Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 July 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 July	8 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. Secret ^account 00:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LU:KUS discography[edit]

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

It is senseless to have article about band's discography that does not have any discography. Anyway, there is no point to have separate article on discography of a band that only released one single. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no evidence that the discography is notable. There's nothing in this unsourced article that couldn't easily be contained in the main article. Actually, is the band even notable?- Mr X 01:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless someone produces WP:RS that the subject is notable for some reason, it appears not to be. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One single is not a discography. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 8 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. Secret ^account 00:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popcorn Album[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable music recording. I am unable to find any reliable sources that establish that this album is notable per WP:NALBUM. I initially redirected it to the artist article, but was reverted without explanation. - Mr X 23:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with or without keeping article history. No prejudice against restoration if and when notability of the album is demonstrated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i will update the page as some as possible with more identification come down, Magnetsum 23:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnetsum (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources are included, and there's no indication that the album meets any notability criteria specifically for music. Search term is cumbersome and unlikely. —C.Fred (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Lindblom[edit]

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

His notability seems essentially tied to EarthBound... even though he translated other games at Nintendo you'd never guess because there are no sources and the article is basically written with only EarthBound in mind. WP:BLP1E. A merge would also be appropriate. wirenote (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think WP:BLP1E does not apply here; Lindblom's role is well documented in multiple sources, which are present in the article. The Polygon article, as far as I can tell, reports a recent Lindblom's conflict with Nintendo, which is a separate event, although it ties in with his work on the game. 23W 23:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect Like I mentioned on the talk page, 99% of this article is either about: Lindblom's work on EarthBound, Lindblom's thoughts on EarthBound, and others' thoughts on Lindblom's work on EarthBound. All of which is in the EarthBound article already, a prime example of duplicate content. We don't need multiple articles stating the exact same thing. Anything not about EarthBound is just a passing mention and isn't fleshed out in the least. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to EarthBound. His accomplishments are all tied to this title, and while his work was helpful, he wasn't the sole reason the title was popular. As such , the work about localization should be discussed there. --MASEM (t) 02:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A few things here: (1) yes, Lindblom is known for EarthBound, which is why he meets WP:CREATIVE#3 for his role as documented as the subject of multiple, independent articles: [1][2][3][4]. (2) WP:BEFORE this article went to AfD, the discussion at WT:VG and alternatives to deletion should have been discussed first. At the absolute least, Lindblom is still a prime redirect term, so AfD is the wrong venue. (3) Lindblom doesn't meet any of the three prongs of a WP:BLP1E: not a single event, not a low-profile individual, not an unsubstantial role. Looks like a vague wave at policy to me. czar ♔ 06:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A biographical article should broadly cover a person's life, not just the single work he/she is known for. This certainly does not do that. Even half of the "After EarthBound" section mostly just covers EarthBound. If you strip away all prose that is EarthBound-related, then Lindblom's life can be described in one or two paragraphs, a stub. There simply isn't enough coverage on the person, outside the context of EarthBound, that warrants a separate article. Even so, as Masem states, he isn't the sole reason EarthBound was popular. Lindblom didn't write EarthBound. He localized it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bio should cover the things for which the person is known, which it does. Not everyone's life stories are covered in RS. Some articles are short and some are long—the question is notability, which I addressed to the letter of policy. He is known for his role as EB's localizer, so much so that multiple articles cover him individually for this reason. I'm not sure how the other points are germane. You've already made your feelings clear—there's nothing more to add here without either of us repeating ourselves. czar ♔ 03:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although WP:CREATIVE wouldn't ordinarily apply to a video game localiser, he has coverage in multiple sources to meet WP:GNG. Also, sources have specifically and in detail focused on his work as a localiser, so you could make the case that his localisation is itself a work of art that has received critical attention, meeting WP:CREATIVE that way. WP:BLP1E does not apply to creative works: you're still notable as a writer (etc) even if you've only written 1 book (etc), if you meet WP:CREATIVE. Despite what ThomasO1989 believes, there is absolutely no requirement under WP:BASIC or WP:GNG that sources cover all or a large part of a person's life. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:36, 10 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. Secret ^account 00:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Reams[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL criteria. Not elected, small vote garnered. – S. Rich (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor candidate who receive almost no vote, the article is biased and relies on sources that clearly intend to boost the agenda of this candidate. Comes close to falling under our rules for special consideration when covering fringe ideas and beliefs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unelected politician with no significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable candidate for office with no coverage in independent, reliable sources. Tiller54 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician not showing indication of a GNG pass outside of political activity. Carrite (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don Kissick[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, no references or improvements x3+ years. – S. Rich (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of passing the notability threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unelected politician without significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected and no claim to notablility. Tiller54 (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unelected politician not showing signs of passing GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This AfD was withdrawn by the nominator, with no other support for the deletion nomination. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zdob și Zdub[edit]

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

Per WP:TNT. Laun chba ller 22:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even imagine how notability could be in question for a band that has twice represented its country in the Eurovision Song Contest (2005 & 2011). Looking at the article (which I probably haven't looked at in 5 years), it has deteriorated over time, probably taken over by someone with promotional intention. Look through the history & get it back to a decent version. Don't throw it away. - Jmabel | Talk 00:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A basically decent, though undercited, version can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zdob_%C8%99i_Zdub&oldid=588540285. - Jmabel | Talk 00:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I was questioning its notability? The article was a mess, so I suggested that it be blown up and started over. I have a bad habit of not checking the history of pages I nominate before I nominate them, I really ought to enter the habit of checking. The trick when providing diffs is to have a side-by-side view like this one so that people who use Twinkle, like me, can just hit 'restore this version'. Withdrawn.--Laun chba ller 09:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 8 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Lowe[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician with no substantive claim to passing WP:NMUSIC, sourced entirely to primary sources and offering not a shred of reliable source coverage. Delete unless sourcing and notability can be beefed up to meet Wikipedia's inclusion and content standards. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor musician who does not pass notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After cleaning up refs that were either nonworking or self-published, it is left with two refs with only passing mentions of this artist: crypticrock.com and blabbermouth.net. After some research I am unable to find any other verifiable third-party reliable sources that discuss this artist to any length, or at all for that matter, and therefore fails notability criteria for inclusion. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Mostly as per above, although I found a few more references, mostly mentions, added them; still I am not sure the sum total of references meets GNG. In articles about rock concert stage performances, she often merits a line or two of coverage, apparently about her performance as a needle-toting performer during the act. We need a few articles about her in-depth from WP:RS.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Affair Magazine[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 22:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is promotional in tone. The sourcing in the article consists solely of non-reliable sources. I can find no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no RS, no article. --Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantive coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Leeds[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NPOL; single working link goes to election results only. – S. Rich (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total fail of notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unelected politician without significant coverage. - Whpq (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN fail.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable candidate. Tiller54 (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although closing as keep, the argument over whether sources such as Deseret News are to be treated as independent in this context is an unresolved no consensus. SpinningSpark 14:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Madsen[edit]

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

BLP with no sources independent of from where he draws his notability (the LDS church). Similar poorly-sourced LDS articles (Lino Alvarez and five others) have been redirected p b p 15:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It seems most if not all of the sources are closely associated with the LDS church and are therefore probably WP:BIASed. Some WP:THIRDPARTY sources would be nessicary for this article to be kept. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You cannot claim that Madsen's notability is comparable to the notability of Second Quorum members whose articles you have deleted. This man is still a general authority in the Church's eyes, and he will remain one until his death. See the description of emeritus general authorities here. Third party sources can and should be found, but that will take time. Instead of nominating articles for deletion willy-nilly, why don't you try to help improve the article or discuss issues on the talk page first? Both practices would adhere to Wikipedia policies. This man doesn't have temporary notability, because he is still a general authority. While this article may currently fail GNG, that is not to say it couldn't be edited sufficiently to meet GNG. That's why I suggest holding off on any discussion of deletion until a fair period of time has passed and neutral sources have been found. They do exist and can easily be found, but it will take some time. In the meantime, if this deletion discussion is to continue, I would civil, candid conversation about the article's issues to see if we can resolve them. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jgstokes, if significant independent RS coverage "can easily be found" but will take time, it doesn't sound easy. :-) I searched online, and found significant coverage only by church-owned publications. The notability issue doesn't require resolution of editing issues, it requires existence of these sources. The article has been around six years, which seems like "a fair period of time"; if you want another week or two to go to a library or something, that would be fine, but I don't think it's proper to keep an article based on a belief that the sources exist, without any evidence that they do. Agyle (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added additional sources. However, I think the fact that he was a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy should be considered. This is a higher level than the second quorum of the 70, and every discussion ever on a member of the First Quorum of the 70 has resulted in a keep. This places him within the top 85 leaders of the Church at a given time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your "additional sources" are no more reliable than the sources already in the article; i.e., not. He still fails GNG, and should be deleted. p b p 21:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all so, Southern Virginia University is a fully accredited university that is not onwed or in any way controlled by the LDS Church. Your attack on the SVU source can only come out of animus towards Latter-day Saints as a people, and a desire to exclude them from discussions. It is not based on any understanding of policy. YOur antagonistic and rude tone in these discussions, and your constant attacking of those you disagree with is also bad form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) The "not in any way controlled" statement is misleading as it is owned by some members of the church rather than the church itself. A preponderance of students and faculty are of the LDS faith; its connections to the LDS church are front and center in the lead, 2) the link in question might not be enough to establish notability regardless of #1. p b p 00:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While your arguments of COI might be workable for institutions controlled by the Church, institutions not at all under the control of the Church do not work for this. You are basically putting forth an argument that would lead to us excluding publications of Historically Black Colleges and Universities as sources for articles on African-Americans. This would lead to Wikipedia excluding articles on people who are not part of the dominant culture even more than it already does. Wikipedia cannot right great wrongs, but it should not adopt policies that exclude sources based on the religious affiliation of their creators. That is the test you propose, not a study of control but a study of religion. Such an attack would not be workable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HBCUs are nothing like SVU, and you still haven't answered #2. p b p 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage. First quorum is different than 2nd quorum. Statements that the coverage is "not reliable", is not correct; i think someone might mean that the coverage is not sufficiently independent to establish notability, which is different. There is no serious likelihood that the LDS newspaper is wrong in basic facts of Madsen's life, it is not making up biographical details. I don't agree about reliability or other assertion; i think it is notable topic. I am looking at current version, perhaps improved from when the article was nominated. --doncram 00:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doncram: What's the substantial independent coverage? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @NeilN:: Did you mean to post this as a vote? p b p 15:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not yet. I want to see if I'm missing something. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

doncram, I agree with you that reliability of basic facts aren't an issue with LDS newspapers. I disagree with you that LDS newspapers are sufficiently independent of this subject to warrant notability, however, if the claim of notability is pegged entirely on his position within the LDS. Agyle (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources with which to establish notability of the subject. I did find significant coverage in several Deseret News articles, but Deseret is owned by the Church with which the subject is intimately affiliated, so this is not independent of the subject. The cited coverage by Southern Virginia University is a 2-paragraph bio of unknown origin, included because Madsen was speaking at an SVU-hosted conference; this is minor coverage and I wouldn't consider it an indication of notability. Every other publication currently cited in the article is either owned or sponsored by the Church (Ensign, Deseret News, Deseret Morning News Church Almanac, New Era, Church News, England Bristol Mission, and Brigham Young University). Some are certainly reliable sources for certain facts, but they are not independent. Agyle (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources having in-depth coverage found or provided. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given Johnpacklambert's point about the First Quorum. I find troubling the argument that every source that happens to involve an LDS member is disqualified for establishing the notability of an LDS topic; whether intentionally or not, this has the effect of Wikipedia spurning an international religious community of millions. We should not do this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many LDS members attract significant independent coverage about LDS activities. This inherent "top LDS leaders" rationale could be argued for the top leaders of any organization; we don't automatically allow articles on the top 100 Post Office employees, or Boy Scout leaders, and shouldn't. When the only significant coverage about them is written by those organizations, it's unlikely to be balanced/neutral, which is one reason Wikipedia requires independent sources. Agyle (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not only involved with members, they are owned by the Church. As I mentioned in another delete discussion, this is like saying a General Motors engineer is notable because he was featured in a General Motors newsletter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The attempted comparisons do not work, and they ignore the full bredth of the sources. If you look at many government figures, you will find the only sources are ones owned by the government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples please? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, while LDS's publications aren't directly analogous to a GM newsletter, the ones being cited are not as disparate as the federal government's publications. I encountered primarily seven different LDS publications published by two subsidiaries while reviewing the second quorum articles for a multi-subject AfD‎: Intellectual Reserve, Inc.'s Lds.org (which contains bios and reprints from other church publications), Mormon Newsroom (which publishes press releases), Ensign & Liahona (both magazines that seem to be mainly about Church-related news and topics), and Deseret Management Corp/Deseret News Publishing Company's Deseret News (a general newspaper with a Church-friendly approach), the News' weekly insert Church News (about the LDS), and Deseret News Church Almanac (annual compendium of Church News). These should not be considered independent of the LDS Church and its management, or of one another. While Deseret News publishes non-church-related stories, the first value in DMC's mission statement is "I honor principles espoused by our owner in the products and services I provide"; there is no way it could be considered an unbiased source of coverage about the Church. Agyle (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 21:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it looks like what the problem here is not unbiased sources (please..... this is hardly an argument at all as sources are not expected to be entirely NPOV.... that is instead what the article writing here on Wikipedia is striving for). The issue here is mainly one of WP:PRIMARY, where it appears too much of the article is coming from primary sources and not secondary sources. That, however, is not grounds for deletion and certainly not a lack of notability, but rather pushing for more outside sources. In this case, however, it may be something where you need to look for more local sources of information... for example, Deseret News is not the only newspaper in Utah that covers stuff happening in the LDS Church. IMHO notability is clearly met with this particular topic, although seeking out more outside sources would certainly make a better article. This does not reach the level of requiring an article deletion here, but rather an editorial note and discussion on the talk page instead. Very clear consensus from general policy discussions is that articles heavy on primary sources should not for this reason be considered for deletion. Perhaps not considered featured articles (or even good articles) either, but deletion is not the solution here. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not talking about unbiased sources, we're talking about independent secondary sources as notability is certainly not a given. I don't see how you can say notability is clearly met when WP:GNG begins with, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Horning, reiterating NielN, the real issue is neither biased nor primary sources (Deseret News could arguably be considered a secondary source), but independent sources. (The nominator mentioned independence; the first respondant mentioned bias). As you said, many outside (independent) sources cover the LDS Church, but that's just the point: nobody has found any that provide significant coverage of John M. Madsen. ––Agyle (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While a Google search is certainly useful for establishing notability, the lack of a search finding results, even for living people, is not justification for non-notability. I agree more sources should be acquired, but I also think it is unfair and unreasonable to simply group everything related to publications by LDS church members as simply coming from a single source. Bias is indeed a reason given above, presuming that somehow NPOV sources exist outside of the LDS Church somehow about LDS topics. What is at stake here is the notability of members of the 1st quorum of the Seventy though in the context of the LDS Church. That also establishes some degree of notability simply by being a member even if currently available sources are hard to find.... sort of like how notability is automatically assumed for United States Senators (just try to AfD one of those articles!) BTW, I found references to John C. Madsen in the Salt Lake Tribune when looking through their historical references.... a newspaper that clearly is not owned by the LDS Church (although former staff members might disagree at the moment). Those references are unfortunately behind a paywall that I'm not going to bother retrieving, and I am pretty certain you could find other references in other places that may not be indexed very well by Google. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating what I said at another AFD, people don't become notable because their position has special properties. Notability is assumed for U.S. Senators because it is assumed independent reliable sources exist that contain in-depth coverage of the subject. You can challenge that assumption if you wish. Right now, given this AFD has been running for three weeks and no one has provided similar sources for this subject, I don't think you can make the same kind of assumption for this position. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person did mention bias, but the criteria set out in WP:GNG do not require unbiased sources to establish notability, they seek significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The SL Tribune articles that mention Madsen seem to be about other topics, and include minor mention of Madsen; i.e. their coverage is independent, but not significant. I have searched beyond Google, and still found only minor/passing coverage. Madsen authored around a half dozen short articles published by the Church, wrote a PhD dissertation about Church missionaries, and was one of three signers of a widely-distributed letter from the Church supporting a non-same-sex marriage proposal in California. Most mentions I've found of Madsen seem to be minor references to these works, or simply include his name amongst various lists of people. Some examples:

Salladay, Robert (1999-07-04). "Mormons now target California". SFGate. Hearst Communications, Inc. 'Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and is essential to His eternal plan,' wrote church Presidents John B. Dickson, John M. Madsen and Cecil O. Samuelson. (The article excerpts 2 other sentences from the letter, and describes its spread on the internet in 2 sentences.)
"Proposition 22 Dominates California Wards' Attention, Divides Members" (PDF). Sunstone. April 2001. p. 86-92. Includes a reprint of a letter jointly written by Madsen (the same letter mentioned in the SFGate/San Francisco Examiner article).
Shepherd, Gordon; Shepherd, Gary. "Membership Growth, Church Activity, and Missionary Recruitment" (PDF). Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. pp. 33–57. Some older studies estimated the inactivity (or dropout) rate of returned Mormon missionaries in the U.S. to be about 10 percent (see John M. Madsen, 'Church Activity of LDS Returned Missionaries,' Ph.D. diss., Brigham Young University, 1977). (Quote is from a footnote).
"Obituaries - Christen Madsen, July 2nd 2012". The Evening Sun (Chenango County). 2012-07-02. Chris is survived by...his nieces and nephews John M. Madsen... {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
Christensen, Allen C. (2004). Before Zion: An Account of the 7th Handcart Company. Cedar Fort. p. 63. ISBN 978-1-55517-749-2. John M. Madsen of the First Quorum of the Seventy is one of Jacobine Erika's descendants. (Mentioned in a footnote.)
Middleton, Henry W. (2007). An Assessment of the Distinctive Soteriology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) from the Perspective of Selected Evangelical Theologians. ProQuest. p. 183. ISBN 978-0-549-58937-2. Madsen is referenced in a footnote on a point about the LDS doctrine of endurance.
Gibbons, Francis M. (1999). The Expanding Church: Three Decades of Remarkable Growth Among the Latter-day Saints, 1970-1999. Cedar Fort. pp. 75, 101. ISBN 978-0-88290-672-0. Name is included within two lists of quorum members; one of them includes dates the members were sustained.
Kerns, James E. (2010). The Speaker's Guide to 40 Years of General Conference. Cedar Fort. p. 164. ISBN 978-1-59955-813-4. 4 of Madsen's articles are listed as references; the book is entirely subject-indexed lists of LDS-published writings.
Boice, Trina (2011). The Ready Resource for Relief Society 2012: Teachings of Presidents of the Church: George Albert Smith. Cedar Fort. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-59955-762-5. One of Madsen's Ensign articles is listed as a reference.
Davies, Douglas James (2010). Joseph Smith, Jesus, and Satanic Opposition: Atonement, Evil and the Mormon Vision. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 175. ISBN 978-1-4094-0649-5. One of Madsen's Ensign articles is referenced in a footnote.
Boice, Trina (2010). Ready Resource for Relief Society: Gospel Principles, Part 2. Cedar Fort. p. 139. ISBN 978-1-59955-435-8. One of Madsen's articles is referenced.

––Agyle (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The independent sources guideline can be overstated. Imagine Christian articles with no Christian sources. The more reasonable argument is that there is no significant coverage. There does not seem to be an issue with his actual importance in the church. --Bejnar (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses many Christian sources, which nobody has opposed. The independence issue is whether LDS Church-owned sources about LDS Church executives satisfy WP's notability criteria. Btw, Independent sources is not a guideline. ––Agyle (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Agyle: The essay is not a guideline, but the terminology "independent sources" occurs in the guidelines, see We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. WP:Notability. --Bejnar (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that long list of sources that mention Madsen, coupled with what we have here, would lead us to say he has passed notability. His work is clearly looked to, his statements have influence in multiple locations, and have drawn notice, and we have indepth coverage of him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence is off. As noted by Agyle above, his name comes up from time to time, but not in an in-depth way. p bp 23:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A properly sourced article looks like this Thomas S. Monson. Madson is 75, if he was interested in publicity there would be many usable sources. It should be easy for him, he evidently isn't interested in that. Not even a picture? There has to be a line some place. This article is really crossing the line but not far enough to really worry about. 84.106.11.117 (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Shadmehr Aghili. I'll also give it an indef full protection. Jenks24 (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Foroush[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable music recording. I am unable to find any reliable sources that establish that this album is notable per WP:NALBUM. I initially redirected it to the artist article, but was reverted without explanation. - Mr X 21:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. An album is not automatically entitled to its own independent article, just because the artist who recorded it has one, if that article is not and cannot be referenced to reliable sources. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect, with or without edit history being preserved. HOWEVER, if and when the album meets WP:Notability, the page can be unlocked and if necessary un-deleted or history-merged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Shadmehr Aghili. No claim to notability, no coverage. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Bejnar (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ch. Muhammad Afzal Lodhra[edit]

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

Non-notable person. An executive (of indeterminate level -- I'm aware of companies that have hundreds of Senior Vice Presidents) of the National Bank of Pakistan (not to be confused with the State Bank of Pakistan, the official central bank of the government). Sources are largely internal NBP documents, other primary sources, or trivial mentions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No matter how "meritorious" his service is, there is not enough evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There can be hundred of such officers in Pakistan. Sulaimandaud (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Being "widely recognized" would normally require an independent source, not an internal company document. --Bejnar (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fit4D[edit]

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

Orphan article, self-promoting, not sufficiently notable, no real references CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the articles says has been mentioned a number of times in the media, no significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable website. Media mentions amount to someone from the website getting quoted; nothing significantly about the website. --MelanieN (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyed (film)[edit]

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

I don't think this film was ever released. Can't find anything about this film. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this movie satisfies WP:NFILM. No independent sources. Safiel (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the Administrator at the first AfD probably should have been WP:BOLD and deleted this. While there was little participation, the participants all acknowledged that the film did not seem to satisfy the notability guidelines. Safiel (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not exactly... and with the little participation, all that was really agreed upon was that we had great difficulty finding sources for a Khmer language Cambodian film. With no agreement to delete past the nominator himself, the closer followed procedure with a no-consensus. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak delete per lacking coverage... even in consideration of WP:CSB. The Wayback Machine shows the "official website" (now dead) was in existence from 2007 to mid-2010 implying that the project was under work during that time,[5] and I did find a blog speaking about it being released back in 2007.here and here. An early work of Cambodian Tim Pek (The Red Sense), it is very likely that coverage will be only in Khmer language. Can anyone here politely poke a Khmer-reading Cambodian Wikipedian? And if we ever DO have an article on Pek, it can be mentioned therein. Pek speaks about making his film Annoyed here. IF author Engsamnang wishes it userfied while he finds and translates sources, I'd say yes. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. --Bejnar (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3 Punters - Masti Unlimited[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable future film. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 20:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC) - Mr X 20:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated here Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#creating an article about my own movie the article is a piece of WP:SELFPROMOTION by a WP:COI and WP:SPA account. The youtube link simply confirms this. Should the film ever achieve notability in secondary sources down the road it can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 20:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best WP:TOOSOON. At worst WP:SELFPROMOTION with a WP:COI. In either case it should be deleted. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:42. This and WP:TOOSOON were explained at the Teahouse. Arjayay (talk) 08:31, 8 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 01:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Durga Ravichander[edit]

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

Singer with no evidence of notability. Claim of awards kept me from tagging it for an A7-speedy, presence of references made a prod-BLP seem inappropriate, although what's there currently includes two Wikipedia links (one to the creator's user page), and three articles from sources that would be otherwise be reliable, but which do not mention the subject at all. --Finngall ^talk 06:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are some sources that may even slightly prove her notability: [6], [7] and [8]. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources don't mention her at all. Cowlibob (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I posted the links here (albeit without reading) because her page had them. In that case, the article may be Deleted as she is just promoting herself. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Do you know of any reliable Tamil based resources for film soundtracks/could you check these for this playback singer? As I said below, I think this is a hoax but I want to make sure. Cowlibob (talk) 11:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I only found this article which mentions a certain 16-year old Durga (last name not shown), who sang for "Chi-cha-ledar" from Gangs of Wasseypur Part 2, but the article "Durga Ravichander" does not mention those. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found that as well but the girl in that article is from Andhra and has only done Telugu films and the song you mentioned. Cowlibob (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G3 Suspected hoax. I've checked through each film soundtrack on iTunes and Raaga.com and she's not listed anywhere as the singer. I can't find any news articles referring to her. I would welcome someone else double checking just to make sure. Cowlibob (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I've looked into the awards stated in the article and the subject of this article is not found in any winners list that I've seen. The article creator and various IPs have also been adding this singer to several Tamil films article which I've undone as it disagrees with the track listing for each soundtrack where there is no Durga to be found. Cowlibob (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NO, actually this playback singer is a hidden one. According to what i know, she has performed in certain concerts with anirudh ravichander and yuvan shankar raja in canada. She don't appear on screen. But she is one of the most wanted bgm singer in chennai. She is always in the circle of cinema. She is also a pet(to say) to everyone, she is related to superstar rajnikanth and through that she is being edited in all channels in india. Even if she gives any interviews, its among the format of tamil cinema.

IF we check the films she have worked in, her name is there. ex.Potugadu,Maan Karate and many more. I think that is why the user created a page for Durga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.124.19 (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought it would be best I just leave the set of links as evidence that this singer is not listed anywhere on the songs that they've supposedly sang. Potagadu iTunes link:[9], Vanakkam Chennai iTunes [10], Raja Rani iTunes [11], Biriyani iTunes [12], Naiyaandi iTunes [13], Arrambam iTunes [14]/ Amazon [15], Maan Karate iTunes [16]/ Amazon [17]. No mention of Durga.

In regards to the awards they've supposedly won: Vijay award 2013 winners list: [18]/[19]. No mention of Durga. None of the awards listed are notable enough on their own anyway to help with the notability of this "singer". Cowlibob (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. No basis. No coverage. Should not have been relisted. --Bejnar (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Cano[edit]

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

Non-notable; reads like a resume/CV. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Rinnenadtrosc Gregkaye (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
well, I do not know what happened to the article. My stub back in 2004 was about a conquistador not a living person. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francisco_Cano&oldid=7040443 See also es:Francisco Cano -- 62.235.166.246 (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC) PS: Sorry, I was not logged when I signed.-- Youssef (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and change - Keep the article name but change it to a stub on the conquistador, like 62.235.166.246 said. French Wikipedia has him as a dead man as well. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article was hijacked last year from its original subject to an apparently completely non-notable one, I have taken the liberty of redirecting it to the last version previous to the hijacking. That version has very little content and no references, but a quick Google search shows several apparent sources (albeit mostly apparently inaccessible online), so it should be improvable to demonstrate notability. This would not be appropriate for a BLP, but the actual subject has been dead for over four centuries. I would suggest that the revisions during the hijack period should be REVDELLED immediately after the closure of this AfD. PWilkinson (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Unless at least one source is provided. At present, how do we know it isn't a hoax?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rolling back is pointless, since that content is unreferenced. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly even speedy delete per A7. No dates, no references, no real details. How do we even know if he's real? Even if he is, just being a conquistador isn't enough. Juan Cano is enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any evidence this conquistador exists Shii (tock) 14:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I found some more information in Codex Chimalpahin. Themane2 (talk) 15:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not a hoax; GBooks turns up multiple references to Francisco Cano, especially in connection with his use, in the year 1568, of the term "New Mexico", possibly the first time anyone used this term (although Cano was using it to refer to an area near Torreón, not the modern New Mexico). See e.g. [20][21]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When you Google the primary source, "Testimonio del descubrimiento y posesión de la Laguna del Nuevo México", it seems that the literature on this is rather weak Shii (tock) 20:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is some good information on this individual. He as a lieutenant major of Mazpil in the 1560s which probably makes him at least somewhat notable. We have a fair amount of information about him and I think I can expand the article to at least a decent level. There are some dates we can add the article and we have his family's names as well. In the next few weeks I think we can get this article in decent shape. I'd be willing to contribute as much as I can. Themane2 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So to supplement this artcile we might need to create an English language page for Mazapil, there is a Spanish page for it. It appears to be small city in Zacatecas, Mexico. Themane2 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than saving this article, let's merge the meager content into that article and create something interesting about the place Shii (tock) 22:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh the two things have little to do with each other than the fact Cano was a leader in the area. It would be like merging Bill De Blasio and New York City. Kind of ridiculous. Theres a large amount of information on this guy. In fact honestly his notability has to do with land claims and army service not the area itself. Themane2 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The additional information and sources help the article. Although I have to admit that I am not 100% sure we need it to be as long as it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The restored article is fine. Good catch. --Bejnar (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayce Hawryluk[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the second round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. While this high second round draft pick falls just short of the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject does however pass WP:GNG as evidenced by the many independent and reliable sources within the article, and the many more reliable sources which can be easily found on-line. Dolovis (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY, and the sources Dolovis alludes to are mostly trivial, local, or in at least three cases, blogs or other clearly non-RS sources. As a "veteran editor", Dolovis should know full well that blogs are not reliable sources, yet despite being told so previously, continues to use them as part of his ego-feeding need to create articles on non-notable players. Resolute 15:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please identify which ones you feel are non-reliable, so they can be replaced, or the related claims removed. Note, I'm not disagreeing with you that there are unreliable sources used, I just am not familar with hockey specific sources, and am reluctant to remove sources as a result. --Rob (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Blogspot blog being the most obvious (and it is embarrassing to Wikipedia that Dolovis actually felt that was appropriate). Hockey's Future is basically a fansite, with all the baises that come from that. It is not something I would ever pin reliability on. "Independent Sports News", likewise. Though that just looks like a reprint of a press release. Reso lute 14:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One of the many, many articles Dolovis has created (and one of the many taken to AfD) where he claims that blogs, team websites, casual mentions, routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE and non-independent sources constitute reliable sources which pass the GNG. At this point, I'd look very favorably towards sanctions debarring him from article creation. Ravenswing 19:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. There are multiple independent reliable sources giving indepth coverage of this person (more than what's in article or here). The coverage goes well beyond reporting who scored a goal in yesterday's game. Yes, the coverage is largely local, but we're not talking about just a little paper in a small town reporting on a local boy. There is a good basis for having a full well sourced biography, even if there were never another news story on him in the future. The article would warrant being kept, even if he hadn't been selected in the draft. I agree the current article needs a lot of improvement. But, what counts is there is a solid basis for improvement. --Rob (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG per Rob's sources. GNG trumps NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rob's sources are local and fail WP:ROUTINE coverage in that it is coverage about a local boy in a local paper and a single news event about being drafted. -DJSasso (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ROUTINE is about events, not people. For bios, what counts is there is substantial coverage of the person. If he were just one of multiple names mentioned, that wouldn't convey notability. But, when a story is primarily about one person, and talks of their life, that shows notability. Also, note that not all the stories are of "a single news event about being drafted". He's been drafted twice, both times getting substantial coverage. He's also gotten coverage of him for other reasons, such as his injury and hospitalization. --Rob (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of Rob's sources meet the criteria of WP:ROUTINE. At least the three that don't have a paywall have substantive discussion of the subject, and are not merely sports scores. As for the sources being local, Rob provided multiple sources from each of Brandon and Winnipeg, so he is getting coverage beyond just a local area. Plus he got a nice bio in Florida here. So he had now received significant coverage in at least 3 cities in 2 different countries. Rlendog (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article written about a local amateur sports player is often considered to be routine coverage in that papers will write those sorts of articles about any local player who does remotely well in their sport including high school players and 8 year olds. As for more than just the local area, Winnepeg and Brandon are essentially the same local area (having lived there). And Florida being that he was drafted by the Florida Panthers would also be a local article. What we need is articles from national publications or from somewhere not local such as say Toronto or Boston talking about him. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hawryluk also got several paragraphs of coverage in this NHL.com article. But I disagree with both your assessments of local and routine coverage. Even accepting Brandon and Winnipeg as the same local area, despite being in different regions of Manitoba about 200 miles apart, Florida is certainly not the same local area. Florida drafted him, but he is not local to Florida (or if he is, he is not local to Manitoba), and he got more coverage in Florida than many draftees. Once he is getting coverage in mulitple locations, he has received coverage over a widespread area, and satisfies the criteria of WP:GEOSCOPE, even assuming that guideline applies to people rather than events. And once the the stories is significant newspapers choose to write a story about someone who "does remotely well," they have made an editorial decision that goes beyond the limits of the items in WP:ROUTINE. And this is hardly a story about an 8 year old doing remotely well, these are stories about a junior hockey player doing well enough to be considered for the NHL. And multiple sources have made the determination that this person is worthy of an article multiple times. Rlendog (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I also found some coverage of him in The Hockey News and The Montreal Gazette. I would not regard either of these as significant enough to support notability by themeselves. But combined with the significant coverage provided elsewhere, they show that reliable sources outside of just Manitoba and Florida saw this person as being worthy enough to write a paragraph about him among a limited group of significant players. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the GNG.[27] Mice never shop (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Thivierr appears to have substantially upgraded the references within the article during the course of this AfD. Previous (and future) participants here do not seem to have noticed this, but might like to review the revised references. PWilkinson (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed somewhat. I am very appreciative of the work that Thivierr put in (which Dolovis could have done as well, but as usual, takes the laziest path possible and leaves such work to others), but other than the NHL.com link, it remains local coverage and trivial mentions. That may be enough to pull this to a no consensus close, but I will leave that determination to the closing admin. Reso lute 13:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like you, I am a volunteer. I created a stub article for this notable hockey player containing enough information for other editors to expand upon it. I do not own this article, and work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. So when you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes yourself. Dolovis (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:14, 7 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. Looks we have found grey area, and further discussion seems unlikely to yield consensus at this time. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher Demko[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. He has been drafted to the NHL but only in the second round. If he plays in the NHL then he should be included, but until then this is a case of WP:NotJustYet. Tchaliburton (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. While this high second round draft pick falls just short of the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject does however pass WP:GNG as evidenced by the many independent and reliable sources within the article, and the many more reliable sources which can be easily found on-line. Dolovis (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NHOCKEY; Sources are local coverage, trivial mentions, and a site that I wouldn't consider reliable. Reso lute 15:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Demko passes WP:NHOCKEY. "4. Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league." Demko was Hockey East Goaltending champion in 2013-14.[28] Mushh94 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The All-Rookie Team is none of those things, nor is the "Stop it Goaltending Champion". Reso lute 22:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question The first reference appears to come from the official NHL website, and has a staff writer's name attached to it. I know Dolovis tends to crank out the stub articles on non-notables, but I am wondering if this kind of attention by the NHL might be a signal that this individual passes the WP:GNG (and if it is NOT that, please clarify for me so that I can better assess such a reference in the future-- thanks!) KDS4444^Talk 16:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. NHOCKEY #4 mentions exactly the things that cause you to meet it. Hockey East Goaltending champion isn't one of those 3. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet the GNG.[29] Mice never shop (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question On what basis? KDS4444^Talk 16:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Kanoch (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Where? KDS4444^Talk 16:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More independent and significant articles on the subject [30] [31][32][33][34][35][36][37] to further confirm he passes GNG. Dolovis (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Antelmi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. PROD was contested base on an unsupported claim to general notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. In anticipation of editors making "but he's bound to play next season"-type comments, by noting WP:CRYSTAL preemptively. Fenix down (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, clearly WP:TOOSOON. Looking at the creator's record User talk:HydeWillLose, this editor needs mentoring as he/she continues to create articles of dubious (as measured on Wikipedia) value. Where can one recommend mentoring to an Admin, other than recommending mentoring to the editor on her/his talk page (which I've done)? --Bejnar (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martha L. MacDonald[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ACADEMIC Magnolia677 (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ACADEMIC is one notability guideline and doesn't overrule others, nor the GNG. Even so, as past president of the International Association for Feminist Economics, the top level academic society in the field of feminist economics, MacDonald could be argued to pass academic #6. Although #8 specifies editor or chief editor only, the fact that MacDonald is a long-standing associate editor of Feminist Economics (which, mind you, is distinctly different than just being on the editorial board) combined with her other body of work makes a pretty good case that she passes academic criterion #1 as well. I'd dig up sources to demonstrate that but don't feel the need to given that there's no question that MacDonald passes WP:CREATIVE #3 - here's five reviews in reputable publications of her books that easily exceed the requirement of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Plenty more exist, I just both don't want to dig around to make a full list, don't want to spam the page with it, and figure this should be plenty to show she passes creative #3 - [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. If I dug around more I'd imagine she'd meet other notability guidelines too, and certainly the GNG.

I know it's to some degree unavoidable, but I do find it unfortunate that prominent women in their fields tend to get AfDed a lot more often than prominent men do, especially if their fields are primarily contributed to by women in the first place. Don't take me the wrong way, I realize it's a systemic thing without malicious intent behind it, I just find it kind of unfortunate. If you wanted to AfD a bunch of non-notable academics it would be easy to do... but the articles of non-notable men often just get ignored, while the articles of fairly prominent women get sent to AfD. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely nominate articles for deletion, but encountered two female academic articles today which appeared to not meet notability. It was totally random. Your comment, "that prominent women in their fields tend to get AfDed a lot more often than prominent men do", if placed into any regular Wiki article, would be deleted quickly, and the edit summary would state "removing unsourced content". To throw out a comment like that, without also including some basis in fact, undermines the inclusive spirit of Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most AfD comments, if placed in to any regular wiki article, would be removed. Often with the editsum "removing unsourced content." Including, er, yours - though I hesitate to point that out since I don't see significant point in creating a stack of back and forth comments about it that ends up being turtles all the way down. I have no doubt that your nominations were made without malice. As far as I know no one has studied gender differences in articles sent to AfD, but my statement is likely correct given what's been found in pretty much every area that has been studied - Joseph Reagle has at least one paper out documenting systemic gender differences in biographies, and several other researchers have demonstrated systemic gender differences in other areas of cover (including, IIRC, in the likelihood of information being challenged.) There's nothing incongruent about the idea of your noms being made with no malice and Wikipedia still having a systemic issue. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citation record on GS is totally inadequate for WP:Prof#C1. There only 8 cites; many hundreds, perhaps 1000 are expected. The special pleading is distasteful. Wikipedia does not operate quotas.Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment A search for "Martha MacDonald" reveals more than 800 cites (excluding those referring to other persons of the same name) and an h-index of 16. So the article should probably be moved to Martha MacDonald (economist). --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I get a GS h-index of 16, which is on the borderline for WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Xxanth, it's a bit disappointing to have you dismiss my post as a distasteful special pleading given that in said post I laid out in fairly explicit detail how the subject of the AfD meets at least one notability criterion without an iota of doubt. WP:ACADEMIC is the most frequently applied notability guideline to academics, but it's not the only one, and it doesn't take precedence over other guidelines, as you know. It goes as far as to explicitly mention that fact, including linking the specific guideline I used to justify notability here. Although I'm glad you changed your vote, I'm also a bit perplexed as to why you chose to change your vote based on bibliometric criteria well documented to not apply anywhere near equally across all fields, especially to non-hard science fields. Although Thomson's ESI doesn't cover feminist economics, extrapolating from what it does cover, I would expect someone influential enough in the field of feminist economics to meet A#1 to have perhaps 5% or 7.5% as many citations as an equivalently influential figure in physics. A#1 is a field specific criterion; you can't try to apply a universal bibliometric to determine whether or not it has been satisfied. Suggesting that a keep vote here for an established academic who without any possible argument against it meets WP:AUTH and who was also the past president of the major association in her field amounts to trying to get Wikipedia to operate on a quota system is distasteful bordering on offensive. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kevin Gorman's first paragraph. -- GreenC 01:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a list of past presidents of IAFFE, removing Martha MacDonald from it would mean that she is the only past president not to have a blp. It would also cause a gap in the succession boxes between Edith Kuiper and Cecilia Conrad. It may also prove beneficial to the students on the Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities (PJCH) course at Rice University, which is one of Wikipedia's education programmes. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 07:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Vintage Feminist: Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It's useful. There is nothing inherently wrong in a black ink entry in a succession box. --Bejnar (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. WP:PROF is a guideline, not a basic rule. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable academic. It would be useful to find out whether Martha L MacDonald or Martha MacDonald is more commonly used. Jonpatterns (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons mentioned above, plus Inclusionism and ending the gender gap. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Alwis[edit]

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

Nothing about this man makes him particularly notable. Cannot find any sources to suggest so. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As best I can tell, he was a high school teacher who quit his job to do private math tutoring. No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't even make a claim of significance and no sources are present that could be used to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Koblin[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced piece of spam. The "criticism" section is taken from the Andrew Weil article; those critics, for all I can tell, haven't bothered with criticizing or mentioning Koblin. No indication the subject is notable, nothing independent and reliable found via Google. Huon (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Graham11 (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I think this one should be salted, it is just too promotional and the topic person too far from the mark. Fails WP:GNG, no claim to notability, self-serving promotion. --Bejnar (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is highly promotional and full of dubious unsourced claims, both about the subject himself and about his methods. Absolutely no independent sourcing found in a search. --MelanieN (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I withdraw my nomination (non-admin closure) JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Dickson[edit]

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

Non-notable cello teacher with no sources and does not have a neutral point of view. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it took me one minute to see that she has a Grove entry and an obituary in The Independent (both added to article). I don't have more time, but it tells me clearly enough that she is notable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's easy to find lots of sources - see Google Scholar +cello and Google Book + cello. She seems to be in all the bibliographies about British cellists. Userfication could be useful here. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. The memorial tone can be fixed via normal editing. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. In-depth coverage in multiple sources shows notability. BethNaught (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above, and AfD not cleanup. --Stfg (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd normally say "per WP:HEY" for a case like this, and I am grateful for the cleanup that makes notability more obvious, but really WP:BEFORE is the more appropriate link in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 10 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) 15:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AjoChhand Machine[edit]

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

It has been suggested that this article is a WP:HOAX. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A related article, frequency fractal has also been nominated for deletion. SpinningSpark 01:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Reply to Robert McClenon:There is more problem with the word "AjoChhand", Editor can easily remove the term from the article, why searching for that term? Without mentioning that word AjoChhand at least 20 peer reviewed articled were published. Why word is important? Term does not destroy the Science.

I believe it is a hoax. But it may not just be Wikipedia that is being hoaxed. The article's first reference is to an article in Information, with content similar to the article. Maybe an editor familiar with information science, and with knowledge of that journal, can comment? I have checked some of the other references, and they don't mention the "AjoChhand machine", or anything like it. Maproom (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Maproom:Journal is part of Hoax, how one tell journal, its editors and reviewers who worked for the paper for 8 months are part of a Hoax working together? This is a clear example of abusing a peer review system. Such a conspiracy theory against the system without any evidence is unfortunate.

Delete Looks like a bunch of junk to me JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to JayJAy What looks like? So, anything looks like could be a point of argument. It may look like today is sunny to me and tomorrow is cloudy, that would decide the fate of an article?

I am finding it hard to see how such a device could exist in this universe. Chillum 20:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is that a !vote to delete?

Reply to Chillum So whether an article would exist in Wiki or not will be decided whether a theory is practically feasible or not. There are many theories already, who can decide what can be realized or not? On what basis?

A few of those are noted above (one example paper that is not mentioned, worlds smallest molecular neural net http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/95/11/10.1063/1.3227887), massively parallel computing on organic molecular layer is Nature Physics is the same work, these top journals for years have published hoax papers?Robert McClenon (talk). I sincerely request all of you just to read the papers, before commenting. There are a series of papers published on this article. The first paper was the one to many and many to one concept which is the foundation of this article Reference 3. Then read the paper in Reference 2 the Nature Physics work. Then read the paper on Information. If you have problem with the term AjoChhand that could be changed. The name is given in the last paper, but all papers are from the same group Maproom (talk). The name is not important. Check all papers are from Bandyopadhyay group and papers are in the top reputed journals. Also ^{What did I do?} all papers that are referenced including brain jelly in Advanced Functional Materials and Nature Physics are from one of the best journals of the world. I am surprised, that a simple use of terminology can create so much problem. I really doubt, not a single person have asked a single technical question. Why? Please ask technical question, I am ready to answer, discuss, please do not just comment.--MasaComp (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. It appears that this is an off-Wikipedia hoax, a paper that should not have gotten through peer review. See Sokal affair as another example. If the original hoax paper becomes notable, an article about the hoax would be encyclopedic. However, this article writes about the machine as if it were theoretically valid. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert McClenon This is a clear example of attacking the editor, reviewer and the scientific peer review system. Editors of Wikipedia would decide on the judgement of another journal? How it fits with the Wikipedia policy? How an editor of Wikipedia is authorized to judge that? There is no evidence given by the editor to prove that it was a hoax, it is not proved yet, still "If the original hoax paper becomes notable, an article about the hoax would be encyclopedic." the statement shows that the decision of a "hoax" is taken before the judgement. How "hoax" certified by Wikipedia? On a peer reviewed work. The AjoChhand article is written as theoretically valid because it is peer reviewed and published. How editor Robert McClenon proves that it is not theoretically valid? What are the protocols? and How theoretical validity is decided in Wikipedia. How quality of a research work is being evaluated here. Not the facts.

Delete. This is based on a single primary source (footnote 1; there are 35 footnotes but all others predate the main publication on this topic and are used as background information only). It is published in a low-quality journal – its publisher, MDPI, is on Beall's list of "predatory open access journals", meaning that they take basically anything, with little or no peer review, and profit by charging authors publication fees. Google scholar only lists two other papers citing this one, both looking to be equally low quality. The publication itself is a mishmash of unrelated buzzwords linked together with little rhyme or reason, enough to make one wonder whether it was constructed by SCIgen rather than anything resembling human intelligence. The article creator has spammed this material across multiple other Wikipedia articles on more notable topics (that are unrelated to each other and to this mess). This is original research (barely dignified by publication in something that carries the trappings of, but is not, a scientific journal), non-notable, and probably also WP:COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to David Eppstein This is a lack of knowledge by the editor on the subject matter, the 35 footnotes contain several works from the same group that published footnote 1. How those are related are also noted clearly. Selecting only one of many papers (see discussion below) which is in the lowest impact of all to criticise a journal is not within the purview of honest scientific spirit. The notability should be judged honestly based on all papers (see discussion below), isolating one paper among many is a wrong judgement due to less understanding of the subject matter. There is a personal abuse in the later part, which we ignore, a neutral wikipedia can check whether personal attack by editor to scientific practices will be allowed or not. The allegation of spamming is false. One can check timing that only after Wikipedia suggested that the article was "Orphan" and links needs to be established with other pages, then based on the suggestion of Wikipedia other links were made.

Delete. I believe it is a hoax, and that the article in Information is part of the hoax. I have looked at several of the other sources cited in the article, and at http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/95/11/10.1063/1.3227887 cited above: none of them mention anything resembling the "AjoChhand Machine". I have also looked at other articles in Information listed at http://www.mdpi.com/journal/information: they do not inspire confidence in that journal. Maproom (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Maproom Making allegation against a journal is incorrect. We can make allegation again Nature and Science too because they published biggest hoax in the history of Science. This is incorrect, very injustice to the peer review culture and the scientific community.

Delete A google search on "AjoChhand Machine" -wikipedia gives *exactly* two hits. Non-notable and technical question and answers say *nothing* about notability.Naraht (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to NarahtNature Physics, PNAS together cited 60-70 times, those are part of this work, those are very notable more than 60 interviews and highlights published. become rather passionate to save it. It's not against any policy/guideline to argue with every delete vote, but may

Delete as just utter crap to be honest, No evidence of any notability!. (I'm not sure whether I should've added my comment here or below under the huge comments so If I'm wrong please move my comment below, Thanks), –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Davey2010 Nature Physics, PNAS together cited 60-70 times, those are part of it, those are very notable more than 60 interviews and highlights published. You reject all works and take only one part of it, just to criticize. This is unfair to the work done

David Eppstein (talk)This is surprising that no one asks any technical question about this paper. A paper that is published in 2014 January, how could it get more scitations? Why not background papers are considered? Why they are being ignored? Is Wikipedia policy is to check what is the quality of a journal? And whether it was properly reviewed or not? Check the submission to publication time. 8 months the authors were grilled. Every part of the article were validated experimentally some times or other earlier. Then those were summarized in the Information paper in a new packaged name. Rbecome rather passionate to save it. It's not against any policy/guideline to argue with every delete vote, but mayegarding "The article creator has spammed this material across multiple other Wikipedia articles on more notable topics (that are unrelated to each other and to this mess)", it was suggested by Wikipedia to link to other article, checked the time, only after that it was linked following Wikipedia suggestion. There was not motive of spamming.--MasaComp (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I read the abstract of the paper. I read the first five or so pages of the paper. It makes no sense at all. It for instance refers to closed timelike curves (CTCs), which to the best of anyone's knowledge only exist inside a black hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To all suggesting a delete, reviewers spent 8 months to review the Information paper, and none of you reviewed the paper, did not even read it, and its background. Gregor Drummen who himself a computer scientist took 3 months to write an article on this paper.http://mdpimag.com/2014/06/03/brain-jelly-an-organic-brain-like-computer-without-circuits-or-logic-gates/ This is very easy to comment and criticise, this is very difficult to do a work. I just request David Eppstein (talk) and Robert McClenon (talk) to take time to read, just by looking at something even great scientists cannot decide what is correct. And you are taking no time to abuse a work, I bet none of you have even read the papers properly. Also the comment of Robert McClenon (talk)is surprising, you are commenting on the judgement of a peer review journal but not citing a single reason why it is not scientific? Criticise the work, that is science, I ask several times, raise the technical points if you can. Saying, this is a bad journal, editor is not good, not cited many times, all these points are human "perception", I can invite 50 top mathematicians and computer scientists who will come here and suggest to keep this article, but I wont do that, you know why? Because you are the editors, politics is never science. See all comments above, those who suggest delete, not a single person has commented on the content, which part is not peer reviewed, which parts do not have any background reference?--MasaComp (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing discussion as it is disruptive

Robert McClenon (talk) Shall I show you several top computer scientists papers on CTC based computing. And I can show you many places in Wikipedia where those are cited? Check Turing Machine related articles, CTC is widely used and in the 1960s CTC based computing was one of the most prominent articles. Please search Wikipedia, if you do not find how for 50 years CTC is used to show computing beyond Turing, I will show you the Wikilinks. But thanks at least one person has talked scientifically.--MasaComp (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) Follow this link in Wikipedia how many works were done on black hole computing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercomputation This is what we showed in PNAS in 2008 paper, one circular chain generated 4 billion solutions. This is what we used to solve problems in Nature Physics that would require millions of years to solve. Read the nature Physics to learn how time could be used as fractal clocks. Prof Andy Adamatzky wrote a review of our nature paper, read that too, how we controlled clock in 2010. That is used in 2014 Information paper.--MasaComp (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article to which you link states: "Technical arguments against the physical realizability of hypercomputations have been presented." In short, it's the stuff of dreams, not of future reality. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) and David Eppstein (talk) We do science, nothing else. Information paper is a peer reviewed paper and we have given several plenary presentations across the globe since last one year, we have posted the link of plenary lectures also, just two reference does not count everything, see above, if you start discussing the science, I can continue for days, evaluate the work, take time, do not hurry, and then decide. Check our PNAS paper, it took one year to publish, check our Nature Physics it took one year to publish, and even Information paper, it took 8 months for reviewing. It takes time.--MasaComp (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) and David Eppstein (talk) The AjoChhand Machine is patented, A vertical parallel processor (filed 2006) JP-5187804 Anirban Bandyopadhyay, K. Miki (issued 2013) This is a new class of processor, after 7 years of fight with top Japanese and US companies. Without complete claim of the technology we would never make it public.--MasaComp (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) and David Eppstein (talk) Absolutely, it was a dream to use clocks for a long time to use CTC like concepts, clock inside a clock is not CTC, that we proposed, but high speed computing we have demonstrated that cannot be realized using any supercomputers of the world. The experimental description I have put above for PNAS and Nature Physics, how we demonstrated massive computing. Information is the last, also check the patent. I do not want to show you down or defeat you guys. Science is difficult, just ask me questions, for 15 years I have dedicated my life to this, and I will be upset today no. Check the patent we fought for 7 years with my group and lawyers. We hold the patent of this technology now in 2013, then we communicated the paper in Information. --MasaComp (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) and David Eppsteinbecome rather passionate to save it. It's not against any policy/guideline to argue with every delete vote, but may (talk) I know you are doing your job honestly, thats why I am asking, read above things, if you have any concerns, let me know, grill me as much as you can, but let the truth come out, you would see, always what appears may not he the truth. After we got the patent, we wrote a paper in Information to package our 10 years of patents and papers which we published in top notch journals in different times. I can list you 35 plenary lectures, awards for the research on this topic, earlier BBC journalist named it Nano Brain in 2008 (PNAS), but we advanced it further to molecular computer in 2010 in Nature Physics, then again problems arised and we published 2014 the brain jelly in Advanced Functional Materials as cover article. These are all technical papers, and those papers have all about fractal tape. Kindly read the AjoChhand Machine Wikipedia page and then read the Advanced Functional Materials 2014 paper abstract, you will see the similarity. Something is written simply in Information does not mean there is no technical background to it. There is, but it takes time to understand. --MasaComp (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) and David Eppstein (talk) Please at least read our above arguments. We do not want you to accept everything without debating, we disclosed nothing in 10 years, but as noted above we have 7 years fought patent, several more patents filed, top class journal publications showing how to perform extremely complex computation in 3 or 4 minutes using fractal network of clocks, those experimental results were summarized in Information paper. Check all papers, patents, several reviewers from different fields reviewed for a year before accepting the papers, so please do not abuse those editors, reviewers. Above many has abused the journals, we have documented above how several publications holds the key to the AjoChhand machine proposal. In Wikipedia several articles do exist wherein there is no background work, but in this case, more than 10-15 papers exist. Do not search with AjoChhand term, because a term makes no sense, the content is. We wanted scientific discussion but found people are abusing editors and reviewers, why did they accepted those papers and patents too? This is no Science, this is a painful abuse.--MasaComp (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally only one scientific question was asked why do we use CTC?

The complete story

We have not, but we used that idea, what is the idea? If you have a clock whose minimum time is one second, you can go to a system inside wherein minimum time is 1 millisecond, do the job and come back, the clock would assume, no time has passed, but it is just transition from one clock to another, can we have many such clocks?, yes, so we created organic materials for 8 years and demonstrated this is possible. This clock network is AjoChhand machine. PNAS 2008 paper is AjoChhand machine, Nature Physics 2010 is AjoChhand Machine and Advanced Functional Materials 2014 is also a hardware, namely brain jelly. This is a simple topic, with this, we are not claiming Nobel Prize, this is 10 years of effort to demonstrate a cool concept. And this is the complete story.--MasaComp (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why all our papers are in high impact journals and Information paper in low impact? For which we are being abused, reviewers and editors of those journals are abused. We summarized the 10 years old results in computer science, biology, materials science and physics to tell one story. So it became 73 pages long paper, who would publish that tell me? That is the reason, only one paper in the 10 years story is in low impact journal, and you all are abusing us for that. No one even asked me what do you want to tell here? What is your message. This is so painful, no one enjoys science anymore, no one is receptive, everyone wants to give judgement. after all, all science that is true today will become obsolete in the next 50 years as told by one Nature editor, still, no one wants to learn --MasaComp (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree this sounds like a hoax. But if it isn't, it is not notable in any case. As David Eppstein points out, it is very poorly cited and only in equally dubious works. Just to quote one snippet from the original paper "experimentally determined resonance chain with bandwidth 10⁻¹⁵ Hz..."; the period of such a resonance is about 30 million years—how long exactly did it take to make this "experimental determination"? SpinningSpark 00:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Spinning Spark Here is the thing that you missed. I quote from the manuscript "Microhertz resolution could be measured without noise trouble. Below microhertz, large time domain data was collected and based on the slopes nano hertz to femto hertz data are produced." This you missed. There is a technology by which micro to nano hertz you can measure, but you do not need to wait for 100 years. Search a bit, please. From slope commercial machines determines the frequency in a few seconds. Also there are many other ways. Regarding notability, "AjoChhand word" seems to be problematic for everybody. What about changing it to Frequency Fractal Machine. There is nothing in the name. Also, please check the experimental papers used in AjoChhand Article and the Information paper. All associated papers tell one story, Information is a sum up paper, it is not the only one paper, why other papers are ignored? As told, there is nothing in the name. Nature Physics, PNAS together cited 60-70 times, those are part of it, those are very notable more than 60 interviews and highlights published.

I would like to thank the original author of the article for agreeing to use Wikipedia rules for a deletion discussion and avoiding personal attacks. You are entitled to that credit. Thank you. However, that doesn't mean that we will strike our !votes for deletion of the article. Thank you for becoming cooperative after being cautioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert McLenon We were abused by editor in personal email, so we responded. We do not abuse. One point. It is obvious that the discussion has shifted to a point where everybody is searching for "AjoChhand Machine" which is not our concern at all. If you want we would like to change the name of the page itself, because we do not want that a simple name makes 10 years work a hoax tag. However, we do not know how to do that. Do we have to delete the page entirely, to change the name of the page? Also, we have argued above why it is that only one paper is looked into? Why intentionally all other papers are ignored. Nature Physics, PNAS together cited 60-70 times, those are part of it.

Keep This article is well cited and strongly supported by well known journals such as Nature Physics, PNAS. The article has been wrongly tagged as hoax where it would have been more appropriate to tag it as {{expert-subject}}. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. RunNroll (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)RunNroll — RunNroll (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply to Robert McLenon If you feel that their are some issues with article, then list them in bullets so that they can be resolved one by one. And I would request MasaComp & others who support the article to give logical reasons with citations or references against each point. This will be a better approach to reach consensus rather than the way things are moving now.RunNroll (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)RunNroll[reply]

Delete (Expert)—I'm not sure what this says about me, but I do have an inkling about the contents of the article. The short version: implement a general Turing Machine using only directed acyclic graph: each state/vertex encodes the entire execution history up to that point. If you remember Finite Automata from your CompSci theory class, think of this as Infinite Automata where no state can be visited twice. Maybe. Or maybe not. Anyway, single papers with single-digit citation counts and zero coverage in reliable sources don't pass our notability guidelines. I doubt very much this is a hoax—it's far too over the top for that—but neither does it belong on enWP. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC) n.b. Just saw the "expert" tag. My Ph.D. is in CompSci, and I'm employed as a research scientist in that field. For whatever that's worth. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Lesser Cartographics This article is not about single paper, please read the article, this is about at least 10 papers published in biology, computer science, materials science, and with total citations much more than 100, which is your criteria of becoming a notable article in Wikipedia. According to your own argument the article should be published. Information paper is not a technical paper it is a summary of 10 years of research and you can check that in the information paper, there are only schematics (this is not a technical paper at all, why you study this), for every argument old papers published in the last 10 years covering more than 100 citations are included. Regarding cellular automaton, you have misunderstood the concept totally. What you argue about reading textbook, we suggest, if you read textbook and try to explain everything in terms of textbook then you cannot do novel research, and all that you write for Wikipedia will be a redundant. There is no infinity here (read the Nature Physics paper), tape inside a tape is not written in any textbook, if you can show us any such book, we will delete this article and not only that retract the paper. This is novel, never said by anybody, so it justifies to be in the Wikipedia with more than 100 citations.--MasaComp (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasaComp (talk • contribs) 03:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"if you read textbook and try to explain everything in terms of textbook then you cannot do novel research, and all that you write for Wikipedia will be a redundant". Yes. Exactly. That's an excellent summary of our prohibition against original research. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a good idea to rename a page while the debate is ongoing. You can explain here what you think the name should be and the article can moved later if it is decided it should be kept. SpinningSpark 02:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is well cited and strongly supported by well known journals such as Nature Physics, PNAS. The article has been wrongly tagged as hoax where it would have been more appropriate to tag it as {expert-subject}. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. RunNroll (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)RunNroll [reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. Please only provide a single keep or delete opinion. That means one per person, not one per login name — using multiple sockpuppets in an AfD is highly frowned on and is very unlikely to achieve your preferred result. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Robert McLenon & Spinningspark If you feel that their are some issues with article, then list them in bullets so that they can be resolved one by one. And I would request MasaComp & others who support the article to give logical reasons with citations or references against each point. This will be a better approach to reach consensus.RunNroll (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)RunNroll[reply]

I see that, apart from writing on this page and !voting here (twice), RunNroll's only contribution to Wikipedia has been to insert an error into Toll roads in Belarus. Maproom (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to RunNroll This is my last post, after this, I will not come to reply because I am a scientist and I have worked all day today and believe me this was biggest mistake of my life to come here and get abused for hoax. I leave this for the judgement of editors. Check www.anirbanlab.co.nr for some aspects of this project. I have collaborators across the world, I have not asked anyone to come and support us here, I am hurt, so this is my last message, and this is to you.

Here are the citations used in the Information paper, the information paper is not a technical paper it is a summary paper, therefore need not to be given too much importance, of course if you read that you get our biology, computer science and physics papers on which we worked for more than 10 years in this project. Information paper cites all of those works. Here are those citations. The 10 patents are listed below the paper list. These are not all the papers, these are some of the related papers, AjoChhand Machine article has cited some other papers also. All are interconnected. The "brain building project" was part of ICYS project in Japan that started in 2003.

In this computer, each cell of a tape is a cell, it is a multilevel memory switching device. First you see memory switching papers then processor papers. To see citation below you can see 162, it means this is cited 162 times. On this topic we are the pioneer in the world with around 1000 citations and numerous international awards.

A list of papers and patents

Large conductance switching and memory effects in organic molecules for data-storage applications, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Applied physics letters 82 (8), 1215-1217 162 2003
Large conductance switching and binary operation in organic devices: Role of functional groups, A Bandhopadhyay, AJ Pal, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 107 (11), 2531-2536 118 2003
Multilevel conductivity and conductance switching in supramolecular structures of an organic molecule, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Applied physics letters 84 (6), 999-1001 78 2004
Memory device applications of a conjugated polymer: Role of space charges, HS Majumdar, A Bandyopadhyay, A Bolognesi, AJ Pal, Journal of Applied Physics 91 (4), 2433-2437 76 2002
Origin of negative differential resistance in a strongly coupled single molecule-metal junction device, R Pati, M McClain, A Bandyopadhyay, Physical review letters 100 (24), 246801 58 2008
Tuning of Organic Reversible Switching via Self‐Assembled Supramolecular Structures, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Advanced Materials 15 (22), 1949-1952 57 2003
Data-storage devices based on layer-by-layer self-assembled films of a phthalocyanine derivative HS Majumdar, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Organic electronics 4 (1), 39-44 39 2003
Massively parallel computing on an organic molecular layer, A Bandyopadhyay, R Pati, S Sahu, F Peper, D Fujita, Nature Physics 6 (5), 369-375 38 2010
Memory-switching phenomenon in acceptor-rich organic molecules: impedance spectroscopic studies, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 109 (13), 6084-6088 35 2005
Electrical bistability in molecular films: transition from memory to threshold switching, SK Majee, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Chemical physics letters 399 (1), 284-288 32 2004
A 16-bit parallel processing in a molecular assembly, A Bandyopadhyay, S Acharya, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105 (10), 3668-3672 28 2008
Molecular level control of donor/acceptor heterostructuresin organic photovoltaic devices, B Pradhan, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Applied physics letters 85 (4), 663-665 23 2004
Writing and erasing information in multilevel logic systems of a single molecule using scanning tunneling microscope, A Bandyopadhyay, K Miki, Y Wakayama, Applied physics letters 89 (24), 243506 22 2006
Key to design functional organic molecules for binary operation with large conductance switching, A Bandyopadhyay, AJ Pal, Chemical physics letters 371 (1), 86-90 22 2003
Atomic water channel controlling remarkable properties of a single brain microtubule: correlating single protein to its supramolecular assembly, S Sahu, S Ghosh, B Ghosh, K Aswani, K Hirata, D Fujita, ..., Biosensors and Bioelectronics 47, 141-148 19 2013
Multi-level memory-switching properties of a single brain microtubule, S Sahu, S Ghosh, K Hirata, D Fujita, A Bandyopadhyay, Applied Physics Letters 102 (12), 123701 15 2013
A new approach to extract multiple distinct conformers and co-existing distinct electronic properties of a single molecule by point-contact method, A Bandyopadhyay, S Sahu, D Fujita, Y Wakayama, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 12 (9), 2198-2208 8 2010

Here are 10 patents

A vertical parallel processor (2006) JP-5187804 Anirban Bandyopadhyay, K. Miki (issued 2013)
An inductor made of arrayed capacitors (2010) JP-096217 (world patent filed), Satyajit Sahu, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
Thermal noise driven molecular rotor (2013). 13-MS-095; Subrata Ghosh, Satyajit Sahu, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
Sensor, molecular machine, and controller attached programmable nano-robot (2013). 13-MS-097; Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
A molecular chip that generates electrical power from free thermal noise (2013). 13-MS-096; Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
A supramolecular architecture creation by successive phase transitions and radiations (2013). 13-MS-099'; Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita; Satyajit Sahu, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
A supramolecular architecture that forms automatically as the system self-assembles the "if-then" statements of computer programming (2013). 13-MS-100; Anirban Bandyopadhyay, Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita
A computer architecture that uses frequency fractal modulation as the basis of information processing (2013). 13-MS-101; Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
A chemical synthesis technology in which materials self-assemble such that a particular fractal made of frequency is generated (2013). 13-MS-098; Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay
Synthesis of a spiral organic structure wherein the magnetic field produced is the function of the charge stored (2013). 13-MS-102; Satyajit Sahu, Subrata Ghosh, Daisuke Fujita, Anirban Bandyopadhyay — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasaComp (talk • contribs) 03:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As written the article is essentially incomprehensible, and appears to be nonsense, and many bits that can be understood are wrong (for example, the bit about Turing discovering that (Turing) a-machines cannot solve the halting problem is, at best, a fundamental misunderstanding - Turing invented a-machines specifically to provide a formal model of computation in which the decide-ability of the halting problem could be discussed, OTOH the 1938 date reference would suggest that the author is actually trying to refer to a later result, where Turing demonstrated that an a-machine augmented with an oracle could *also* not decide the halting problem, in which case the section is also significantly in error as written). In any event, there is no indication of notability. Rwessel (talk) 06:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all notable. Subject appears in just one (uncited) paper, and that paper displays multiple misunderstandings of the topic. For example, in line with the Church–Turing thesis, alternatives to the Turing Machine are not in themselves anything new. Indeed, the Turing Machine was not even the first published formal model of computability. As Rwessel notes, the present article is gibberish, and the discussion here also suggests a degree of WP:COI, but the key point here is the total lack of notability. -- 101.117.108.115 (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as non-notable per WP:GNG. Note to creator of article and friends - make your "keep" arguments once. Posting walls of text in response to every "delete" comment, is not helpful (WP:TLDR). ukexpat (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Concur with Ukexpat that the editing by the proponent is disruptive. Proponent appears to be trying to overwhelm this discussion by arguing with every delete !vote. Similarly, the demands that we ask questions about the paper, when we tried to read the paper and found it incomprehensible, are disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say that. Doing so is just merely trying to understand your !vote is all, and proposing some person's article I understand WP:OWN up for deletion causes people to become rather passionate to save it. It's not against any policy/guideline to argue with every delete vote, but may be seen as poor practice. Tutelary (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the author is passionate but not disruptive. Assuming good faith this editor is here to improve the encyclopedia. This topic seems to not pass our notability criteria and seems odd in general though. Chillum 17:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three google scholar hits, none of which are all primary sources per our WP:NOR policy, none of which are independent of the author. Also, as others have pointed out, all of these hits are effectively self-published. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep material delete AjoChhand Machine term it is not cited much, consensus is already reached above this and editors have already noted it This is bad to see that people suggesting delete here they use google to search "AjoChhand machine", which authors have already suggested to replace, because the name has been given recently, so of course the name cannot be found. Editor said, this name cannot be changed right now, but I request editor to change the name "AjoChhand machine" to "Vertical parallel processor", otherwise see the debate above, people are misled.--MasaComp (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now AjoChhand machine is edited, based on the comments made above. I will do this once in a day, because of lack of time. It was noted above that the AjoChahnd Machine was patented in the name Vertical Parallel Processor in 2006, all those editors concerned here should search "Vertical Parallel Processor" in Google, not AjoChhand machine. I have modified the article so that people stop referring to Information paper, which is only wherefrom the term "AjoChhand machine" is taken. As author of this Wikipedia article, I repeat, though anyone does not bother, some original papers are included now, and the AjoChhand machine is now modified. Please comment on partially modified article. If the new article "Vertical Parallel Processor" is acceptable we can discuss on that.--MasaComp (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single comment above is on the patent, not a single comment is on the Nature Physics, not a single comment is on the Advanced Functional Materials, Why? Why everybody is ignoring those papers, because those are highly cited. This is really a shame when we provide nearly thousands of citations list to the background papers of this Wikipedia article, every single person ignored it, Why? Editors, please note this.--MasaComp (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments on quality of any paper, Wikipedia is not a peer review center, here some commenters might have conflict of interest (See Wikipedia policy, hence it was suggested that Wikipedia will not do peer review, consider peer review articles as authentic, but the violation of wikipedia policy is above, we can see, every other person passing judgement, and most of them are erroneous even by computer science school textbook).--MasaComp (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone who suggest "delete" wants to comment, I challenge, please comment on the original technical papers based on which the Information Article is written, the Nature Physics and PNAS and Advanced Funcational materials paper. I found zero comment from every single person above. If anyone thinks that they understands computer science well, because I see very high intellectual abusive remarks against published papers, editors, reviewers of those journals etc, above (violating Wiki policy), then prove the Nature Physics experimental demonstration, how that could be done in a Turing machine, or any finite machine, I challenge, many of those suggested delete, do not even understood those technical papers. So they resorted for the Information paper which is peer reviewed yet review kind of an article written for general audience. Count citation of Nature Physics and PNAS, see and then say, but you dont do this, why? Why selective Amnesia? Conflict of Interest?--MasaComp (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this is a challenge to every single editor above who are abusing the Information article, and AjoChhand machine page, this is about fractal tape, prove that it is Turing tape. If you do, I will post here, that it was 10 years old wrong effort and concede consensus. But, if you cannot do not come here and abuse the editors of Information journals and authors. This fractal is the main theme of this Wikipedia article, and main theme of the clock concept published in Nature Physics, prove that the Nature Physics data junk, of course if you can understand the paper. If you cannot prove that you are not qualified to abuse the research content here. If you challenge the research ability of the scientists, then as an author of this Wiki Article I am challenging that you make comment without going to the deep, you selectively ignore the strong references related to this article and this is due to conflict of interest, count the citations of Nature Physics, PNAS and show us your honesty.--MasaComp (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above two challenges are not to humiliate or abuse those who comment delete, just to tell, that there are many things that we all do not know, be receptive, abusing reviewers, editors of other journals, peer reviewed works, is not a gold standard policy of Wiki, we must respect others research, who knows, the research could be a truth. If you ask questions, then ask about the positive points, suggest mistakes and corrections based on my claims here, if I find mistakes, I will be the first one to concede that it was wrong article, and ask for deletion. You see above, I found "AjoChhand machine" term cannot be the title of an article, I am suggesting editors, please change, and honoring all of you I am making changes--MasaComp (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a rest with the accusations of abuse, that is becoming very tiresome. Nobody is abusing you here, the page was nominated quite properly and needs to be considered on its merits. Attacking other editors is failing to assume good faith and in any case is has no bearing on the matter at hand. Would you also please leave off bolding everything under the sun, the convention here is to bold only the nature of your contribution (keep, delete, comment etc). It is especially not in your interest to repeatedly bold the word delete when you are arguing to keep the article. Just bear in mind that the closing administrator will be looking for those bolded keywords.

To take up one of your challenges, I searched for the term vertical parallel processor. The search in gbooks came up with zero results and the search in scholar came up with only two results in addition to the original paper. Both of these are by A Bandyopadhyay, they do not appear to be peer reviewed, they are cited by nobody, and are not, as far as I can tell, discussing an AjoChhand machine. It seems more like conventional neural network parallel computing. The issue here is not so much the truth of this research or its importance, Wikipedia is not qualified to judge that, but rather whether or not the research has been discussed by others in enough depth to make it notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. SpinningSpark 00:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Above, MasaComp wrote, as a reply to RunNroll: "This is my last post, after this, I will not come to reply because I am a scientist and I have worked all day today and believe me this was biggest mistake of my life to come here and get abused for hoax. I leave this for the judgement of editors." MasaComp then continues to complain about "abuse" here. I could say that any comment that one makes to oneself cannot be trusted, since RunNroll appears to be a sockpuppet of MasaComp. In any case, the statement that "This is my last post", followed by multiple posts, is disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk), as author to this article I said that I will not comment again, true, but I came back because of one reason, I made mistake in the article, and it could be that it was not others fault, it is my fault that is diverting everybody and I had to accept that. So I came to correct the article, You should praise me, should not you? Why abusing me? Your use of word "sockpuppet" is not good, right? Anyone who support this article will be termed by an honorable editor like you with such a bad word I request, please, please do not do this, we all love Wikipedia and still I respect you for your great work, you have tought me how to write an Wikipedia article, I joined only three or four days back, check it out, I am learning from all of you, AjoChhand Machine is my first article, so I made mistakes, and I am correcting it, give me time, I will be the best student of yours--MasaComp (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark You have not accepted my challenge, you have not even understood what the challenge was. I asked to look at the content of the Wikipedia AjoChhand article, not for a single word AjhoChhand, because everybody was putting it in Google and searching it. Wiki:NOT rule suggests that an article should be notable, no where it is said that the title should be notable or a single word. So I made two challenges, First, if any one is qualified, and 1% honest here, then talk about the notability of all five papers based on which the article is written, like Nature Physics and PNAS. I even challenged that no one who posting delete are not qualified to prove how in Nature Physics "clock based computing" went beyond Turing, if you do not understand then do not abuse reviewers of those journals and articles. Second challenge I made was "AjoChhand machine" is a class of computing which talks about fractal Turing tape, a concept similar to fractal time, if anyone is qualified here to prove that it is a wrong concept, it comes within Turing. Then the article content notability and originality could be understood. However, you do not know how to search, above, I proved you wrong. Here I prove you again. You have listed my article "Frequency Fractal" as not notable, now listen, inverse of frequency is time, Frequency Fractal = Time fractal, search now, you will find thousands of articles for both the terms. So you need to learn the Wiki rule Wiki:NOT, when a term exists for 30 years in papers and everywhere it is notable, your listing for my article for deletion shows the painful condition of Wiki. Shall I show you evidence of Frequency Fractal notable evidences? Forget about that, now lets come here, above one I raised, because you argued, since this article is selected for deletion so that article should also be selected for deletion, what a logic!!!!! I have edited the article and all 48 mentions of AjoChhand machine term is deleted if the title AjoChhand is deleted as I requested already, there will be no mention of AjoChhand in the entire article, all concerns of every single editor above is fully honored, I challenged to look at the content of Nature Physics and all associated papers to humbly learn, sometimes learning helps. Regarding technical issues of your comment, please note A Bandyopadhyay is not the inventor of Vertical Parallel processor. You are wrong. Vertical parallel processor was invented in 1992 by Stanford R. Ovshinsky, Guy Wicker Here is the link http://www.google.com/patents/US5159661 There is a long history of Vertical parallel processor, and I can list several works Wikipedia is completely silent about entire research field, there is zero number of article in entire Wikipedia about the entire issue. Finally please I found now that A Bandyopadhyay only gave the name AjoChhand to a particular class. AjoChhand Machine's fundamental concept was published in 1979, it was made by Wlodzimierz Holsztynski, this I will edit Wiki page AjoChhand soon, already AjoChhand name is discredited in the Wiki page, thus, no concern regarding this term holds now I personally feel the Article has given too much credit to undeserved, I will correct it soon.--MasaComp (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the Nature Physics article is not discussing the machine that you have written an article about. It therefore does not add to the notability of the subject no matter how many citations it has. SpinningSpark 01:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Thanks User:Spinningspark, at least now we can discuss, open the Nature Physics paper go to the last two figures you will see time is noted, the logarithmic change in time is fractal, that is also noted in that papers abstract, this is a nice example of fractal time or fractal tape or fractal machine computing. AjoChhand machine is nothing but a fractal machine or fractal tape machine or fractal tape machine. Please check and enjoy, actually, you are not from this research field so you dont know, it natural. Of course, now, some editor here has noted me that entire content was found in fractality of time, there are now thousands of evidences of fractal machine, fractal time etc, hence, now for Wiki:NOT rule notability of these terms are much more.

To all persons above I have received a personal message from any one of you may be that all that is written in AjoChhand Machine Wiki article is very well known in conventional science, this is called, "fractality in time", I have checked and found that this is true. So, please give me time. I need to give credit to very different peoples, I need two days to include all those citations to the article, because currently, many things are cited in the name of different people.--MasaComp (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No sources for the concept defined in the article have been found, and the mass of verbiage from the article author includes no reasons to keep the article. I suggest a snow delete at this point. -- 101.117.28.72 (talk) 05:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author has replaced the term AjoChhand Machine with fractal tape machine in the article and is also suggesting the article be renamed. To be scupulously fair, I am reposting the "find sources" links below with this search term (although I am not seeing anything come up other than the Wikipedia article). SpinningSpark 09:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neither of these search phrases appears in Zentralblatt MATH, which suggests that the concept has no been the subject of indepdent reliable sources. Deltahedron (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment A kind request to User:Spinningspark , If you want please put the name "fractal machine" then people can search, fractal tape and fractal machine represents similar thing, but people do not understand the similarity, they simply take the word and google. For example Turing machine or Turing tape are same, but if we write Turing tape machine, it is same but if you search you wont find its reference, though technically it is correct. Similarly, Fractal tape, and Fractal machine are same as Fractal tape machine, because without tape you cannot make a machine, but you see, if you search, then you wont get it, so I converted Fractal tape machine into Fractal machine in the article, please consider this--MasaComp (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am searching and finding that several people has given different name to the same concept. Here are some examples. 1. A FRACTAL TOPOLOGY OF TIME----Kerri Welch (you can find entire research thesis on this topic) 2. Fractal and Multifractal Time Series------Jan W. Kantelhardt http://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.0747.pdf 3. Fractal space-time---- http://luth2.obspm.fr/~luthier/nottale/arEDU08.pdf Here is fractal time calculator http://www.greggbraden.com/fractal-time-calculator Fractal machine, However http://blog.sciencevsmagic.net/science/fractal-machine/ "Fractal Turing machine" http://forum.wolframscience.com/archive/topic/1515-1.html Finally, let me take some time, I am searching thoroughly and checking everything, in a day or two I will compile all references, and improve the article.--MasaComp (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the problem that other people are pointing out to you -- if you need to do your own original research on the topic to write an article then we cannot have it on Wikipedia, where we go by what has already been published in independent reliable sources. If you think this is an important concept which has been discussed under various names and no-one has yet recognised the common features of, then write a scholarly paper on the subject and get it published by a good scientific journal. Wikipedia is not the venue for that. Deltahedron (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deltahedron (talk) Thank you very much for your kind note and very constructive criticism. I have really happy to see that some very good criticisms are coming out. I have written this Wikipedia article, that does not mean I know everything. As pointed out to me by some editor above, that the article that I have written in the name as "AjoChhand machine" is very notable in the term "fractality of time", the way I wrote, was wrong, I have already accepted that I committed mistake, and following that I have changed the article completely, perhaps you have not checked it recently, please go through. I stated above and confirmed, that is true. You can cross-check. As noted, "the concept in the Wikipedia article is Fractal machine and different groups named this concept in different terms, that does prove above the concept of this article in Wiki is not original, it is existing for a long time." Now, I honor your statement "where we go by what has already been published in independent reliable sources" true. In order for me to honor your concern fully, I have to add several sources of "fractal machine". There are several reliable sources, if you google it, you can find it. What I stated above, because of extreme time constraint, I am not able to arrange the references properly in the Wikipedia article, so I said, give me some time, this is a 30 years old research, please see the references above, some of which I have already included, at least 5 groups across the globe has worked, so it needs time.--MasaComp (talk) 22:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting cite—I was trying to track down the Nature Physics paper and came across this instead. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turing's world of computing and the Darwin's theory of evolution are two concepts that form the scientific columns of the current human civilization. These two models survive for a long time and elevated as a religious faith for the scientists, sociologists, artists, thinkers, —in every single way that defines human expression. These two philosophies are apparently unrelated, but, stems from a similar fundamental ground "matter" and binary true/false argument. Here we review multiple Ecplises and reincarnation of Turing and Darwin's sermons in the light of our new invention of "invincible rhythm" (or Ajeya Chhandam in Sanskrit, shortly AjoChhand) concept that disregards the materialistic philosophy and binary arguments, where the logical statements are composed of multiple truths.
— Ghosh, Subrata; Bandyopadhyay, Anirban (n.d.), Ecplising & replacing the two most fundamental religions of science: Turing world of computation and Darwin's world of evolution, emphasis added, url points to (blacklisted) functionspace.org.

Lesser Cartographies (talk) Every single mention of AjoChhand machine is deleted from this Frequency Fractal Wikipedia article as per editors note, the article you mention is not concerned any more, I seriously doubt this hypothetical article you brought in, how it came to internet, and who posted that which journal evaluated it and whether this is a peer reviewed or under preparation, it seems as I checked it is copied from a discussion forum, so every public forum discussions are part of Wiki evaluation? amazing, this is pure philosophical discussion, and beyond the purview of current Wikipedia article, your Nature Physics evaluation is still awaited, please comment on how logarithmic advantage is demonstrated as part of fractal time advantage? the fractal machine concept is found to be a contribution of some other group, from Google scholar I found Dubois, D. (1992). The fractal machine. Presses Universitaires de Liège. Dubois, D. M., and G. Resconi. "Hyperincursive fractal machine beyond the Turing machine." Advances in Cognitive Engineering and Knowledge-based Systems. Int. Inst. for Adv. Studies in Syst. Res. and Cybernetics (1994): 212-216.this group is credited for the contribution Finally there are three other groups which contributed in developing this Fractal tape and machine concept, all those references are noted above and now included in the Wikipedia article. As noted above, the contribution of Bandyopadhyay group is much much later, from 1989 to 2003, there were several patents on this concept and all patents are now included in the Wikipedia article, it seems there are historically three phases of developments, first in the 1980s, then in the 1990s and finally in the late 2000--MasaComp (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are so interested, see this new move that inspired me to compile all these articles, I thought I would improve the article slowly as it happens in Wiki, but, I had to face this challenge. Anyway, you may like it which proves none of the Turing machine would work, then I searched Wiki and found not a single article on Fractal Time series and computation theories based on that. Noam Chomosky's thought is not new, if you search the Wiki article I have written, there are references of brain like "fractal machine" in the 1980s, but people ignored.--MasaComp (talk) 23:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC) http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/11/noam-chomsky-on-where-artificial-intelligence-went-wrong/261637/[reply]

Delete This is original research at best and complete nonsense at worst. Chillum 01:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment User talk:Chillum I cannot respond on non-arguments, but I can tell in the current form it covers all references of "Frequency Fractal" concept emerged from 1989 to 2014, all notes and priorities to AjoChhand is deleted and would sincerely urge you to read the current form, of the Wiki article perhaps you have not gone through the sincere effort I have made addressing every single concern of every single editor.--MasaComp (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can change the names of stuff all you want but it is still incoherent. It seems to be describing something that could not exist in this universe. It contains gems like The machine operation time is constant, because at every moment all tapes, all rhythms thus all decisions actively operate which references a book on philosophy and talks about an infinite 3D network of tapes. Is this machine meant to be some sort of thought experiment in a universe where infinite networks of tapes exist? Chillum 02:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chillum Thank you so much for your kind note, and a brilliant question, I cannot tell how happy I am. I liked really that you asked real questions, this is how we should evaluate an article, and this is the way we would learn the truth. Every single fractal is a 3D network and infinite, it has no beginning and no end, Let me explain. So, what you are suggesting is impossible, is actually everywhere. Means, if you take any system, say, Galaxy, it is a fractal spiral, you enter inside, then, you get say solar system, Sun is moving very fast in a straight line say, along with all the planets, so, this motion is again a spiral, now you enter brain, say neuron, and inside microtubule, it is spiral, then again inside microtubule a single protein, it is a spiral, DNA is a spiral, even the smallest Plank dimension, Roger Penrose have been working on twister theory for several years to establish that Plank dimension is a spiral. So Spiral is everywhere, fractal is everywhere and everytime you take a tape, go inside and find another tape, right? This is called fractal tape, and this is the theme of this Wikipedia article, isnt it beautiful?--MasaComp (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Now, coming back to your concern of references, In physics, they call philosophy, but, it is filled with physical principles, philosophy does not means belongs to arts, entire quantum mechanics is also philosophy, like PhD, means Doctor in Philosophy, does that mean, everybody studies imaginary philosophy, no no. Anyway, what I want to say, there are plenty of references in the Wiki article now, if you want hardcore mathematics to explain this infinite 3D network, then go to several other references in the first paragraphs.--MasaComp (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC) Finally your third concern, can we ever make such a 3D fractal network, or this Wiki article is just an imagination? Here is the link of a technical paper and you can read the abstract. Just by reading the abstract you can understand that how brilliantly from a single tape of a few nanometers, giant physically visible billion times larger tapes are created. This article was selected for innter cover page, see the brilliant cover page in the journal. Here is the link http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adfm.v24.10/issuetoc This paper reference is given in the Wikipedia article from the very beginning. This journal Advanced Functional Material impact factor is around 10. This technology is patented, and the group made a massive public demonstration of brain jelly in Amsterdam 2014 this year, if you want I can give you the links too. Anyway, here is a copy from this journal.--MasaComp (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC) "The nano brain created by S. Ghosh, A. Bandyopadhyay, and co-workers is a single cell gygote which can sense the environment around it. At just 7 nm, it has sensors (white balls on the surface), the ability to analyse and make decisions (sea green computing device) and to respond (red molecular machines). This cell, described on page 1364, can grow continuously into a series of complex structures to form a brain-jelly made to use in a Robot's brain."--MasaComp (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of this is no doubt very interesting, but not at all relevant to the question "Should Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, have an article on AjoChhand Machine?" We cannot write an article on anything unless and until there are indepedent reliable sources that we can use to write it. Wikipedia in general, and this discussion page in particular, is not a forum for the discussion of scientific advances, however interesting, or for writing original research or compiling survey articles or bibliographies: it is certainly not the place for other people to help you write an original research paper.

Are there independent published scientific articles or textbooks that discuss this specific subject, as an entity in itself, in a way that allows us to use the material for an encyclopaedia article? So far, the answer appears to be "no": the more unconnected material you post here the clearer it becomes that there is no single source we can use to give the sort of overview that is required, and that the topic is not yet ready to be the subject of an article. Deltahedron (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: it is possible that there is an article to be written on the topic Incursive automaton, including Hyperincursive automaton. Perhaps we could start with that? Deltahedron (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deltahedron AjoChhand machine term does not exist now in the current form of Wiki article, the original inventor has been given the proper justified honor, as one of the editor pointed me out, the entire article comes under "fractality of time", following his advice, entire article is now changed completely. Since then we are exploring alternative like Frequency Fractal. This is true that the concept exists for a long time now since 1990s and Fractal machine name has been used. The phenomenon used therein is Frequency Fractal or Fractal frequency There are several sources where these terminologies were used, even in the paper that talks about AjoChhand machine, whole paper uses Fractal frequency and Fractal machine itself. Incursive automation and Hyperincursive automation term does not occur much because those are not NOTABLE, so violates Wiki law, rather, Fractal Machine and Frequency Fractal as suggested by one editor above is notable and below I have cited 10 references each in the last 30 years. Honestly, I want that this entire research field which is completely missing from the Wikipedia should contain somewhere in some form, thats all, there are hundreds of papers on this topic with citations of more than thousands. I have no objection to any format any name. Attached please find below list of the references where you can find Fractal Machine and Frequency Fractal is used.--MasaComp (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of references on current suggestion of Fractal machine and Frequency Fractal, you wanted to see single paper that covers all, it was Reference 16, this is multi-fractal time series, please note that Frequency fractal, time fractal are same

Fractal Frequency 1 http://cearl.ee.psu.edu/Projects/Project2-3-1.htm
Fractal Frequency 2 Progress In Electromagnetics Research Symposium Proceedings, Moscow, Russia, August 18–21, 2009 1933 Computational Modeling of New Kinds of Fractal Antennas and Fractal Frequency-selective Structures Based on Them E. N. Matveev and A. A. Potapov Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics by V. A. Kotelnikov, RAS, Russia
Fractal memory and Computing http://www.google.com/patents/US7502769
Fractal encoding in Frequency domain https://karczmarczuk.users.greyc.fr/matrs/Dess/RADI/Refs/LiouMa.pdf
Pre Fractal Frequency (81 citation) https://eeweb.ee.ucla.edu/publications/journalYahyaRahmat-Samiiyrs_TransAP_nov03.pdf
Fractal Frequency (105 citation) http://www.algorithmic-worlds.net/blog/20090819-UnivAestFrac.pdf
Fractal inspired multi Frequency http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1720888
Fractal Frequency http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mmce.20423/abstract
Want to enjoy Fractal Frequency https://soundcloud.com/fractal-frequency

Fractal Machine References:

Dubois, Daniel M. "Incursive and hyperincursive systems, fractal machine and anticipatory logic." Computing Anticipatory Systems: CASYS 2000-Fourth International Conference. Vol. 573. No. 1. AIP Publishing, 2001. Cited 21 times
Dubois, Daniel. The fractal machine. Presses Universitaires de Liège, 1992. Cited 23 times
Dubois, D. M. "The hyperincursive fractal machine as a quantum holographic brain." Communication & Cognition-Artificial Intelligence 9.4 (1992): 335-372.
Keller, James M., Susan Chen, and Richard M. Crownover. "Texture description and segmentation through fractal geometry." Computer Vision, Graphics, and Image Processing 45.2 (1989): 150-166.
Murata, Satoshi, Haruhisa Kurokawa, and Shigeru Kokaji. "Self-assembling machine." Robotics and Automation, 1994. Proceedings., 1994 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1994. Cited 377 times
Dubois, D. M., and G. Resconi. "Hyperincursive fractal machine beyond the Turing machine." Advances in Cognitive Engineering and Knowledge-based Systems. Int. Inst. for Adv. Studies in Syst. Res. and Cybernetics (1994): 212-216.
Dubois, Daniel M. "Generation of fractals from incursive automata, digital diffusion and wave equation systems." BioSystems 43.2 (1997): 97-114. 27 times
Dubois, D. M. "The fractal machine: the wholeness of the memory chaos."Proceedings of the 13th International Congress on Cybernetics, Namur. 1992.
Dubois Daniel, M. "Incursive and Hyperincursive Systems, Fractal Machine, and Anticipatory Logic. Computing Anticipatory Systems: CASYS 2000-Fourth International Conference. Published by The American Institute of Physics." AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 573. 2001.
Binnig, G., et al. "Win machines start to think like humans?-Artificial versus natural Intelligence." Europhysics news 33.2 (2002): 44-47. Cited 22 times

Information geometry

Information-geometric measures estimate neural interactions during oscillatory brain states. Authors Nie Y, Fellous JM, Tatsuno M. Journal Front Neural Circuits. 2014 Feb 24;8:11. doi:10.3389/fncir.2014.00011.--MasaComp (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We are being flooded by multiple references here, but they related to a range of topics different from the subject of the article. -- 101.117.88.234 (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is Bombardment and WP:Citation overkill. I've already looked through enough sources to convince myself that that is what MasaComp is doing so I am not really prepared to comprehensively examine the new list in detail. Anyone can do a search on "fractal frequency" or "fractal machine" and get a list of results, but they are not necessarily actually on the subject of this article. Some on the list, for instance, are concerned with antenna design, and this one is on the aesthetics of fractal images. One could not find a more irrelevant paper to an article on a fractal computing machine. Just one good quality source compliant with WP:42 would be enough to convince everyone. Another thing that is happening here is that the article author has shifted in stages from arguing for notability for "AjoChhand machine", to "fractal tape machine" to "fractal machine". This is moving a long way from the original described machine; perhaps there is an article to be written here, but this one isn't it. SpinningSpark 11:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title is no good and the contents are just a mish mash mess and getting worse each day. It looks unsalvageable to me. An article needs to start with a definite notable topic and work from there. Dmcq (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we've reached a week. I know that AFD have to be open for at least a week, but can be kept open for longer. Does anyone think that either the article will change or that there are additional issues to be brought up?Naraht (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking that no closer wants to read all of this. Chillum 14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Chillum is right that no closer wants to read all of this, but that is not a reason for keeping it open. We just need a patient admin closer. To answer User:Naraht, I see no likelihood that the article will change in the next few days. As to whether any new issues will be brought up, I see very little likelihood of any new issues that would argue in favor of keeping the article. (The fact that the proponent is now mostly being civil does not change the fact that the article needs deleting.) We can either wait for an uninvolved admin closer, or request an uninvolved admin closer at a noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Valdés[edit]

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

Badly translated, unreferenced. Essayist without significant impact in local literature. Diego Grez (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Altogether inadequate. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Apparently a machine translation of the Spanish Wikipedia equivalent; however I think there is enough verifiable here to link the subject with an academy and an award, on both of which Wikipedia has articles, indicating that she meets WP:AUTHOR criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:00, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Running gear[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and possibly WP:PRODUCT. Sources are found in Scholar, but even so, the article would still need WP:BLOWITUP or an article move. Regular Google search comes up with forums discussing troubleshooting while using the subject. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Longwinded note: article was previously redirected to Powertrain, which is appropriate, however we now have an article on Running gear (railway) which should live in this space. So, delete this article, then move Running gear (railway) -> Running gear as unnecessary disambiguation, then hatnote the running gear article to point to powertrain. Ivanvector (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete really just a dictionary definition, except for the irrelevant patent mention. I agree with Ivanvector, after deletion move Running gear (railway) -> Running gear with a hatnote for motor vehicles to powertrain. --Bejnar (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to make way for a move from Running gear (railway). As currently defined, it's not a notable subject on it's own. It's merely an alternative name for several things, most notably railway running gear.- Mr X 19:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move, add disambiguation note As per the above, Delete This page, move Running gear (railway) to here, add a Disamb note to the top of that page to say for Running Gear in Automobiles see power train. SPACKlick (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Draft namespace. Nobody called for this to be moved to draft namespace (although some suggested user space) but this seems to me to be an eminently satisfactory solution. The new season opens in just two months and we will then see if he plays his first professional game. Everyone in this debate seems to agree that if that happens WP:FOOTY will have been met and the article can go in mainspace. SpinningSpark 14:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Marwood[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined, but the underlying reason for the last deletion still remains. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails still WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Yes he might make his debut in a fully-professional league soon - but he also might not. WP:CRYSTAL applies. Giant Snowman 16:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the player has now officially signed for a top-flight professional club. There has been national coverage of this on the BBC website. Deleting this article would be pointless as he will be a first team regular for the club. Delete the page now, and it will only be delaying and denying the article its rightful place. Andybud (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "he will be a first team regular for the club" - you can guarantee that......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the player can sign for a top flight club all he wants, but he still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. The keep vote above contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. Fenix down (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, he appears to have been allocated squad number 10 by St. Mirren, which would indicate that he is more than likely to play for their first team this season. Although it does also appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above and Userfy to Andybud with instructions to "hold his horses" until after the BBC mentions him playing in a fully professional league game. --Bejnar (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG with sources [43] [44] [45]. Also, even if he didn't meet WP:GNG is there any point wasting everyone's time deleting an article that only get restored in a few weeks. Jmorrison230582 notes that keeping the article violated WP:CRYSTAL, however this is not true. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't allow for future events unless they are almost certain to occur (thus allowing articles such as 2026 FIFA World Cup to exist). Can anyone honestly say they don't think it's almost certain that James Marwood wouldn't be making an appearance for St. Mirren soon? There's no rush to delete this article before then. There are no firm rules that say this article needs to be deleted before we see happens, and there is WP:NORUSH. This article remaining in place for a few weeks does no harm, so let's show a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE; if something bizarre happens over the summer, the article can simply go to AFD at that time. Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If something bizarre happens". That means it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Are we going to have this argument over and over again? – Michael (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you still fail to understand WP:CRYSTAL despite being set straight previously then yes we will have to have this argument over and over again. WP:CRYSTAL requires something to be almost certain - not to be certain. This isn't a 16-year old who may one day play. It's a 24-year old who the team coach has said will be playing, according the references already provided. Procedurely deleting this article for a few weeks is absurd and is a violation of both WP:NORULES and WP:COMMONSENSE. Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a failure to understand anything here, it is the failure on the part of Nfitz to understand (or at least accept) that their interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is not supported by consensus. Claims to notability of footballers based on potential future appearances have been rejected at afd no less than eighteen times this year alone. The invalidity of this argument remains one of the longest standing consensuses of the WikiProject football. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And telling us to wait for a few weeks for something that nobody knows for sure will happen instead of relying on past consensus is a violation of WP:OR. – Michael (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. Perhaps the article can be saved in userspace until he becomes notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability today. He may pass it soon, but even in that case this article should be deleted as it is WP:TOOSOON. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Anti-bias curriculum. (If anyone feels there is any remaining content that should have been merged, please contact me or any admin for access to deleted content.) -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-racism in mathematics teaching[edit]

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

This page is wraught with serious problems. First off the mathematician Euclid, from ancient Egypt, is referred to as African-American, a nationality that didn't exist under the 1770s. Second of all, there appears to be some sort of joke going through the article. Progressive matricies, a type of IQ test, has been confused with the political term "progressive" and called politically correct. Finally, a joke is made about how Rosa Park's didn't learn math, an assertation that has nothing to do with the subject of the article. When I searched the page in google, all I saw were wikipedia links. A speech by Thatcher from the 80s is the only reference to a supposed "phenomenom" in modern teaching. Completely ridiculous. Also, a joke is used stating that LaTinisha is a common African American name and should replace Mary, not noting that Mary and Emily are also a name many African-American girls share. Themane2 (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Anti-bias curriculum. While this article has had serious problems and poor sourcing for years, the joke vandalism was, as far as I can tell, from some time in the last few months. Even if the jokes are removed, the article is still flawed, and as I have have discussed on the talk page, the core arguments are already covered in the marginally better 'Anti-bias curriculum' article. The only counter argument I've seen on talk is that a few sources have been found which do use the term 'Anti-racism in mathematics'. These sources are few in number and fail to clearly delineate why math needs specific approaches not found in Anti-bias curricula in general. They are not strong enough to support a stand-alone article. Dialectric (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the great irony of this article is that it assumes that the reader would be American or (at least) familiar with American context, thus perpetuating systematic bias... --Soman (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This bias is particularly absurd given that most of the refs that actually use the term are British.Dialectric (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every article has a few inaccuracies. Fix them rather than ask for deletion. I think that Anti-racism in mathematics teaching is one of Wikipedia's finest articles. Wikipedia's neutrality policies require to give more weight to the majority view (WP:RSUW). The majority ideology is liberalism, including anti-racism. I vote not against anti-racism in mathematics teaching, but to create more articles like that.Mathematrix (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not, 'Is anti-racism in mathematics teaching in the world at large a good thing?', but 'Is anti-racism in mathematics teaching a suitable topic for an article in Wikipedia?'. Deltahedron (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry if I make two entries, but I'm making an entirely different point. In the first discussion for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-racist_mathematics), the consensus was to keep it. What has changed since then? Nothing. If anything, there are more sources! So keep it, per CanadianCaesar. Mathematrix (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia afd policy is that you can only vote once. You should either change one vote to a 'comment', or combine your two entries. The earlier deletion discussion is from 2005. Notability and sourcing guidelines were looser at that time, and this discussion should be grounded in current WP:N.Dialectric (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is clear that the subject of the article is notable: there are reliable academic sources. It is equally clear that the article as it stands is a mess. Deltahedron (talk) 09:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Anti-bias curriculum. Having put some work in there now seems too little on the specfic issue of mathematics as opposed to the controversies over the curriculum in science or education generally. There might be material enough for a full article at some point in the future. Deltahedron (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge and redirect per Deltahedron. Thank you Dh, it is all too rare to see someone put time into an article, much less put time in and then admit their best efforts are insufficient. And the elephant in the room, that no one seemed to know the name of or want to admit or something, is WP:NPOV. Probably because it is pretty rare to see PoV in an article these days. Even Delta's elbow grease was not enough to remove its stain. Anarchangel (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Anti-bias curriculum, there doesn't seem to be enough content about mathematics specifically to justify a standalone article.--Staberinde (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cynical hoax in poor taste with a racist sub-text. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

What exactly is claimed to be the hoax here? Is it the notion that there is such a thing as "Anti-racism in mathematics teaching", or the content of the article as it was when nominated for deletion [46], or the content as it stands right now [47]? Deltahedron (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a snide parody of political correctness and has a sub-text of racism. If you can't see that I can't help you further. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

AFD is not cleanup. Are you arguing for deletion because the topic is not notable, or because no satisfactory article could ever be written on the subject, or what? Just saying you don't like the current content is not a deletion argument. Incidentally, as far as I'm concerned, my attempt to clean it up was precisely to get rid of the bad joke aspects, we are actually in agreement as far as that goes. Deltahedron (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's great that we agree. I am inclined to think that a satisfactory article can't be written, so best deleted. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. Deltahedron (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable sources discussing the perspective defined in the article. The sources already in the article are either (1) unreliable (blogs and junk journals) or (2) focussed on the different issue of increasing minority participation in STEM areas. -- 101.117.59.221 (talk) 12:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with only one keep vote of tenuous rationale, it appears to me that the only issue with consensus is whether this should be merged or deleted. As a merge/redirect voter, I also support deletion if the majority fall into that position.Dialectric (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect The article is mostly about anti-racism in teaching, such as using different kinds of names for people in story problems. The article has almost noting to say about math specifically. It does not deserve an independent article.
Delete fully covered at Anti-bias curriculum, no need for redirect as this is not a likely search term. Covered by existing rediects to Anti-bias curriculum. --Bejnar (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ...and WP:SALT. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vega Entertainment[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable company. A passing mention in The Hindu was the best source the author could produce on request, and it has nothing to do with the article's current content, nor does it provide enough coverage to rewrite the article. Huon (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Source just has a passing mention of company. Non notable, fails WP:CORP. Karl 334 ^Talk-^-Contribs 18:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable company, search results were limited and couldn't find reputable sources mentioning the company. ///EuroCarGT 19:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator (Huon). And SALT due to the article has been repeatedly deleted. (t) Josve05a (c) 19:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and sow the salt: Repeatedly deleted before and apparently the issues have not been resolved from the prior A7 and G11 deletions. Maybe someday later this will be notable but until then, the earth needs to lie fallow. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT per all above JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt per above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Leon[edit]

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

Famous for being Madonna's boyfriend. Redirect to Madonna. Notability isn't WP:INHERITED LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, our having articles on mistresses of some members of royal houses notwithstanding.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: Sure, why not, I'll bite. Perhaps there is a long list of news articles where the mistress was not herself mentioned, and is therefore not notable. Or perhaps you are confusing a personal definition of "important" with notable. Anarchangel (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The biographies like Madonna: An Intimate Biography and Madonna: Like an Icon further demonstrate this with the notability of Leon being around Madonna only. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Nothing to show he merits his own article.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of high school football rivalries more than 100 years old--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly–Salem Thanksgiving Rivalry[edit]

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

The subject is a non-notable HIGH SCHOOL sports rivalry that fails the specific notability guidelines of WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:NRIVALRY, as well as the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. As editors who are familiar with our sports and events notability guidelines should be aware, we err on the side of NOT including high school athletes, sports teams, events and rivalries in Wikipedia because they are of extremely limited interest to our readers, and are usually heavily dependent on local and non-independent sources for documentation. This particular article has no reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:GNG. Notable rivalry series should generate substantial coverage over time to satisfy GNG, and high school sports rivalries should be held to that standard with no benefit of the doubt. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to List of high school football rivalries more than 100 years old, which already includes the series. Ravenswing 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to List of high school football rivalries more than 100 years old. No evidence that this rivalry has received enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:52, 8 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Leah Quave[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ACADEMIC Magnolia677 (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dfelete Quave may at some point become accomplished enough to pass the notability quidelines for professors, but she has not yet done so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could be missing something but don't currently see anything that passes any of the relevant guidelines, though I didn't do the most thorough search in the world. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & above - Non notable medical ethnobotanist. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best WP:TOOSOON. Fails notability at this point. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Her citation record looks like that of a successful assistant professor. Which is to say, likely to pass WP:PROF in a few years, but not quite there yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and Kevin Gorman. --Bejnar (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 01:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bell Game[edit]

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

The subject is a non-notable HIGH SCHOOL sports rivalry that fails the specific notability guidelines of WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:NRIVALRY, as well as the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. As editors who are familiar with our sports and events notability guidelines should be aware, we err on the side of NOT including high school athletes, sports teams, events and rivalries in Wikipedia because they are of extremely limited interest to our readers, and are usually heavily dependent on local and non-independent sources for documentation. This particular article has one reliable source of sufficient coverage, and then conflates other trivial, WP:ROUTINE local media coverage to make it appear as if it were properly sourced. It's not. Notable rivalry games should generate substantial in-depth coverage over time to satisfy GNG; this one does not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a tradition in the city that it's held and has been for over 100 years, it routinely recieves coverage through news both local and on the state level. This clearly passes as a "notable" event even if it doesn't meet the GridIron requirements, it bypasses those by passing the GNG overall, consider "The game is a sellout or near sellout every year. More than 13,000 fans pack Pueblo's Dutch Clark Stadium. One side of the stadium is filled with fans wearing the blue of Central. Centennial red is prominent on the other. No other single game sporting event in Colorado comes close to being this big." from [[48]] just that statement makes this pass GNG. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the eighth-oldest high school football rivalry in the country" - [[49]]
"experiences as the "Bell Game" between Centennial and Pueblo Central, the oldest High school Rivalry west of the Mississippi" Playing Piano in a Brothel: A Sports Journalist's Odyssey by Terry Frei
" For the 100th time, Pueblo Central and Pueblo Centennial are set to lock horns in what is perhaps the state's greatest high school rivalry. The game has become known as the Bell Game and annually attracts the state's largest crowd of the season." [[50]]
"Football roundup: Pueblo Centennial routs Pueblo Central in historic Bell Game" [[51]]

User:Dirtlawyer1 does that satisfy your concerns? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. WP:ROUTINE mentions in pregame coverage and routine local media coverage of game results don't cut it. You're going to need to show some meaningful, in-depth coverage of the rivalry itself discussing the rivalry's history and significance. Blurbs from the local newspaper and TV station are probably not enough to overcome the inherent skepticism most editors have for high school athletes, teams and rivalries. This one may be a closer call than many, but by the standard you're setting, there are hundreds if not thousands of marginally notable high school rivalries would satisfy GNG. That's not the intent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a national sports journalist book, state coverage through the Denver Post and regional coverage from Colorado Springs (Rocky Mountain News} local coverage through the chieftain and koaa. That's a pretty decent medley. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first, third and fourth quotes are WP:ROUTINE articles typical of newspaper and TV website coverage of local high school sports, not meaningful in-depth coverage. In order to evaluate, your second quoted source, you need to provide more than a brief snippet from a hard-copy source. Bottom line: you need something more -- like feature article coverage sufficient to write a complete and well-sourced Wikipedia article about the history and significance of the rivalry (i.e. not routine pregame announcements and post-game results). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the quoted passage from the Terry Frei book cited by you above is the sum total discussion of the "Bell Game" in the entire book (see here). Again, that's not significant coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. It's a passing mention, not anything like significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Colorado Springs has nothing on Pueblo. ... and the Bell Game is noted as the oldest high school football rivalry west of the Mississippi River" [[52]] Colorado Springs Gazette
"Oldest Rivalry in the west" [[53]] Picture from 1935
All time oldest rivalry of all Colorado high school sports 1892-2002 (this was time of publication and it a pdf. I couldn't link to that) -Colorado High School Activities Association

I think I have provided enough to show that it's not just routine local coverage and if those things aren't enough to keep the article well it happens. I think it definitely passes because it is a HUGE community event that receives multiple coverages and the duration of the coverage is really the deciding factor. I'm not putting it at a high level of importance but it does pass the notability guidelines. I think the difference here is that it is the largest in event of it's kind in Colorado (really big factor that makes it notable for the area), has the age factor of being the oldest and longest rivalry here and overall the 8th of the nation and the added trifecta of book coverage, state, regional and local coverage should do it. I don't think a merge is appropriate because it's not just one high school. When I stubbed this I was attempting to not get into a regional circle jerk and just stick to minimum facts. I guess we'll see how the discussion goes. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator puts it so well, including citing the relevant guidelines, that there is little else that I can add except to reinforce the routine of the coverage of what is not a professional game and what is only of local or at best regional, interest. The fact that it may have been taking place for a very long time does not score any points for notability and it's not exactly a boat race. The game has coverage in the school articles but one of the few supporting sources is a dead link leaving the rest of its importance as POV. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kudpung As I explain above it is not just routine coverage. It gets local, regional and state coverage and is mentioned in other areas as well this is just an example [[54]] I don't include these cause i don't know if they are really reliable, help me understand what yo want this to meet to not make it routine. It's the largest high school sporting event in Colorado, It's the oldest rivalry in high school sports in Colorado, It's been ongoing since the 1800's, It's the eighth oldest in the country according to reports. Those things make it pretty darn notable. I'd also point out this article from 1992 addressed one of the concerns User:Dirtlawyer1 had [[55]] indicates this game had coverage even back to the 1800's "The ball had not been in play more than a minute when Marvin made a touchdown for the South Siders (Central) amid tremendous cheers by the Mesa contingent. Cohn's try for goal was a failure. Neither team failed to produce any scoring threat after that and the game ended in Central's favor 4-0."

So began the Central-Centennial High School football rivalry in 1892. That description appeared in The Pueblo Chieftain and the longest ongoing high school football series in Colorado was under way." That is probably the most in-depth article I've found that actually gives a lot of the history of the game. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also coverage of the history of the game in the book "The Steel City Football Almanac" By David Mihalick published in 1970 which is part of the information that the article above is based off and apparently although I can't find it the game was subject to a cable tv talk show interview with the author. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Despite larger claims, it is of purely local interest, as the Rocky Mountain News article of 12 October 2000 makes clear. Both the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post have a subscription base in Pueblo. --Bejnar (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Davey[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not appear to meet either the athlete notability guidelines or the general notability guidelines. There is insufficient coverage on the subject, which makes verifiability of the article difficult. The sources currently used in the article are either dead links or do not support the material presented within the article. I do not believe that the article has addressed the concerns that were raised in the previous deletion discussion. Mike V • Talk 19:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can you explain why you are citing notability for athletes in the nomination when the guy is a ballet dancer and choreographer? -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The guidelines cover any individual who can be considered as a sportsperson, defined as an individual who "is trained to compete in a sport involving physical strength, speed or endurance". My impression of the notability guidelines is that the basic criteria applies to all individuals who fit under this definition, while the "professional sports persons" subsection provides more tailored requirements for individual sports. Mike V • Talk 16:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When did ballet become a sport? -- Whpq (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean when did formal competitions begin (aside from auditions), they date to at least the mid-20th century, although the current leading competitions (YAGP, WBC, IBC) were formed in the last couple decades. Reality television dance competitions (e.g. So You Think You Can Dance, for which Davey performed) probably boosted the popularity of ballet as a defeat-your-rivals sport, and pop dance movies often focus on the vanquishing of enemies through dance. The trend in competitions has been to downplay artistry, modeling them after Olympic sports like gymnastics or figure skating, where athletes jump through various hoops (figuratively) for most of the points on a 100-point scale. ––Agyle (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - but not because he fails the notability criteria for athletes. That is not an applicable notability criteria as ballet, and dance choreography are not sports. The applicable criteria would be WP:ENTERTAINER for work as a ballet dancer and model, and WP:CREATIVE for his choreography work. I could find no coverage on his choreography work. As a dancer, I found mentions like this which acknowledge he danced in a produciton, but provides no critical commentary of his work. The most substantial coverage I could find was this, but it's coverage in a community weekly. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 2 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 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Atlantic Ballet Theatre of Canada. Did not find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources with which to establish notability. I searched fairly extensively online, and like Whpq, the 2004 Daily Liberal article was the only source I found with significant coverage. I found a dozen or so RS sources with one-sentence mentions of his involvement in various performances (1 2 3 4 5 6 7). His modeling and film/television work seem to have attracted similarly little attention; the films were not really notable, or in the case of StreetDance 3D his role ("featured dancer") was not significant. The article says he finished among the top 100 dancers on a 2009 season of So You Think You Can Dance (UK), which does not sound significant, and I can't find any independent coverage about his performance. The two awards that the article states he won do not seem to be major awards, and the information does not seem readily verifiable online from independent reliable sources. There are also websites and press releases from ballet companies/schools he's worked with, which have more detailed information, but these are not independent secondary sources indicative of notability. It sounds like he's an energetic and successful dancer, teacher, and choreographer, but he does not seem to have attracted notice that can be easily found online, and unless other sources are found, does not meet Wikipedia's various notability guidelines. ––Agyle (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete verifiable, but not significant coverage. Fails WP:CREATIVE. --Bejnar (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Won Chik Park[edit]

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

A high rank is not enough to show notability. The only source is an interview with a former student and notability is not inherited. I got a lot of ghits, but I don't see independent sources to show he meets WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited and I don't see that he meets GNG or MANOTE.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a BLP that lacks the significant coverage in independent sources required by WP:GNG. He also fails to meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jenks24 (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grease 2 (soundtrack)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability beyond being the soundtrack to a "film". Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Laun chba ller 16:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable: the soundtrack does not inherit notability from the film. Arfæst Ealdwrítere (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some more material with a couple of sources. I don't know if the album passes WP:NALBUMS, but I figure it's worth a try. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to have charted, but still, do we need a standalone article?--Laun chba ller 08:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a second choice, either merge or redirect to Grease 2#Soundtrack per Gongshow. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Metropolitan90's additions. The reviews at Allmusic and Billboard, along with the chart placements for the album and lead single, suggest sufficient notability per WP:NALBUMS so I'm inclined to support an article. Perhaps this material can be contained (merged) within the movie article; either option is preferable to deletion. Gongshow talk 07:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Major label release, frequently reviewed, made the Billboard charts... We have a pretty low notability standard for inclusion of pop culture topics and little taste for chopping such things at AfD for good reason — this is the sort of stuff that a section of our readers expect of us. Let's just call it a GNG pass or a No Consensus keep and move along, shall we? Carrite (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major-label charting album. Not nearly the chart-topping success as the first one, but still clears the bar. Carrite is correct, we have a pretty low inclusion standard for albums, for good reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SALTed too. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Rathnam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

self promotion, nominated for 3rdtime deletion--R.srinivaas (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom and suggest any passing admin check for possibly passing G4. Thanks, Ansh666 16:45, 7 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 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, on the basis it's been the subject of at least two AfD's (and the first AfD suggests it was deleted three times before that). I can't see anything in the new article to suggest anything of note has happened since the last AfD. The article seems to be there to promote his forthcoming ventures. Suggest the title is WP:SALT'd too. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. It doesn't qualify for G4. While the content is similar, the actual prose isn't similar, the author isn't the same, and it includes substantially more sources. The odd thing is, the title was salted indefinitely in 2012, and yet it managed to be recreated anyway. The article should have been created at AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT FOREVER! I wanna know why this article has been allowed to be created multiple times after it has been already salted 3 times and deleted 8 times, see here JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt as nothing but promotional bollox that serves absolutely no purpose here!. Since it's been AFD'd and CSD'd constantly I think Salting may be a wiser choice here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete & Salt per nom and others. Harry the Dog WOOF 05:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request your attention to some articles related to this article, they also seem not noteworthy Vincent Therraisnathan and S.V.S.Rathinam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:420:5502:1370:39BD:3173:4924:6C5 (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT. Should obviously not have been re-created. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On exactly what basis are these "delete and salt" !votes being made? We don't delete based on WP:OTHERSTUFF, and the fact that this article has existed in the past, in a different form with less sources, is not a valid deletion rationale. Has anyone bothered to examine the sources? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your last question - Yes. Even you (above) agree the article is the same in content as the previous ones. Where are the significant, independent, reliable news sources, or the achievements that have happened since 2012 that would change his notability? Sionk (talk) 16:48, 9 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 _ 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courtenay Taylor[edit]

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

Notability is not established by way of WP:SECONDARY sources. Instead, there are primary sources and interviews. I looked for secondary sources and found nothing. Binksternet (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The nominator seems to quickly want this article deleted instead of letting other users find more sources on this actress and lacking patience. - FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I would be happy to see this biography improved to the point of it meeting Wikipedia's guidelines. Your 'keep' vote has no policy basis. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 21 June 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) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because WP:BEFORE was obviously not done given that this nominator also AfDed at the same time one of the very top and most notable English anime voice artists, Johnny Yong Bosch. VMS Mosaic (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to add a policy-based reason for your 'keep' vote? Basing your vote on a supposed violation of BEFORE does not count here. You should know I spent an half hour looking through Google, Google Books and Google News for supporting references that discuss Taylor, and I found nothing but interviews and primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to say keep since she has a number of prominent gaming roles but Binksternet is right that there is not a single real source on the page. I suspect there are secondary sources about her in the gaming press, although I'm too new to know which of those would be considered reliable JQ Esteem (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 16:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, considering neither of the 'Keep' votes give any policy based reason and the article has been in existence for almost 10 years without any proper sourcing being found. I can't see anything online about her apart from some fan forum comments and an occasional feature on a fan website. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 17:22, 7 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 Ballinteer#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady's Primary Schools[edit]

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

NN primary schools. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ballinteer#Education which is normal practice. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ballinteer per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patryk Szymański[edit]

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

Boxer who fails to meet WP:NBOX and WP:GNG since the only link is to his fight record. Might become notable, but not there yet.Mdtemp (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unsure if his WBO Youth title counts toward WP:NBOX. It was listed as professional fight in Boxrec but it is unclear what the title actually is.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youth titles don't show notability. Fails WP:NBOX and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:39, 10 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 Rayleigh, Essex#Education. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our Lady of Ransom School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to locality article Rayleigh, Essex per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jacona (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apparently I created this page nine years ago, when notability guidelines for schools were more inclusive. I have no memory of why, nor do I have any connection to the school. I certainly don't object to a redirect. Pburka (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rayleigh, Essex per long-standing precedent as documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - which is simply a review of the facts as they are and neither a policy nor a guideline. Nevertheless, the 100s of redirects in the 'R from School' cat are ample evidence alone of the way the community has generally agreed to treat such creations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rayleigh, Essex per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwondo in India[edit]

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

Vaguely titled article with no reliable independent sources or any claim of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. Nothing shows notability, article could use a specific focus (and sources).204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sport in India in order to WP:PRESERVE what little information there is. The Discoverer (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Golf in India, Shooting in India and Chess in India, the three articles started by me in May 2012, have eventually, after several months, developed into proper articles (with the contributions of other editors). Is it possible to give this some time? The Discoverer (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a 3 sentence article with no accessible sources and gives no reason why this topic is notable. As it stands there is no reason to keep this article. It might be better, assuming sources can be found, to create an article on India's main TKD organization. Papaursa (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve as it is a notable sport in India. But I wonder why much of information related to this article is on a user page User:History of Taekwondo in India! Of course, the entry there has encyclopedic issuesSolatido (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 01:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karate in India[edit]

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

Article has no independent sources and no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced stub with no indication of notabllity.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. Nothing shows notability, article could use a specific focus (and sources).204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sport in India in order to WP:PRESERVE what little information there is. The Discoverer (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Golf in India, Shooting in India and Chess in India, the three articles started by me in May 2012, have eventually, after several months, developed into proper articles (with the contributions of other editors). Is it possible to give this some time? The Discoverer (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a 3 sentence article with no accessible sources and gives no reason why this topic is notable. The fact that karate exists in India does not make the topic automatically notable. One suggestion, assuming sources can be found, is to create an article on the All India Karate Federation. Papaursa (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve The presence of the page and a few lines make it discoverable and can prompt knowledgeable editors to improve the article. Solatido (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fulty[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable game. Content copied from http://www.infosources.org/what_is/Goaltimate.html and then modified. Probably a hoax. - Mr X 14:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article uses a template sourced from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goaltimate. The Infosources.org article is most likely an unauthorized copy from the Wikipedia page. I'm sure MrX is an expert in many things, but his unfamiliarity with Fulty does not equate to it being a "non-notable game". The article is not a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwlawrence (talk • contribs) 15:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - According to the article, this sport was made up this month. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day in the park by you and your pals. Once this gets significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then and article can be considered. -- Whpq (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT and WP:GNG. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 09:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was intended to show the rules of an alternate game of play. Although the rules were published this month, the game has been discussed for quite some time. The article is intended to get the game and its rules out to the public so others may start playing. Perhaps this isn't the best forum, but would be found by fellow flying disk players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGoldin1 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a vehicle for publicizing new things. You may want to look at something like Wikia instead. -- Whpq (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if this article is deleted, please make a notification to c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fulty_Field.jpg as the deletion discussion is on hold awaiting your decision here. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 01:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

14th Feb - The Deadline[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a non-notable short film which will be published on YouTube. Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 14:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Reliable sources related with the film found at google search, and updated with all required criteria. This Article should 'Keep' at Wikipedia for information related with this Awareness Short Film --Amitdatta29 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Still fails WP:NFILM. References are IMDB (does not by itself confer notability per NFILM), two refs are from the production house founded by the director, final is essentially a list of photo galleries for local events saying nothing except that the film was screened. -Xpctr8 (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' - If search in google with same Film name, there are multiple references appearing. News, Release, Trailer, Film Song etc. Where it's getting fail to put at wikipedia? --202.54.83.29 (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources with an emphasis on reliable sources. Simply point to a bunch of Google search results nad claiming they represent multiple references is insufficient. Specific coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject need to be shown. I do not see that in the artiole, nor am I able to find any. -- Whpq (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find anything to show that this short film passes notability guidelines. Sources may exist in another language, but I doubt that there would be enough for the film to pass notability guidelines. I can find things that show that the short exists, but existing is not notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What reference Wikipedia expecting more than a News or a Trailer or a Review for particular Film in any language? There are all sources available in Google if Search with "14Th Feb - The Deadline short film". What's fun in deleting a good awareness Film with no specific reason? --Ajayd29 (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:* Sorry Ajayd29... only 1 "keep" per customer, and as you've already indicated your desire to keep up above, I struck this second one. To understand our deletion rationales, please review WP:GNG and WP:RS, and then WP:NF. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - newly released short film that requires more commentary (analysis, reviews, etc.) in reliable sources in order to meet WP:NF. Its existence is not in doubt. Allow undeletion or recreation only ir or when more independent sources come forward. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MichaelQSchmidt The above comment was not from same User. It was from me. May be here we used same IP for the comment. But Seems you are not tracking user as it's existence ! --202.54.83.29 (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Sorry. Unstruck. We still have the issue of a lack of independent reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother MichaelQSchmidt - Can you check the Article? I am adding more reliable Sources. Before taking any decision. Please consider it. --Amitdatta29 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... I appreciate your efforts, but please read WP:SIGCOV and also WP:OEN. In the article, Siddam News is a short blurb that confirms cast, crew, and plot (not really in doubt), ankitaproduction.com is the production company's website, and while WP:SELFPUB can verify information without establishing notability, the first raagalahari.com offers a gallery of stills and confirms its July 6 screening at Prasad Studios (Preview Theater), and the second ragalahari.com offers only a tad more than does Siddam News, but none opf these offer any commentary or critical response. Short films have a difficult (but not impossible) task showing notability enough for Wikipedia inclusion. Can you bring forward any media reviews of the film's screening in Hyderabad? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt - Sure, will do it. --Amitdatta29 (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt - I will add Press Release link along with Media Review link here. Please consider any decision after that. --Amitdatta29 (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amitdatta29: Media reviews, fine... but press releases are not suitable for establishing notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per WP:A7 -- no credible assertion of significance. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Pitt[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Local painter with no indications of any significant notice outside his home town. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and nominated as such. There is no claim of significance, nor available sources to establish notability. It's promotional and has apparently been edited by the subject.- Mr X 15:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LocoRoco (series)[edit]

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

Unnecessary fork of LocoRoco. The first paragraph is copied near-verbatim from said article, the second paragraph is pure WP:CRUFT. That leaves the table, which ought to be moved back to LocoRoco#Sequels and spin-offs where it belongs. Laun chba ller 12:39, 7 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) 14:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds more of a case for merging or redirecting than outright deletion.--77.44.45.52 (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems to be almost entirely duplicate content, with no real potential for expansion without using even more duplicate content.There's really nothing of value to merge back into the main article.- Mr X 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - uber-redundant, there's a pretty useful Template:LocoRoco for the series. Maybe, at most, redirect to that. LuigiToeness (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Survivor (game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Moonriddengirl's comment, "This does not seem likely to survive another AFD - all sources seem to be primary.", sums it up nicely. Laun chba ller 12:34, 7 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) 13:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any independent reliable sources that have written about this game in any depth.- Mr X 17:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage by reliable sources. Not even close to passing the GNG Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lots of directory entries but no actual editorial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was actually previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1337 Gallery a few months ago. The sources are largely the same and other than this releasing, there's nothing to show that this is any different than the previous entry. I may close this early. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've decided against speedying this, as it'd be better to have this run through a new AfD based on the fact that the game has released. As others have noted, there are several routine database entries but nothing that would actually count as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Giant Bomb is a notable site and has an entry for this, but there's nothing there at said entry. Rest of cites are WP:PRIMARY. Majority of links on a quick search are links to play the game, with no discussion/reviews of it. There's something here, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. --McDoob AU93 15:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Giant Bomb may be a notable web site, but it is only a quasi-reliable source. It exercises editorial oversight in its reviews, but a large portion of the site is a wiki including the games listing which covers 43013 games and is user-editted. The Soul Survivor is just one of the 43013 entries, and its presence on Giant Bomb fails to nudge the notability needle further by even a picometre. -- Whpq (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence this is any more notable than the other 10 squintillion other available mobile games out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chester's guide to: The controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chester's guide to: The controversy

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

Some minor event in 2003 that involved Google being made to take down a link to a pedophile website. Not notable enough to require an article. Incidentally, the whole thing is written in mangled English translated from some other language, and it has a stupid title. — Scott • talk 03:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion Badly written, not notable for article, not referenced etc. --80.193.191.143 (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The title is sensationalistic. The subject appears in a couple of sources, but the extent of coverage is not significant. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 17:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficiently notable event. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Looney Tunes feature films. Also indef full protected. Drop me a note when it meets WP:NFF and I'll unprotect. Jenks24 (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes (film)[edit]

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

Main film production has not begun, does not meet WP:NFF, suggest redirect to List of Looney Tunes feature films BOVINEBOY2008 11:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've warned Matt 20123, not to create the article again and again. I redirected the topic to its parent article. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 12:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly salt Fails WP:NFF. Captain A - you were the first person to create the article, not Matt! Suggest you don't remove an AfD template until the discussion has been closed too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I created but a redirect, which probably is not a crime here. So, another user was creating it again and again while Bovineboy2008 was redirecting it. And I'll support to redirect the article and warn user. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 14:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence principle production has begun. (Improper creation of film articles/redirects is Captain Assassin's recurrent issue.) - SummerPhD (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and salt, just redirect it to List of Looney Tunes feature films and protect the redirect page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt/protect - Lack of evidence of having started production suggests that it fails WP:NFF.- Mr X 17:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per Lady Lotus and MrX. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 18:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per arguments above. - Phill24th (talk). 12:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist & Agnostic Alliance Pakistan (AAAP)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG, no refs, PROD removed by IP without improvement ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 10:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally proposed deletion for the reasons described above, and I continue to think that they are valid unless someone could provide evidence to the contrary. I could find none. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Practically no third-party coverage at all, let alone significant coverage. B14709 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed: I can't find anything but the Wikipedia article and their website. —Tom Morris (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no 3rd party sources talking about this group.Frmorrison (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep under WP:SK ground #1: Nomination withdrawn and no other editors advocate deletion.—S Marshall T/C 17:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

List of Nationally Significant 20th-Century Architecture in South Australia[edit]

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

This is an interesting topic. However, this article is (openly) ripped entirely from the index to one specific book, which is really pushing it with copyright, and it's hardly a neutral and verifiable list if we're randomly picking one particular architecture book to create authoritative lists from. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn due to below discussion.[reply]

Response 1[edit]

a) This guy is a turd making a personal attack on ME because he made an unjustified false claim against me and I complained and demanded that he either provide evidence to support his false claim, or withdrew and apologise. He has done neither.
b) There was an Adelaide Wikipedia edit-a-thon on Sunday where many productive additions were made. This article was one on the requested articles. I expect that if ANY of the other editors who had been at the editathon had associated their names with this article, there would have been no problem. But as I said, this turd has a personal agenda against me.

Can somebody please close this nomination as a personal attack against me, and tell this turd to fuck off? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More civil, more normal, less angry response[edit]

This is an interesting topic. However, this article is (openly) ripped entirely from the index to one specific book, which is really pushing it with copyright, and it's hardly a neutral and verifiable list if we're randomly picking one particular architecture book to create authoritative lists from. - This statement is a) arrant nonsense b) Purely this guy's ignorant uninformed opinion.

The article is the South Australian Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects list of 20th Century heritage buildings in Adelaide. This editor is NOT from Adelaide! Even if he were, I would take the South Australian Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects opinion over his any and every day. PARTICULARLY given that they publish their opinion in a reliable source.

However, this article is (openly) ripped entirely from the index to one specific book - So what? It is a reliable source, and accurately attributed, but MUCH more significantly, it is NOT and article, it is a LIST, so this complainant is using an irrelevant set of criteria for his irrelevant claims.

and it's hardly a neutral and verifiable list if we're randomly picking one particular architecture book to create authoritative lists from. - Huh? Which planet does this ... "person" ... live on? NO, we are NOT "RANDOMLY" picking anything. This is the list from the South Australian Chapter of the Australian Institute of Architects. Please tell me if there is a better, more relevant, more qualified authority to produce such a list!

Would some admin please close this AFD immediately so that no more time is wasted? Thanks in advance. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yeah, ~~delete~~. First of all, as I would have thought was fairly obvious, The Drover's Wife is not, in fact, a he. I don't actually think there is a copyright issue here, but what the article essentially is is "List of architecture the Australian Institute of Architects considers to be Nationally Significant", which - and I'm open to being convinced here - does not seem to be sufficiently notable without secondary coverage. I mean, I can see why we have lists of natural heritage buildings and so forth, but there needs to be evidence of widespread significance. Frickeg (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit of an architecture nerd so if this worked as kind of a broad classification system (like the National Trust uses for general heritage and which has (rightly) been used to justify article notability) I think I'd be okay with using it. But this is literally just taking the index of a one-off, 120-item publication from one organisation and branding it as a general, broad list of buildings of national significance of a particular type, and I think that's a bit more problematic. I also seem to recall we've had material deleted before for copyright violations where someone's just taken the index of a book and used it as the basis for a Wikipedia list. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not really an index, though, is it? It seems to be more of an appendix, and given that it does take the form of a list, I don't know that it would count as a copyvio (could be wrong). But yes, not sufficiently significant from what's on the page. Frickeg (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright doesn't generally apply to lists, so in that sense there shouldn't be a problem. As a query, if this was a list of 20th Century South Australian architecture deemed nationally significant, without being fundamentally tied to the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, would there still be an issue? I don't think there is a major issue with the list, in that it seems no more problematic than any list of awards, and has the advantage that it is a list of awards compiled by a significant institution. But if it was broadened to include any architctural works in South Australia that have been identified as nationally significant in reliable sources, would that remove any concerns about the current focus? - Bilby (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's really a list of awards, though; it's more just a list of buildings the AIA thinks are significant. Which is fine, for the AIA, but I don't see that we need to be reproducing that list here. I was curious about how we had done things in the past in this area; the ACT has an all-inclusive list that tries to list literally every building that any organisation has considered significant (and a few that they haven't; the list is a bit of a mess). Melbourne and Perth have lists of heritage-listed buildings. On one matter Pdfpdf is quite right: Adelaide is, from what I can see, seriously under-represented in this area, and I completely agree that this needs to be rectified. I'm not sure this is the correct form for that rectification to take. I would think maybe something along the lines of the Canberra one, although perhaps with a slightly narrower focus? (Recognised by 2+ institutions, maybe?) Frickeg (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Frickeg and I hit an edit conflict, so I'll rewrite what I was going to say in response. As for the awards issue: what he said. In terms of broadening the focus, I was also writing a very similar post. Defining heritage significance for your average list (as in Frickeg's Melbourne and Perth examples) is relatively easy: we have state heritage registers, local heritage registers, and National Trust classifications, all of which are compiled into state government heritage databases in at least a few jurisdictions. I'd be very keen to see a similar list to those for Adelaide. But how would you - separately to general "heritage buildings" - neutrally and verifiably define "nationally significant architecture in a way that's different from the existing heritage format? One has pretty obvious criteria and sources, and one sounds like a bit of a nightmare of original research (having to cite that someone, somewhere, says it's of "national significance", whatever that means) that overlaps the heritage lists anyway. If this were moved to List of heritage listed buildings in Adelaide, I'd not only be not questioning its encyclopedicness, I'd be helping write the damn thing. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've been trying to catch up on the background of the list, and it seems from what media sources I've got so far that it was a move by the RAIA to recognise modern architecture which doesn't get included in the National Trust listings. I like the idea of having something broader than heritige listing, so I'd rather not tie it to that for the same reasons that the Royal Australian Institute of Architects chose not to. We do have a means of defining "nationally significant" at the moment - recognised in the register of nationally significant 20th century architecture - so that criteria is met, but a good method of broadening it would be a very nice move. - Bilby (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The logic behind what they're doing is completely understandable, I just feel like this list is confused and always going to a) overlap general heritage articles, and b) potentially be a bit difficult to source depending on how good the RAIA's online coverage of this is. What if we shifted towards a List of heritage listed sites in Adelaide, and included the RAIA's register as something we included in it alongside the usual state register, local register and National Trust? This feels to me like something that would cover this content in a much more integrated and easier to manage way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comment: There is an unrelated editor making good faith additions to the page. I was planning to make good faith additions to the page. Honestly, I don't understand a) That there is a problem; b) If there is a problem, what that problem is. (And yes, I did read the above. - Clearly, I've missed something.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, the problem is the narrowness of this list. It is basically what one organisation considers important, which is fine for them, but not really for a general encyclopedia. I like the suggestions above from Bilby and from The Drover's Wife regarding refactoring the list into something broader. Frickeg (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds good to me! Can someone make a concrete proposal agreeable to You and Drover's Wife? (I suggest that you and/or Drover's wife are perhaps the best people to do this ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - What I just suggested on Pdfpdf's talk page (and more or less said above) is that we shift this article into a broader List of heritage listed buildings in Adelaide, and include the RAIA's register as a relevant source wherever we've got similar lists of heritage buildings. This way, the material in this article stays on Wikipedia, Wikipedia gets a long-overdue Adelaide heritage list, and both of them get merged together in a way that fits pretty easily and is a piece of cake to manage and verify. (And modern architectural heritage gets covered better across Australian Wikipedia, since it isn't just relevant to South Australia.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wholeheartedly support this. Frickeg (talk) 13:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        (At the risk of sounding like an automaton ... ) "Me too!" Pdfpdf (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm very happy with this, presuming that "heritage listed" is not taken to mean "National Trust listed", as that would preclude a lot of significant modern works. The RAIA seem to be an authoritive source on significant works outside of the National Trust. - Bilby (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Just in response to what Bilby said: we've been operating under varying definitions of "heritage listed" depending on who wrote the article for quite some time; the WA editors in particular have yelled at me for trying to get them to agree on anything specific , but I've decided I'm okay with that because I think in the end their method makes a broader range of articles easier to defend at AfD. The state heritage register articles are generally listed in all the "lists of heritage buildings in X"; the local heritage register and National Trust in some of them, and the RAIA currently in none, and I'm very happy in light of this to consider the RAIA as just as notable for inclusion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Progressing from here[edit]

Along the lines of the above agreement, does someone want to take a crack at shifting this into a basic broader List of heritage listed buildings in Adelaide page? It's not something quite so easily just moved without looking a little bit odd to the reader. I can get to it if need be but I've got a few other projects running. The Drover's Wife (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're all moving in a similar direction (he said with a sigh of relief), there's no furious urgency. I'm happy to look at it tomorrow, but given that others were unimpressed with my original judgments, I am hesitant about pushing too far too quickly ... Pdfpdf (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: We also have the "Historic Houses" page, and there are also the buildings on North Terrace, and those along King Wm St. and around Vic Sq. I'm in NO hurry to turn a molehill into a mountain, but conversely, I don't want to spend the next 6 months compensating for stuff that we were "too busy" to think about now.

In any case, this discussion should be on the article talk page, not on an AFD page! Pdfpdf (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for moving too quickly, I wouldn't worry too much: now we seem to have agreement on the focus of the article, what goes in it is pretty straightforward. I think the rest is manageable if we simply list the properties here, also refer to them in their street article if they're in major city streets, and if they're so big they can't fit in either, break them out into their own articles. The advantage of an article this broad is that where we currently are as long as its recorded as historically significant at some level (state, local, National Trust, RAIA), it can just go in as someone remembers to put it there. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(What can I say?) Fair enough, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this AfD - as you noted on the page itself, the discussion has shifted way past that stage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who originally suggested using the Australian Institute of Architects list for our Edit-a-thon on Sunday (under the impression that there is no copyright in lists, e.g. see this), I'd like to make a few observations. When I started using the document, I saw it as a way of finding existing buildings that I could go and photograph, and use the photos to enhance WP articles. I was thinking of using the document myself to create a WP list, but Pdfpdf kindly undertook that task on Sunday and saved me the trouble. The AIA list itself is incomplete in that many of the details are very scanty, and I have been using the UniSA Architecture Museum's online database for extra information on the individual buildings and architects, some of whom already have WP articles on them.

I have to say that I'm not a fan of creating a single-page List of heritage listed buildings in Adelaide, as it would just be too unwieldy. As Pdfpdf has already pointed out, we already have a List of historic houses in South Australia which, although incomplete, has 95 entries, mostly from the 19th century; and we do have a lot of other 19th century buildings, including many churches that could do with a list of their own. Then one could make yet another list, of significant heritage buildings that have been lost. (For example, just a couple of weeks ago the Advertiser ran a nostalgia piece on the South Australian Hotel. Then there are the pubs ... )

I envisage that this particular page would go far beyond the original AIA list, and become a much richer well-referenced resource, tying together a lot of linked articles. I note too that many of the recent buildings may have been placed on this list because they have won awards similar to this (and I don't know how far back these award systems go), but they may not yet have qualified or been assessed for heritage listing.

As it happens on Wednesday I will be meeting with the President (Prof. Norman Etheridge) and executive officer (Dr Darren Peacock) of the National Trust of SA on another matter, but I can bring this to their attention and get their advice. It so happens too, that Dr Peacock has already been invited as the guest speaker for the next meeting of the Adelaide Wikipedia Users Group, on 23 July. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Other" stuff[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Mackenzie (Australian soldier)[edit]

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

Don't see anything in this article to suggest notability. As a colonel fails WP:SOLDIER. Not notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only source is a short human interest story which does verify the details of the article but which also verifies that these details don't add up to him being a person of sufficient note. A search restricted to his name and the Shrine only returned three hundred results, which excepting the story used as a reference all appear to be routine coverage. Mangoe (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to distinguish him from the vast majority of other Australian soldiers at the same time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG or SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:20, 8 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Gavin[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, fails the general notability guideline; winner of a £150 prize and co-author of one paper (submitted but not accepted). GILO A&E⇑ 08:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. unsourced non-notable self-promotion per WP:PROMOTION that is sole contribution by creator. Canuckle (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that she has recived the widespread coverage for her research we would expect for it to be deemed notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how the subject is notable. Fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I have attempted to clean up this stub, but I am unsure how to prove notability, per WP:BEFORE, WP:MOS, etc. There are assertions that the subject is notable, but there are no secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person appears to be a graduate student and I can find no contributions in WoS. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scoil Íosagáin[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the single source I see is for a school by the same name in Co Donegal. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 08:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Usually I'd say Redirect but "Farranree" doesn't even exist so the next best option is to delete per GNG + SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Snappy (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenio Cruz Vargas[edit]

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

Article is largely unreferenced. Several sources are unreliable (Scribd, Angelfire, Blogspot), and 'major' source El Mercurio only makes minor mentions of Cruz Vargas. Diego Grez (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please analyze the following: This is a primary source created by the Cultural Institute of Providencia It belongs to the State of Chile and is one of the most important cultural institutions in Chile. Please see here is Primary Source [Cultural Institute of Providencia].

In addition to this article will add 4 other references from the creation of this.It also shows the two items most important newspapers in Chile, where he makes these reviews are El Mercurio here[[56]] and La Tercera here[[57]] --Historiador1923 (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We show here the placement Erase [Cruz Vargas: Difference between revisions].

This article, which show the life and work of the Chilean artist now deceased — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historiador1923 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 20 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Small articles about Eugenio Cruz Vargas appears on Radio Bío-Bío and La Tercera, he is also mentioned in El Mercurio. All these are nation-wide newspapers/online newspapers. Beside these sources the rest appear to be of very poor quality. Cruz Vargas appears to have attracted good criticism from María Carolina Geel, if she herself is a notable writer, this endorsement adds to Cruz Vargas literary relevance (since notable literature is defined the one that the critics consider notable). Sietecolores (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep the reason that this distinguished artist in his work portrayed the wonderful nature. --Hortencia1 (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Note: Confirmed sock of article creator. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb)[reply]
- Note to admins, this account "Hortencia" was created only to comment here. See their contributions. And it's (more than certainly) a Historiador1923 sockpuppet, used maliciously. Diego Grez (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 07:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lingea Lexicon[edit]

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

This article is written like an advertisement and has failed to establish its notability since October 2010, by providing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 12:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO with extreme prejudice. Salting would also be nice, as advertisments have high chances of re-creation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article and not notable. --Jersey92 (talk) 14:50, 7 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. Secret ^account 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Alpha Complex[edit]

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

Non-notable band, not in news either. Facebook is probably best source. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good sources. I tagged with a PROD, and was removed by creator. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Axe Game[edit]

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

I propose to delete this article. The subject is a non-notable HIGH SCHOOL sports rivalry that fails the specific notability guidelines of WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:NRIVALRY, as well as the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. As editors who are familiar with our sports and events notability guidelines should be aware, we err on the side of NOT including high school athletes, sports teams, events and rivalries in Wikipedia because they are of extremely limited interest to our readers, and are usually heavily dependent on local and non-independent sources for documentation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlawyer1. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dirtlaywer. Cbl62 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some college rivalries are notable; high school rivalries generally not. A pity, because someone has devoted a lot of effort to this page. I would have suggested a redirect, so as to at least keep the history, but there are two possible targets - namely, the two schools - and neither has the edge as primary topic. Same problem with a redirect to the school district; the schools are in different school districts. So I don't see any alternative to deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jim Carter 06:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator puts it so well, including citing the relevant guidelines, that there is little else that I can add except to reinforce the routine of the coverage of what is not a professional game and what is only of local or at best regional, interest. The fact that it may have been taking place for a long time does not score any points for notability and it's not exactly a boat race. The game has coverage in the school articles but both of them place far more emphasis - using peacock words - on sport rather than on academic achievement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only notable at the local level. Howdousolveaproblemlikemaria? (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsion (The Vampire Diaries)[edit]

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

Crufty unsourced plot details better suited to a fanwiki. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nom. There isn't really much to say about this except that it's cruft. It's in-universe and unsourced, so there's really nothing to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't watch the show and was still lost when reading the article. At best, the lede can be put into the main article. — Wylie pedia 17:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of York Region Transit/Viva stations[edit]

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

This is not a stand alone alphabetical list of stations, it is broken down by each line which is then a duplication of the tables and lists in each of those articles. This is redundant and it is bad practice to try and maintain the same information in more than one place. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This is bad disorderly list. My opinion.

Delete as the nominator. (I don't know if I need to do this.) Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD nomination implies deletion—no need for a separate bullet. czar ♔ 03:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree No need for this as duplicated tables of stations. Martin Morin (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:17, 7 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Davis (Irish author)[edit]

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

Non-notable; promotional Rbreen (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - published author, well known Irish businessman, and I just revamped the thing with 26 references from mostly Irish but also UK publications. Reference breadth covers Basic WP:NOTAB criteria, CEO of a national retailer, and if he's quoted in UK publications as well he's also passing secondary criteria. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CEO of a national retailer - who would that be? An organisation that I or anyone living in Ireland has ever heard of? The company is apparently called http://mygoodpoints.org/;, and it doesn't even have a working website. Snappy (talk) 22:01, 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Vanity puff piece. Snappy (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The "author" tag amounts to a distracting misdirection; his works are just business manuals. This person is just a business consultant. — O'Dea (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Many of the sources are not independent, those that are and that have substance are book reviews about EVOLVE, and not the author. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:AUTHOR. --Bejnar (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dervin Lopez[edit]

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

A badly made article about a non-notable MMA practitioner, mostly made up of possibly plagiarized stats, has fought 8 times in his entire career, fights that are in a regional pro circuit. The references do not exist, linking only to the homepages of MMA fansites, with links to IETF RFCs sprinkled in. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MMA fansite references have been fixed to point to subject.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. --Jersey92 (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is made up about this article?

How does one "plagurize stats"? The stats are all verifiable. Plagurize means copied from another source,aren't all stats then plagurized for any sport/athlete?

What does the number of pro fights have to do with anything? Chris Weidman had 8 pro fights when he challenged for the mw #1contender spot, and had fought a similar level of competition previous to that.

The references link to tapology, sherdog, and mixedmartialarts.com, none of which are MMA fan sites.

The only accurate criticism of this page is that it's poorly made, maybe you can help with that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvasurfer1ri (talk • contribs) 19:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The real point is that this fighter doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters (see WP:NMMA). Papaursa (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails to meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights and he fails to meet WP:GNG since he has no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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