing material: bespoke portfolios are what they're marketing! But it isn't even really a term, just an ordinary phrase. It means no more than "a portfolio that's bespoke", just as "red car" means no more than "a car that's red". I see no evidence to the contrary.

The evidence indicates that the idea that bespoke portfolios go hand-in-hand with CDOs and that the concept is defined in terms of CDOs is your own invention or misunderstanding. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"your own invention" ... Sir, now you're being offensive. I will draw your attention to the fact that discussions in "good faith" are one of the first principles under which Wikipedia proceeds. I see your entry now on the Talk page but you specifically asked that discussions be conducted on YOUR Talk page. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it neutrally, hence "invention or misunderstanding". You are claiming something that is belied by ample evidence. I didn't mean it to be offensive and am sorry it came across that way. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do so quickly, this term is used for all sorts of portfolios and means little more than the two individual words. Even applying to other meanings of the word portfolio. Even searching for the two terms together provides limited evidence of usage in this context. SPACKlick (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into consideration Largo Plazo and SPACKlick's points, I tested something in google. "Bespoke portfolio" and CDO generate "About 1,370 results". "Bespoke portfolio" alone, in parentheses, generates "About 14,100 results" - thus, simplistically, the use of the expression in the CDO context is about 9.7% of the total. I could argue that many of the other contexts in which the phrase arises are spurious, like "bespoke portfolio boxes" - i.e. portfolio boxes that happen to be custom-made by English bookbinders. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the phrase arises in contexts other than CDOs.

Would it make sense to do a WP:MOVE to a new Bespoke portfolio (CDO) title? I think this title would be least ambiguous and most intuitive. Bespoke CDO isn't formally right, because the portfolio is bespoke, not the CDO. In any case Bespoke CDO has already been redirected to Single-tranche CDO. Bespoke CDO portfolio isn't really right either, because specialists in the world of CDOs generally (though not always) talk of "bespoke portfolios" (again recognizing that the phrase arises elsewhere) or "reference portfolios" - and reference portfolio doesn't seem suitable either, given the objections already raised. Fiachra10003 (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way you have the article now, virtually all of it is about the CDOs, not about the portfolios on which they are based. And you yourself used the term "bespoke CDO" three times in the article and the term "bespoke portfolio CDO" four times. If bespoke portfolio CDOs are what the article is about, then Bespoke portfolio CDO is what the title should be. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. I recognize that this is an unusual relist, given the number of participants to date. But, I see that the article has changed drastically (it's essentially a new article) since the AfD began, and most of the comments are prior to the big change. My best guess for the outcome if I closed it the way I really want to close it is that it would get dragged to DRV, overturned, and end up back here, so cutting out a week of process wonkery and giving folks another week to discuss it here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - see The Oxford Handbook of Credit Derivatives, for example. The title of the page is reasonably consistent with WP:CONCISE and the claim that this is a mere dictionary definition is absurd. Andrew (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the page, as written, is about bespoke portfolios in the same way that the article on New York City would be "about France" if its content was only about Manhattan and if it defined New York City as a municipality on the island of Manhattan. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this jargon has only been documented in a reliable source since 2011. It's too new a technical term to be well-documented. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sources which pre-date 2011 - see Frontiers of Risk management for example. And WP:TOOSOON is an essay, not policy, and seems mainly concerned with movies, not technical topics. Andrew (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, 2007. It still appears to be a synonym for a single tranche. Am I mistaken? Bearian (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites sources from 2005 to 2013. The earliest "bespoke tranches" that I can document is 2003, (Correlation Trading "A New Asset Class Emerges" Merrill Lynch 26 November 2003) and the term certainly didn't exist prior to 1999 (The JP Morgan Guide to Credit Derivatives. JP Morgan 1999 doesn't mention it). But as you will see from the article and its citations, hundreds of billions of dollars of the stuff were issued, beginning around 2001-2. It's not a synonym for "single-tranche CDO". There are two types of single-tranche CDO - index tranches and tranches on bespoke portfolios. The "single-tranche CDO" article needs work, as does the "Synthetic CDO" article = both are of very low quality relative to many of the other complex derivatives based articles. I hope to get to work systematically on the "single-tranche CDO" article once we've all improved this article to a satisfactory standard. Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move - For clarity, I've going to strike out and reiterate my current thinking on the article title. Would it make sense to do a WP:MOVE to a new Bespoke portfolio (CDO) title? I think this title would be least ambiguous and most intuitive. Bespoke CDO isn't formally right, because the portfolio is bespoke more than the CDO (indeed, the CDO's documentation was usually completely standardized). In any case Bespoke CDO has already been redirected to Single-tranche CDO. Bespoke CDO portfolio isn't really right either, because specialists in the world of CDOs generally (though not always) talk of "bespoke portfolios" (again recognizing that the phrase arises elsewhere) or "reference portfolios" - and reference portfolio doesn't seem suitable either, given the objections already raised.Fiachra10003 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to you above, under the previous incarnation of your question that you've now struck out, is still my answer to this. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:06, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dendura[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:BAND JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not much more to say than I agree with JayJay. Looks like it was written by a hopeful WP:PUBLICIST for the new band.--Rpclod (talk) 23:04, 19 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 15:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aziza seems to have more fame than the group. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS. Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 22:40, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calcutta Blues Band[edit]

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

I'm not very knowledgeable about bands and even less so about Bengali bands. However, the article appears to fail the criteria at WP:BAND. Of the two references currently in the article, only one (the first) is valid as the other doesn't even mention the band. The first is a very short mention in the The Times of India about the one album that has been released by the band and has become "popular". Although not strictly related to notability, the article was created by a band member, as was another article created about a band member (I deleted that one based on a speedy tag) that was apparently created by two band members (two accounts). Bbb23 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relevant reference is trivial, and there is only one of them. Fails all other inclusion criteria. Benboy00 (talk) 18:00, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only two references given speak to the band's lack of notability. One exclaims that 150 fans have signed up for a fan club. The other peripherally mentions the band among others as playing at a mall.--Rpclod (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It fails WP:42. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 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 merge to Hot flash. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 02:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Flash and Diet[edit]

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

This article appears to be a literature survey with the purpose of drawing a conclusion, which falls under the definition of synthesis, a form of original research that is disallowed at Wikipedia. The article's author goes so far as to conclude that the literature is "inconclusive and inconsistent", but then goes on to make recommendations about diet changes anyway based on an unreliable source. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nomination that WP:SYN appears to be a problem with this article, but I'm not sure that deletion is the best option. Some of the content, if separated from its bias, could fit well in hot flash, particularly in the underdeveloped sections like Hot_flash#Lifestyle_changes. Someone knowledgeable could trim, merge, and redirect... Deli nk (talk) 09:50, 19 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 15:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Hot Flash, cut right back and condense into a section on diet? Lifestyle changes there looks rather thin, and this could pad it out.AdventurousMe (talk) 15:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 07:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lockwood Analytical Method for Prediction[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Much of this is over my head, but searching for sources, I find references to Lockwood's book, plus check the history for the edit I reverted, seems to be pushing the book. I tagged for notability almost two years ago, not much has changed. This seems like primary research that hasn't been been subject to much review. Lots of mentions and listings, but not so much sigcov. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There may be some future for an encyclopedic article on this, but the article as it stands is simply a list of bullet points promoting the method. No indication of significance or notability, though some detailed research by an expert in the subject could demonstrate that. -Xpctr8 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction book. There is a case to be made for Salt. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 27 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) 02:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wall of Lucy Wu[edit]

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

Article about author that fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO. Wendy Wan-Long Shang has only a single book in publication, published in 2013. Sources are dubious at best. One source in 4 is the authors blog. Awards and Recognitions may provide some notability. scope_creep talk 14:17, 26 July 2014 2014 (UTC)

Keep. I was able to find several reviews and articles about the work, so notability has now been established. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, if anyone was wondering, the author is an adult with three children. The original lead claimed that she started writing it in the sixth grade and I can find nothing to substantiate that this was something she'd been working on for that long. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly a Keep per User:Tokyogirl79's expansion! Sadads (talk) 13:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the sources and reviews in the article I came across this. Now meets WP:NBOOK. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:30, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eren Yeager[edit]

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

This does not pass the requirements of standalone notability. The sources used in the article are all reviews of the various media that the character appears in, and while he is the main character, he is not the primary subject of these pieces. This is a lot of fluff for which there is no need to have anything separate from the character's entry on List of Attack on Titan characters.

There was already a consensus formed at Talk:List of Attack on Titan characters#Proposed merge with Eren Yeager, but Tintor2 kept recreating and asking for the article to be remade again, and recently ChrisGualtieri decided to back him up on this because he feels that a merge/redirect discussion cannot happen on an article's talk page and must be dealt with at AFD per WP:BLAR (not a policy mind you), so I've made this discussion to cover that.

Again, this does not pass WP:GNG because while there are plenty of sources on the article, none of them are significant coverage about this character as an independent and notable entity away from the comics and TV show. Not to mention some of the references Tintor2 dredged up probably do not qualify as reliable sources (Fandom Post and Mangashelf mainly). Everything's reviews of individual episodes or chapters or the show as a whole and Tintor2 has picked the handful of information about Eren to spin this article into how it looks now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources do treat the character as an independent and notable entity. There are sources from outside the series too. I'm surprised you even doubt Fandom Post as a reliable source when there was an entire discussion in the project to treat it as a reliable source.Tintor2 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lot of grandstanding here for a character that has a fair amount of specific comments on the character design, modeling and an interview from the English voice actor - as a starting point for the article. I'm not saying we've exhausted all sources or that this article is as good as it is going to get, but the List of Attack on Titan characters basically recounts the story events and cannot support detailed creation and development and reception of the character. I do not value the Fandom Post or Mangashelf as the best resources, but they are certainly reliable for whose opinions they cite. There is a difference between that and Susan J. Napier's work and Dani Cavallaro, but reviews like that of Jason Morehead include notes that gives insightful criticism, examples and parallels notable protagonists. The article is not bad considering this is from an English-only take on a Japanese program and no one happens to have the artbooks or other materials translated or in their possession to do so. All this strong opposition results in stifling development of articles and ruining the work of others because Ryulong does not value the work or medium enough to simply let something exist. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all of like two sentences in the whole of the article that you're talking about. The character modeling is mentioned in the character list. And this is all just English fandom magnification rather than proper notability. A bunch of reviews of the whole of the anime in which there are mentions of this particular character is not significant coverage per WP:GNG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have reviewed the character himself, and there are references for information on his development, etc. Clearly passes the WP:GNG. Enough valid information to fill an article. Dream Focus 16:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 16:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to see more independent notability of the character. Regarding the polls paragraph in the Reception, only polls from outside the series should be considered, such as Newtype. The AnimeOne is a user-generated poll of only Attack on Titan characters, and the Guidebook is also Attack on Titan exclusive, so those do not demonstrate notability of the character outside of the series.(fixed in article) Reception should be filtered down to the critic’s analysis of the character, such as the “likable protagonist” and the “brash and opinionated shonen hero”. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC), updated 00:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article contains multiple, reliable, third-party sources that provide critical commentary on the character and establish notability. I would also dispute the claim that none of these sources cover the character as an independent entity. For example, the interview with the English voice actor [10]. Artichoker^[talk] 17:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So that's one about just the character (or rather his dub voice artist) out of the dozens of others that are just about the TV show and mention the character as part of it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just wanted to say that even though I haven't yet supported either side of this debate, the new rework of the article in question done by Tintor2 is great. He has put some good work into this article and I think it is a vast improvement over the previous incarnation, even though it is still far from perfect and in dire need of some improved sources. Chambr (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For some reason the nominator added the notability tag even though the article has as much reception as Naruto Uzumaki or Goku. As a result, I reverted it.Tintor2 (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why am I not allowed to do that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because six people in this AFD said it was notable, and no one has agreed with you that it isn't. Every single article tagged for deletion is done so because someone questions its notability, so never a need for redundant tags. Dream Focus 07:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't think the article in question has any problem with notability. Chambr (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has a creation and conception section which is key to establishing the character's notability outside of the in-universe world. The article does need more sources but I feel that this does pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough creation and outside reception for existence. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my above comment and also after thought, I do support keeping this article. Even though it was not much of an article at first, some editors have done a great job improving it. There is no real reason to delete this article. I really think it looks like a consensus is beginning to form on this. Chambr (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per all of the above; this is one user trying to settle a personal feud by attrition by getting the article deleted on a technicality–not gonna happen. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about WP:ABF.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There was a time the article didn't really have much foundation in reliable coverage. Right now, it could still use more sources, but there's just enough so that it passes WP:GNG. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:51, 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 delete. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 02:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Franklin[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting GNG or meeting WP:PROF despite searches, long-standing tags, or talkpage calls for evidence of notability. Barcaboy2 (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (from nominator). The page is really just a repeat of Franklin's websites about herself. I searched, but couldn't find any evidence of notability (except for a single article which said things she's said were wrong). There was discussion on the talkpage, but no one presented evidence of notability. The page has been tagged, didn't yield any other sources either. I prod'ed the article, and no sources came forth from that either. After the 7-day period, however, BearIan deleted the PROD and said it should be brought here instead. Barcaboy2 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Franklin has written that", "She wrote that", "One of Franklin's arguments against..." almost all with refs to her writings, well the last one to a Blanchard. I tend to believe that Barcaboy2 is right. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some of the calimed references to her work may actually be citing her work, but they do not ever name her as their source. She is not getting the notice to pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Don't think the nominator or other evaluators did any serious homework here, although in their defense, the previous article (now fixed) was largely based on WP:PRIMARY sources such as KF's own website, plus linking to her specific papers, which is ill-advised in WP:BLP-type articles, discussing her work (sourcing it to Franklin's own research -- which is really WP:OR. Now the article is better. She was quoted in the NY Times, described in Psychology Today as an expert, was interviewed at length on All Things Considered, described as an award winning researcher in The Guardian, was interviewed on Frontline, to name a few sources. Plus she won three prestigious awards in her field. Strong keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am a bit concerned by Tomwsulcer’s comments above and changes to the Karen Franklin page.

First, I will thank him not to declare that I (and everyone but himself) failed to do anything. Whatever point can be made on its own merits without insulting everyone who disagrees.

Second, the changes Tomwsulcer made to the page seem to wildly misrepresent the content of the sources. For example, the source I myself added about Franklin (before realizing that that was all there was) said:

In The Errors of Karen Franklin's Pretextuality, published in the same journal, paraphilia expert James Cantor responded, “Franklin’s claims that hebephilia is not widely recognized—or not widely investigated, or not widely cited—are simply a series of easily revealed falsehoods about the state of the peer-reviewed literature.” He provided lists of counter-evidence to Franklin’s assertions, saying her article was “A series of easily falsified mischaracterizations of the content and status of the science of hebephilia, a series of vague insinuations unrelated to the findings, and a misrepresentation of the operation of the masked peer review system, serving to evoke rhetorical sympathy from any readers unaware of how such systems operate”. According to the journal’s editor, Franklin was invited to submit a rebuttal, but declined.

Tomwsulcer deleted that content and instead uses that source to say that Franklin “researches hebephilia” even though the source actually says she's entirely wrong about it. (!) Similarly, Tomwsulcer retained the very fancy sounding name of awards, but removed that they are from state/local organizations (not “national or international level” as required by the professor test) or activist organizations (not a “scholarly society or association” as required by the professor test). Etc.

So, I have to come back to re-asking the question that started me on all this on that article’s talkpage: What exactly passes the professor test? I agree entirely with including whatever relevant information on whatever relevant pages, but none of the sources containing quotes from Franklin are actually about Franklin...except for the sources that showed what Franklin has said was wrong! Barcaboy2 (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the earlier article was problematic, as you rightly noted, with "references" to KF's own website, to her publications, and other dubious additions. True, there was a dispute about hebephilia between Franklin and another expert, but from my experience, Wikipedia is often best served by not getting into debates about whether Franklin's or Cantor's view is correct (since we're unqualified really to do this) which is why I trimmed it; however, that said, if you would like to restore the reference about Franklin's thesis being questioned as being wrong, I think that would be fine provided we don't get entangled in choosing one or the other as per WP:NEUTRAL (since we really can't know this). I think the article is best being short, and sticking to the subject, which is KF -- who is she, is she notable, why, and so forth, which is why I made what I consider to be improvements as per WP:HEYMANN. About notability: when a nationally syndicated show such as the critically acclaimed Frontline selects Franklin as an expert on anti-gay hate crimes and posts an in-depth interview with Franklin here, this and other nontrivial in-depth sources, plus the awards, meet the general notability guideline. Franklin's notability is not bound by the more restrictive professor test, but even then, some of her research articles have been widely cited, such as this one and this one, so my sense is she passes the professor test too. The comment none of the sources containing quotes from Franklin are actually about Franklin (in post, above) I do not understand; all the references are about Franklin's work as an expert, forensic psychologist, which clearly meets the GNG. As everybody knows, we're not deleting a specific article, but the issue is whether the subject of the article is notable, and clearly in this case, it is, and it seemed to me that the previous "delete" votes were not based on any independent research, but were reactions to the earlier sloppy article, and it does not seem fair to me to delete a subject because of past problems with the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before showing the mistakes in Tom's individual premises, I need to make sure I am correctly understanding his over-arching mistake:

(1) The Franklin page (as Tom has re-written it), consists of six sentences. Every single one of them refers to research or university teaching (“Franklin is an American researcher…”, “Her published research examined…”, “She researches issues such as…”, and so on).

(2) WP:PROF is for “someone engaged in scholarly research" and “being known for such engagement”.

But WP:PROF is not the relevant guideline, according to Tom?

I certainly appreciate that one can still be notable for non-academic achievements, but what non-academic achievement(s) are those? Every achievement cited is research-based, and none meets the threshold for research achievements.

If PROF were just a higher level of GNG, as Tom is interpreting it, then PROF would have no purpose at all: Everyone meeting PROF would already be meeting GNG. What am I missing? Barcaboy2 (talk) 15:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the guidelines:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars ... are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.
— Source: see nutshell WP:ACADEMIC

This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines.
— Source:see paragraph five of WP:ACADEMIC

Franklin meets the WP:GNG and WP:BIO so whether or not she meets WP:ACADEMIC is irrelevant, even though I think she meets that one in addition because her research is widely cited. That she is notable for research, as well as being an expert in the field of forensic psychology, does not bind her into an academic-only prof test that must be met, since she passes the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Really? More with the condescension? I did indeed ‘check out the guidelines’. I’m simply pointing out that your interpretation of them is illogical. (As I said, your interpretation of PROF would make PROF entirely unnecessary.)

2. BIO and GNG would render Franklin notable “if he or she has received significant coverage”. However, the sources (other Franklin’s own websites) provide only very tangential mention. For example, the NYTimes article was entirely about Matthew Sheppard and homophobia on college campuses. The (only very passing) mention of Franklin was: “homophobia was not restricted to college towns in the Rocky Mountain West,” followed by four examples, one of which was a survey by Franklin, described in these 58 words:

In a separate study of nearly 500 community college students in the San Francisco area, 32 percent of male respondents said they had verbally threatened homosexuals and 18 percent said they had physically threatened or assaulted them. The study was conducted this year by Karen Franklin, a forensic psychologist who is a researcher at the University of Washington.

Not what one would meaningfully call “significant coverage” of Franklin herself. From GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail.” The 12 words “a forensic psychologist who is a researcher at the University of Washington” can hardly be said to fit any reasonable interpretation of “in detail.”

Indeed, two of the other three surveys described in the NYTimes article were conducted by the college students themselves (never named), showing also that the relevant achievement (a survey no more complicated than what undergraduates could produce) is not evidence of being “influential in the world of ideas”. The NYTimes article would still have been entirely complete had it provided only three examples or if it opted not to name Franklin at all. Barcaboy2 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barcaboy2, if you put this article up for deletion, expect to be challenged. It is the adversarial process. It is how Wikipedia works. Others may criticize your choice and your take on the rules. Don't take it personally (eg "condescending"). Part of the rough-and-tumble here at Wikipedia. The encyclopedia improves when we all verbally wrestle about this stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the New York Times considers Franklin an expert on this topic helps confirm notability, but many other sources point to her expertise, such as this one, and when Frontline considers her enough of an expert that it devotes an entire interview broadcast nationally. What's interesting is not Franklin herself in the same way that Obama (for most of us) is not interesting in himself, but what is notable is her views, what she says, what she does, that sort of thing. Main thing: she's an expert on anti-gay violence and related subject.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ delete. GS h-index of 9 not yet up to scratch for WP:Prof#C1 in well cited area. Not widely cited. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Regarding whether or not hebephilia is widely recognized or is a psychopathological matter (issues addressed in the Hebephilia article), one source in which Cantor is credited states, "The term hebephilia has been proposed to denote the erotic preference for pubescent children (roughly, ages 11 or 12–14), but it has not become widely used" and "hebephilia, erotic interest which centers on pubescents, has not come into widespread use, even among professionals who work with sex offenders, and may have been confused with the term ephebophilia, which denotes men who prefer adolescents around 15–19 years of age... ...few would want to label erotic interest in late—or even mid—adolescents as a psychopathology, so the term hebephilia may have been ignored along with ephebophilia." So I take it that this is what Franklin means by stating "hebephilia is not widely recognized—or not widely investigated, or not widely cited." I've worked with James Cantor on Wikipedia, and, years ago, he provided me with the "hebephilia, erotic interest which centers on pubescents, has not come into widespread use" quote, so I don't entirely understand his rebuttal to Franklin on the widespread use matter, except that it seems that he feels that hebephilia has been recognized in medical literature for many years...usually without the term hebephilia being used. I'm not sure, going by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, about how to vote on whether or not to keep the Karen Franklin Wikipedia article. I rarely vote "delete" anyway. But I do know that Cantor and Franklin are not fond of each other's views and that Cantor has a WP:Conflict of interest regarding her, which is perhaps why he has not yet weighed in on this deletion debate, other than being busy with non-Wikipedia matters. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Flyer is correct: I am in a real-world conflict of interest on this one, so the decision would be better made without me. That said, I am a bit surprised that my response and correction of Franklin's factual errors are being proposed by Tomwsulcer as support for her notability. I wrote the article because it was appropriate for me to defend myself against her claims, not because I thought her ideas were significant in and of themselves.

— James Cantor (talk) 03:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Mr. Cantor, but indeed you felt Franklin's views were "significant in and of themselves" since you felt obliged to refute them in a journal article which names Franklin in the article title. If Franklin was not notable, or her views were unworthy, then you would have ignored them. You would have written nothing. Wikipedians such as myself are not qualified to establish whether your views or Franklin's are right. Still, your refutation of Franklin's views helps confirm notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If anyone is interested, I am happy to address the errors in Sulcer's thinking (and psychic abilities) on my talkpage; but, as I said, the deletion discussion itself is better had without me.— James Cantor (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed the Prod because of my concerns that the article's deletion without debate would be highly controversial. Why would somebody write an article, which would only publicize the subject's views? In any case, this might be a TOOSOON situation. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is centered around academic accomplishments but the citation record is a bit slim for WP:PROF#C1. We have no evidence of passing other criteria of WP:PROF, nor sufficiently in-depth mainstream media about the subject that would pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 31 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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 02:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sólo lo Mejor 20 Éxitos[edit]

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

Some sort of (fake) disambiguation page about a series of red-linked non-notable compilations, none of them apparently deserving an article. Blatant nonsense as a dab page, no claim of notability if it is intended as an article about the series. Cavarrone 12:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the album has gone then no need for dab - I'm assuming this isn't coincidence with the non-discussed sudden deletion 21:00, 30 June 2014 User:Ronhjones (talk | contribs) deleted page Sólo lo Mejor 20 Éxitos (Mijares album) (Expired PROD, concern was: unsourced article about NN compilation album, fails WP:NALBUMS) ... User:Cavarrone that album had been sitting there quite happily for how many many years until it was removed without discussion? You didn't object to the album until it had been disambiguated and an artist name added. What is the logic of that? As far as sources, Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office 2002 ".. SPANISH PHRASE "SOLO LO MEJOR 20 EXITOS" MEANS "ONLY THE BEST 20 HITS" IN ENGLISH. FOR SERIES OF MUSICAL SOUND RECORDINGS (U.S. CLS. 21, 23, 26, 36 AND 38). FIRST USE 6-0-2001; IN COMMERCE 6-0-2001." etc. but it wasn't intended for sources because it is a dab page. If you and the creator of that article have had a discussion and decided to delete the album that was hogging that title, fine. I don't particularly care if that one title-hogging album is gone to delete the list of the rest. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In ictu oculi, have you ever heard about WP:NOTABILITY? If you have valid sources that support an article about the compilation series which goes beyond a list of artists/titles, then provide them and I will be very happy to withdrawn the nomination. If you have sources that support the notability of Sólo lo Mejor 20 Éxitos (Mijares album), then provide them and ask for the restoration of the article. But the source you cited above is a primary source and it clearly doesn't constitute significant coverage. So please try again. Cavarrone 15:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, If the album has gone then no need for dab, if you and the creator of that article have had a discussion and decided to delete the album that was hogging that title, fine. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for record, I had no discussion with the creator of that article, nor we "suddendly decided" that deletion. Look at the log, it was deleted through a regular, public 10-days-prod/procedure. Cavarrone 20:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article or delete The only future for this title is an article about the series, while none of the individual ones are likely to be notable. No article, then delete it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:23, 31 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 07:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Hitler[edit]

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

This article has received just fifteen edits since it was created more than two years ago and it is currently two sentences long. Over the last twelve months, prior to this proposal, it has received just one single edit. In the more than two years since it was created, it has become pretty obvious that this documentary is not noteworthy enough to receive any attention whatsoever. Any claims about the subject's health can be put into the article on that person, with a reference to this documentary thrown in, if appropriate. However, citing the original source would probably be better for the main article, regardless. In short, there's just nothing to write about. Gohst (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relies entirely on primary source (the film itself). No secondary source shows this work had any impact at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Recollected (talk) 01:53, 27 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. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 02:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exam Invigilator[edit]

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

Not convinced of notability. Most sources are job descriptions or how-to's. The Banner talk 12:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What should I do to improve this article? I am new to Wikipedia and is still not clear about placing references or in - text citations. Could anyone help please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephine Roy (talk • contribs) 13:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improve The term is in popular usage in India. Try improving the article._SOLA_TIDO 13:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
- In the Netherlands and Ireland it is not even a job, but an extra task for faculty. The Banner talk 10:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 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 01:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some job descriptions, e.g. Chief executive officer, are worthy of articles. This isn't one of them. Monitoring exams for cheating does not a career make. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 11#Sub Assistant Community Medical Officer.) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 19 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) 09:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sure it is not a career but it is a distinctive and notable function. The article needs a whole load of work but there are more than sufficient sources available, some of which are in the article, to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the comments above seem to make "give a dog a bad name and beat him for it" - Exam Invigilator is clearly not a profession or a career. Mostly, it's a role that university or high school teachers or graduate students take on for a few hours a year. That said, it's not a trivial role nor is it intrinsically part of a teacher's regular job, like marking exam papers. Also, the article meets the basic principles of WP:GNG - the subject has plenty of verifiable secondary sources, it's not temporary or transient, and none of the subject-specific guidelines seem to provide a reason to AFD it. Furthermore, merging it into Test (assessment) doesn't seems sensible as the latter article seems to violate WP:SIZE already. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, but it has enough 3rd party sources to be notable. Frmorrison (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 02:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pere Di Elbreil[edit]

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

He appears to have been a good, hard-working missionary, but not sufficiently out of the ordinary as to merit an article. His disciple, S.V.S. Rathinam has already been nominated for Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found to meet WP:BIO I had no luck. A passing mention in a study guide may be based on WP, everything else I saw surely was. Non-English sources might be key here. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- 10,000 bpatisms, if correct, strikes me as quite notable; and all in 15 years. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 19 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) 09:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 10,000 baptisms may (or may not) be impressive if actually verifiable. Unfortunately the references are either broken links or copies of the subject's own writings. Unfortunately, this article has been widely copied by other wiki-wannabes and researching for this person results in many copies of this same article.--Rpclod (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR ‑Scottywong | spout _ 02:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yu Liu[edit]

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

Does not pass the GNG, virtually all sources are local to Niagara. Does not appear to pass any of the guidelines for notability for academics. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The creator of this article seems to suggest on their talk page that Guggenheim Fellows meet the major award criteria for academics. Considering that there are several hundred Guggenheim fellowships granted annually, I am not sure we want to accept that view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I wish we had consensus on this Guggenheim thing. That, and two citations in a Niagara newspaper... I'm not sure but I think he just barely passes. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be explicitly noted that a Guggenheim fellowship is indeed mentioned as a criteria in WP:PROF. However, apart from his two books being held by low three-digit numbers of libraries each, I can find little additional information about this community college prof. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm afraid that us community college teachers get no ~~respect~~ automatic notability here. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 13:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentatively delete I can't find anything about him. Does he have a Chinese name?--180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:28, 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imperia Online[edit]

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

Can't find any reliable sources that talk about it, so it's not notable Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Searching the RS engine, this source comes up. It's odd there's so little coverage when they claim to have 20 million registered users, and 500 thousand players each day. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: after some search I found this source:

Dube, Ryan (4 May 2014). "Be The King Of The World With Imperia Online". MakeUseOf. Retrieved 11 July 2014.

Together with a source found by Blake this one makes the game pass WP:GNG, albeit barely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that makeuseof counts as a reliable source - it's an admitted blog site while Ryan Dube is referenced as a freelance writer whose main claim to fame appears to be as a contributor to this fringe theory website. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This collective blog appears to have editorial oversight – Ryan Dube is not publishing articles, editors does so. So this collective blog passes duck test for WP:IRS. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:55, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why isn't there an article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia if it's so well-known? And the host site is a dead link? Philg88 ^♦talk 15:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bulgarian Wikipedia is very small. They don't have articles for much more notable games (eg. for Warcraft II or Dungeon Keeper), so this fact does not mean anything at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:55, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While the article topic has nothing but passing mentions in a video game reliable sources search (mainly as the developer of several small games) and while the only current ref that would count as a RS is the Bulgarian paper, my intuition is that it squeaks by the GNG. The two articles mentioned here and the probability of more sourcing existing in non-English sources is greater than my doubts otherwise. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 17:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a Bulgarian Wikipedia page of the game now, I've added a few more sources, categories and linked it from a few pages, so that it's not an orphan.--Justtryanother (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two images were added yesterday as well. --Justtryanother (talk) 09:02, 25 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) 09:36, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of the Netherlands[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) 00:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-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) 01:13, 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. Not Italy, but has Rembrandt . Edison (talk) 01:53, 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 M.C. Escher, Pieter Hooft, and the Friesian Holstein. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think an overall decision should be made whether this kind of lists are desirable, personally, I am not convinced. Many sources will be contradictory, I expect. The present list here is incredible, couldn't believe my eyes when I was going through it. I mean, Roosendaal, a "cultural icon"? The prime minister??? Jan Peter Balkenende??? If kept, 90% of this list should be nuked. The monarchy may be part of Dutch culture (albeit a recent addition, given its republican history), but the current king or his aunt certainly are not. One of the worst examples of idiosyncratic listcruft that I have seen in a long time. --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 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. Edison (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not "some"... I hardly see entries that are not dubious... --Randykitty (talk) 09:41, 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) 01:31, 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 – Encyclopedic article with valid sourcing. No reason to delete. United States Man (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite claims to the contrary, I don't see any reliable sources. Current list is completely idiosyncratic and haphazard and probably cannot ever be anything else either. --Randykitty (talk) 20:52, 25 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) 09:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was a lengthy debate on this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of England: the nomination included several similar articles, including this one. The consensus seemed to be that the topic was notable, but that the article were only viable if strict inclusion criteria were set. As it stands, this article has some very dubious entries (Douwe Egberts coffee?? Han van Meegeren???!?).TheLongTone (talk) 20:41, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Wales[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) 00:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-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) 01:11, 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 Stereophonics, Ospreys rugby, and the Government of Wales Act of 1998. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:46, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Back in my day, there used to be these international relations articles (like this one) that everybody was gung-ho about deleting. It seems that a similar phenomena is in play here. What the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Poland AFD shows us is that there is no consensus on these articles. It seems to me that rather than listing all these cultural icon articles for deletion, it would be more pertinent to have a WP:RFC over this issue or maybe a discussion could be opened up in a applicable wikiproject? Seems counterproductive to have all these articles listed, with the end result being more than likely "no consensus". Just my 2 cents. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Several others like this have been kept. No reason to delete this one. United States Man (talk) 20:29, 25 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) 09:34, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Big icon[edit]

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

Article created by User talk:Vinaygurung2 who has now been banned for what was essentially a WP:IDHT approach to his dauntless writing of articles on unref'd, non-notable local subjects that were invariably speedied. This article on a radio programme escaped such a fate by making some claim to notability but nothing has been found to establish the necessary. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable; program of local media (Big FM is only a local media broadcasted only in Pokhara) — Ascii002 ^{Let's talk!} ^{^Contribs} 04:34, 19 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) 09:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One "reference" is merely a link to another Wikipedia article that does not support this article. The other is just an online advertisement. There does not appear to be any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:07, 27 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 Consensus is that the individual is not sufficiently notable, and with only a single source used, there's no way to confirm other possible options for notability.. Consensus is that the individual is not sufficiently notable, and with only a single source used, there's no way to confirm other possible options for notability. the panda ₯’ 19:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lyman G. Bennett[edit]

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

Fails WP:MILPEOPLE. Seemed to be an otherwise non-notable cartographer. One biographical article was found online, and it was used to write this article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep] - I would highly disagree if this article was removed. Since this tag was placed, I have added additional information, and a photograph of the Major to Lyman G. Bennett, so as to keep him from being what has been called "non-notable". A 283 page book entitled Powder River Odyssey: Nelson Cole's Western Campaign of 1865, The Journals of Lyman G. Bennett and Other Eyewitness Accounts by David E. Wagner (2009) was written almost entirely from the 1865 journal's of Bennett. Major Bennett was the chief engineering officer of the Powder River Expedition, in 1865, and over 2,000 soldiers depended on his experience to build roads and bridges to travel by and transport over 150 wagons during the expedition. He also mapped the route of the column, with the fact that some of the land he mapped had never been mapped before, so is he still a "non-notable cartographer". Lyman G. Bennett also wrote the first hand written account describing Terrett Butte, a prominent land form in Powder River County, Montana on September 12, 1865. I believe that the deletion tag should be removed. Powder River 1876 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Non-standard layout put to form by me. Carrite (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only criteria from WP:MILPEOPLE which comes close may be #5; that he "played an important role in a significant military event". I'm just not sure how important being the cartographer is (or how "big" the Powder River Expedition was) Magnolia677 (talk) 03:03, 26 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) 09:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I originally closed but the nom was unhappy so to keep him/her happy I've relisted.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete and userfy. I tend to support keeping historical articles like this, but this seems to be based almost entirely on the Wagner (2009). The publisher is reliable (Arthur H. Clark Company) but the one source is a major problem. I'd suggest this is userfied why the author tries to address this issue in light of the WP:BIO policy. Putting it differently: outside Wagner (2009), who else has written about Bennett? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Failure of WP:MILPEOPLE is not a valid reason for deletion. Famous military people (who meet WP:MILPEOPLE) tend to be notable but notability has nothing to do with fame. However, this biography relies entirely on a single source and I can't find any more. Generally we need multiple sources to write a reasonably balanced article. Delete, then move it to user page.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:09, 27 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 (this and all the pages on specific books), advertising for article creator's selfpublished books. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Xenton Chronicles[edit]

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

Proded as non-notable: tag removed by page creator, whose name gives reason to believe may be author. Article is all plot summary, and cannot find any reliable sources to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Articles does not contain all plot. Editors are currently working on the article with more detail, pictures and some insight as to what The Xenton Chronicles is and how it pertains to mainstream media. The sources are legitimate and can found all over the internet. Please be patient as we are doing our best to make sure the article meets wikipedia's terms and policy's — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcalloway2006 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, its not all plot summary. There are painfully long and apallingly written character descriptions as well. The sources are totally inadequate.TheLongTone (talk) 16:09, 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. Deor (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patch of Land[edit]

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

Non-notable real estate crowdfunding start-up which comprehensively fails both the inclusion criteria for companies and the general notability criteria. Founded less than a year ago (October 2013), it claims to have raised $3 million (a pittance in terms of real-estate investment). The sources are [1] a quote from its founder in a trade publication; [2] name simply appears in a list of such companies in a Forbes blog; [3] name simply appears in a list of such companies in a Wall Street Journal article (link leads to a pay wall, but article can be accessed in full via a Google search); [4] and [5] obvious press-release based "articles" in a trade publication. I can find nothing better.

Background This is the third time this article has been created and re-created in the last three days [11]. It was first created by an editor who has stated that she is affiliated with the company: "I am having a hard time understanding why we got deleted, since some of our competitors Fundrise and American Homeowner Preservation both have articles on Wikipedia" (my bolding). It was speedy deleted per WP:A7 (no credible claim to significance). Interestingly, it was then re-created by User:American Homeowner Preservation (now blocked) who has the same name as one of Patch of Land's competitors, American Homeowner Preservation. It was speedily deleted per WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). It has now been created once again by the original editor. Note that User:American Homeowner Preservation also created Real estate crowdfunding. The text in that article is so short, it could easily be merged into Crowdfunding. The article is basically a list of over 50 real estate crowdfunding platforms/companies . Search engine optimization? – Voceditenore (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If everything in the micro-stub of an article is assumed to be true, it only supports regional interest at some level. The bulk of information about the company seems to come from a promotional publication, Times Realty News (TRN), which is not a neutral source. That also nixes Forbes, because they made trivial mention of Patch of Land as one of "the other 15 players in this emerging industry," and they list their source for that trivia as TRN. Real Estate Weekly (REW) gives them good coverage, and IMO looks like a RS, but it is a local publication for the Tri State Area. I cannot access the WSJ article, so maybe that plus REW would be reliable sources if the WSJ article gives them more than a trivial mention. But what is the claim of significance? That they have "completed projects" in four states? I have "completed projects" in six states and eight countries, and that is not significant. If they mean they gave home loans to customers in four states, that hardly seems significant to me for an American company that exists to make home loans. I think WP:A7 still applies. In any case, a financial investment organization that has just "beat the $3 million mark" seems like a very small player, and not notable on its own merits, regardless of whether their competition got their own WP article. Dcs002 (talk) 09:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dcs002, if you Google "Real Estate Sector Moves Crowdfunding Beyond the Trinkets" and click on the Google link, for some reason the whole WSJ article appears, at least in the UK. The sum total of the company's mention in that article (which centers on a California retiree who invests in real estate via crowdfunding sites) is:

"Since February, he has invested about $1.2 million in real estate through seven different platforms including Innovational Funding LLC's iFunding, RealCrowd Inc., Realty Mogul Co., Patch of Land Inc. and Fundrise LLC, placing bets that range from $10,000 to $105,000."

Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty trivial reference then. Notability is missing, and definitely COI. Dcs002 (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously a SEO/COI operation. If there were anything notable about this company they would have added it by now, so I'm not even going to bother doing my homework. I've already redirected Real estate crowdfunding and I'm looking at some of the other crud. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 09:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borderline promotional and certainly not notable. Deb (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and as Deb said, can find traces of WP:PROMO. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same article was submitted to Articles for Creation at User:Karenchik123/Patch_of_Land with no improvement. Declined submission as 'exists'. Revent^talk 17:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuya Maou[edit]

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

Non-notable anime character —teb728 t c 07:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11 (Promotion) and ~~A11 (Obviously invented)~~ WP:G3 (A blatant hoax). The only thing I could find were two facebook pages and a twitter account. [12], [13], [14]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G3. A rather obvious and blatant hoax. —Farix (t | c) 20:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It is a hoax with lots of non-encyclopedic writing, potentially harmful. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 23:42, 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. Davewild (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Youth Football League[edit]

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

An uncited page since February 2007. No obvious notability. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NSOCCER (I can't actually tell which sport it is). NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable local boys American football league. Fails the specific notability guideline for organizations (and teams) per WP:NORG, and the general notability guidelines for lack of in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding coverage in reliable sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:55, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sio-Iong Ao[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Engineeringletters.com (as listed in the ref) is ranked at #4,902,405 on Alexa, showing it's not reliable at all. Other references (mainly theses) cannot be the sole evidences proving the notability of this person, and the links to some university websites look not satisfying. I tried to search around the web but no Chinese and English news reports or third-party introductions were found. Note: I've also started a deletion proposal in the Chinese Wikipedia out of the above reasons. It would be great if you can provide any reliable info directly showing "Sio-Iong Ao" is worth to be included in an Encyclopedia. Thanks. Kou Do u 11:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kou Do u 11:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Kou Do u 11:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 180.172.239.231 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 180.172.239.231 (talk) 13:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article and references suggest a scientist who has written a few scientific articles, developed some code and owns a business or two on the side. Nothing notable.--Rpclod (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:BASIC.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article focuses primarily on his academic rather than business accomplishments but notability under WP:PROF is not evident, and the article also does not present sources that could show notability as a businessman. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:33, 27 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. Relisted twice, with no one advocating keeping the article. Deor (talk) 11:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2paragraphs[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is a public policy research organization (not a RS, author writes for 2paragraphs, not independent), a blog and their own site. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 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, Davewild (talk) 17:26, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Research indicates that, while 2paragraphs does generate content, there is not much written about 2paragraphs. Hence, I don't think that 2paragraphs itself is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 01:19, 27 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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 02:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic pitch turbine[edit]

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

Can find no reliable sources for this device, but do find an attempt to sell the patent. Spam. Non-notable. TransporterMan (TALK) 14:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom Gbawden (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam from a WP:SPA. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abduhamidullo Rasulov[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG now, and probably never will. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 05:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 06:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Being an assistant referee is not good enough in my book for NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of GNG, no consensus that assistant referees at a world cup are inherently notable. Fenix down (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:17, 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. The sources provided by the keep voters are not convincing evidence of notability. Consensus is that this is a non-notable organization. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 02:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York Wrestling Connection[edit]

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

Advert for non notable professional wrestling promotion. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small local promotion (in facility with ~300 seating). Also including the leagues championships

NYWC Starlet Championship

NYWC Hi-Fi Championship

NYWC Interstate Championship

NYWC Fusion Championship

NYWC Tag Team Championship

NYWC Heavyweight Championship

All dependent on the main article. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 05:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of professional wrestling-related deletion discussions. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 11:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The promotion is covered by various reliable sources, like PWInsider or PWTorch. Maybe, the problem with the article is the lack of sources --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But PWInsider is not a reliable source. [15]. And where is the significant coverage on PWTorch? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Minor local group - at the very least the sub-pages should be merged into the main.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All I'll give you the advertising tone. However, it has the reliable sources. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 10:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main article, merge rest. Article receives enough coverage from the five WP:PW approved online reliable secondary sources. See this and this. As HHH Pedrigree has said, the main thing is to merge the sources into the article. starship.paint ~ regal 02:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main, merge rest. Not really a wrestling fan, but my search found enough sources for NYWC to support a GNG claim. Someone should add them to the article, but that's not an AFD issue. The rest of the articles should be merged (or deleted) because the only source for them is the NYWC itself.Mdtemp (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question for many of the above people. What are the sources you have found? Just saying there is sources is not enough, what are the sources. And WP:GOOGLEHITS is also not. Looking at some of the results from the google searches I'm not seeing any depth of coverage, just routine announcements. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sources are found for verifiability and suggesting notability. As it stands, this reads more like an ad for the venue than an ad for the promotion. But yeah, it's like that to an extent, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I found no significant independent coverage for the main article and the only source for the other articles (on the various titles) is the organization itself.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep main, merge the rest. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all My search didn't find significant independent coverage of the NYWC. Everything I found was either not from an independent reliable source or consisted of routine announcements of results or upcoming fights. I notice that none of those voting to keep the article have given links to any sources nor have any new sources been added to the article. If the main article is kept, the remaining articles should be merged into it since they lack independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a lot of google hits, but I don't see significant coverage.Jakejr (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rigi (software)[edit]

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

I have no idea what this article is supposed to be about or why-it miserably fails GNG and is nonsensical. In short, it has no place being here. KonveyorBelt 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability from secondary sources. And with the lack of development the only real place for this I think is in a list of similar software rather than on its own, I think this could be done even without additional citations being found. Dmcq (talk) 08:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reasons I gave above for deletion have been properly fixed. A merge somewhere might still be done in the future but it doesn't need to be considered within this AfD. Dmcq (talk) 07:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide a bit of background, the article/page was initially about a so-called "Mullergraph" [16]. After I WP:PRODed that, another user thought he found some references about it, but it turned out that these 3 refs were not talking about the same thing as the prose in the wiki "Mullergraph" article. So I've deleted the "Mullergraph" bits, which is to say all of the original and unsourced (and probably unsourceable content) and moved the page to its present title. I'm not really sure if the Rigi software or the methods it uses is notable or not. The sources are obviously WP:PRIMARY. The 1990 (technique) paper has some 60 citations in Google Scholar, which isn't a whole lot, but it's not absolutely obscure either. ~~I guess I'm neutral on deleting the Rigi bits.~~ (see below for update 2). ¶ The technique that the 1996 paper is talking about, called SHriMP views — Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL — was added to Rigi a bit later on and was initially was introduced in another system called (ahem) SHriMP [17], which Muller did not co-author. It does seem that SHriMP was incorporated in a few more bits of (academic) software, by other people, according to this review by Lemieux and Salois, which isn't however terribly clear who made the other software using SHriMP. But the current page doesn't talk at all about SHriMP, so it' okay to delete it even if SHriMP is notable. A redirect could be created later if someone were to write an actual article about SHriMP, as Rigi seems to be one of the tools to implement that (albeit not originally). From what I gather from the SHriMP paper, the methods used in SHriMP were inspired by the original Rigi, but they also improved upon it, so eventually SHriMP (as a techinique) was backported to Rigi, and this is what the joint 1996 paper [last citation in the wiki page] is talking about. The SHriMP views paper (not by Muller) has some 80 citations, so again not incredibly notable. I guess both qualify as run-of-the-WP:MILL academic projects. Probably stuff worth mentioning at software visualization because the review of Lemieux and Salois mentions them, but doubtful as stand-alone pages, unless more independent sources are found. Update: the book of Diehl covers SHriMP in its Creole implementation (this an Eclipse plug-in) on a few pages (a lot which is taken by big screenshots) pp. 67-71 [18]. I also found a couple of paragraphs in another book about Jambalaya [19], which is a Protégé plug-in doing SHriMP for OWL stuff. So I suppose one could write a page about SHriMP in accordance with WP:N. JMP EAX (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have edited the article so that it now at least mentions the software and says what it is. I have also added two references to the literature. The Rigi research group has a page listing some dozen conference papers and similar. Are these enough to establish notability? Deltahedron (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google Books search for rigi software reverse engineering produces a first page of text books and conference proceedings, mainly independent of the software authors, giving reasonable coverage and commentary on the software in question, already enough for notability. Deltahedron (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2: Weak keep. I think that a lot of the citations are in passing (as academic citations normally are), but there are some papers devoted to integrating Rigi in projects of other authors, so these show a non-trivial level of third-party interest. These papers also contain a more extensive summary of what Rigi is/does. Specifically, I'm talking about doi:10.1007/3-540-45875-1_11 (free here) and doi:10.1109/CSMR.2004.1281409. I'm not giving much weight in my assessment to books like [20] or [21], which also have half-page blurbs about Rigi, because they are low-quality (academic shovelware) sources in my opinion, even though they nominally count for WP:N as well. There also doi:10.1109/WCRE.1997.624571 which assesses Rigi in comparison with Refine/C, Imagix 4D, and SNiFF+, but the info there is a bit dated, so not really citable in the article (e.g. paper said Rigi was unstable). Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imagix 4D, since I've found that. JMP EAX (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was correctly pointed to me that one of the authors of the CSMR.2004 paper (K. Wong) is also a co-author on an older Rigi paper (with Muller), so the CSMR.2004 paper can't be considered entirely independent. JMP EAX (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was sort of called out on the carpet for failing to notice some little details like the difference between graphing machines and graphing software components... (though don't sites like Wikipedia run different components on different machines?) In any case, I left the article in a really confused condition and I'd like to thank JMP EAX and Deltahedron for straightening it out. My feeling is that when a free, well-published software tool exists we'd be fools not to keep an article about it. The GNG is met. Wnt (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly meets the standards for notability after the current improvements. Jacona (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the references are written by the creators of the software but there are enough independent citations to satisfy notability requirements. ~KvnG 14:07, 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. Michig (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St Matthew's Primary School[edit]

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

Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Entirely non-notable primary school. Merging to Cambridge#Education would give the wrong impression altogether. Atlas-maker (talk) 05:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historic school for which there are ample good sources. Andrew (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Andrew. scope_creep talk 00:24 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Keep - Plenty of history & reliable sources, SCHOOLOUTCOMES is irrelevant in this case. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm a believer in following OUTCOMES, but this meets GNG. Jacona (talk) 14:14, 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. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Brien (poker player)[edit]

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

Non-notable poker player lacking secondary support. reddogsix (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some cashes, but no major titles (see informal guideline/essay at WP:POKER#Biography article notability criteria) and no significant media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, outside of a poker database which probably does not meet WP standards as a source. Also article does not really make a claim of notability. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:10, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valon Mehmeti[edit]

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

No indication of notability whatsoever. Borderline for CSD A7. Safiel (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMUSIC and, for the record, WP:V. Looking through the page history, I see that some information got removed because it was flat-out misinformation (e.g. this artist was signed on with ersguterjunge label). I can't find any sources indicating notability, and I can't figure out who "Azizi Daryoush" is either. Mz7 (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with reservation As it stands this article is completely useless, and cannot stand, but it seems that one editor said (pretty rudely) that the information in the article was blatantly false and deleted it all. Maybe a RS wasn't provided, but there was no discussion, and nothing but the editor's opinion given to support its being false. That is a serious accusation that seems to have gone unsupported and unchallenged. If it were true the editor who posted it originally should be blocked or banned, but that doesn't seem to have been discussed either. That's my reservation. That aside, a notable music producer should probably have been in the business more than one year, and his primary studio should not look like the music desk in my apartment. Dcs002 (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've only deleted the wrong information about him. Leben und Tod des Kenneth Glöckler is not a single and not produced by him. The Farid Bang album Killa isn't produce by him. The Bushido album Sonny Black is produce by Bushido himself, Beatzarre and Djorkaeff. The PA Sports album H.A.Z.E isn't produce by him. And Shindys release (coming 10.10.2014) is only produce by Shindy himself, Djorkaeff and Beatzarre (source: here (in german)). The caption to the picture is also false, cause the picture is printed on the "autograph card" is the cover of his first album called NWA (release July 2013) and it's AFTER Shindy got signed to ersguterjunge. The clause "Valon's big popularity came when he started working for Bushido’s album called Sonny Black." is very wrong cause he isn't got signed to ersguterjunge, didn't produce beats for the Sonny Black album and isn't popular in germany, since release in february 2014 or even! I'm from germany and the german wikipedia pages of Bushido, Shindy, ersguterjunge and their albums were always up to date - day by day! Thank u for listening. Best regards. -- STVN (talk) 12:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you deleted the content, but I don't understand why you offered no justification or evidence on the article's talk page where someone like me could see it and understand what was happening. That was a very serious accusation, and I personally don't doubt the truth of it, but the way you handled it, IMO, has the appearance of a personal attack, especially given that it's the only thing you seem to have done ever on the English WP. You just told the editor he was lying and deleted things. That was all. When something like this comes up, I think it's important to remember that your edits and posts are not a conversation between you and another editor. They need to consider the rest of the WP community. But yeah... delete. Dcs002 (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K sorry, that was not my intention. In the future I will watch out to solve that respectable. -- STVN (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax and/or new unreferenced BLP for 15-yo supposed hip hop producer. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 09:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMUSIC. Can't find WP:RS. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:13, 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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 02:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Line at Dawn[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:BOOK--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 03:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.180.172.239.231 (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find coverage to establish that this book meets WP:GNG or WP:BK. Gongshow talk 05:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. No reviews or independent coverage that I can find that would support notability.TheBlueCanoe 12:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coverage (in Chinese) here (Radio Canada International). In depth bio of the author here with a description of the book by Association des écrivains chinois du Québec au Canada. Not sure if this is sufficient to push it over the notability threshold. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. I'm not sure it passes the notability threshold, but it's enough for me to withdraw my vote.TheBlueCanoe 04:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I originally closed this but reopened since IMO believe there's no notability and merits a discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It's possible that other Chinese-language sources exist, and there's an argument to be made that we should assume they do in the interest of countering systemic bias, but there don't seem to be any English-language sources, and the two sources presented by Philg88 don't strike me as enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:42, 27 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 07:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kativasthi[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any reliable sources about this topic online, so it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:23, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is that there is a large range of spellings: "kati vasthi", "kativasti", "kati basti", etc. Almost all search results are from sources promoting Ayurvedic medicine. One apparently reliable source is Evidence-Based Practice in Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Perspectives, Protocols, Problems, and Potential in Ayurveda, which includes a brief description (p. 117) and an evaluation of its effectiveness (pp. 131–132). See also "Efficacy of Agnikarma over the padakanistakam (little toe) and Katibasti in Gridhrasi: A comparative study", one of the articles cited there. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. The article is unreferenced and consists of a single sentence. Could be redirected to Ayurveda but is not currently mentioned at that article. I would not recommend transwiki to Wiktionary because the definition is unsupported and the spelling is in doubt. --MelanieN (talk) 19:21, 20 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) 01:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article seems to be more of a definition than article. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I recommend that it be covered in Wiktionary instead.--Rpclod (talk) 01:29, 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 no consensus. no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bootmakers of Toronto[edit]

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

This topic does not seem to have encyclopedic merit TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for detecting this unencyclopedic piece. So it has been around for two months? Speedily delete please. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This probably could be speedied as pure unambiguous promotion. At the same time, I'm not really seeing where the organization has received enough coverage to really merit an article at this point in time. I did find this article, but other than that everything is predominantly done in passing. ([22], [23]) It's very, very close but we'd need more than this to really show a good depth of coverage. If someone can find it, I have no problem with the article being re-created, but this promotional version would have to go. On a side note, there is merit in potentially having an article on the Sherlock Holmes fanbase since they've been around in various forms for years now. I think that the only reason we don't have one is probably because they don't have a set name like Trekkies or Beliebers, so there's not a truly good article title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Sherlock Holmes Handbook is ample evidence of notability. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing. The fact that the article has not be wikified into our customary format yet is unimportant. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly worried about there not really being a depth of coverage. There's mentions but the sources are fairly few and far between. It's the type of coverage that could muster up a weak keep but it's so little that someone could probably nominate it for deletion in the future because essentially we only have about 2-3 sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge a little to either Sherlock Holmes#Societies or List of Sherlock Holmes societies. It doesn't really merit an standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:20, 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. Davewild (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Thomas and Friends film project[edit]

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

The film was never produced. Koala15 (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 00:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. There's just enough coverage about this unmade film that it might be mentioned in other other articles, but not nearly enough for one of its own. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NFF as mentioned twice when an editor changed the article to a redirect which was reverted then by the article creator. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:50, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dzodze Penyi Senior High School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 00:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - High schools are kept & deemed notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a former teacher training college and now a senior high school this is a clearly notable institution. No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG. Expansion not deletion is the way to go with such articles. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per longstanding tradition of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High school institutions are generally kept per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 20:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaissance Learning Center[edit]

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

Lacks notability Muffinator (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has no sources, and it isn't notable. EMachine03 (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable learning institution....William 10:59, 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.

}