Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 June	12 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep - Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G. Dhananjayan[edit]

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

Highly promotional piece of a man with a job who has written a book. The Banner talk 23:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are enough third-party sources to prove his notability. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think so? The sources only tells that mr. Dhananjayan had different jobs and that he has written a book. The Banner talk 11:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: thank you for your feedback, I personally reviewed the content and removed all promotional statments.I have also provided good third party sources like article on CNN etc for testimony of his notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajsiddharthb (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability established. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted under G7 at creator's request. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Nobs[edit]

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

This is a procedural nom. Apparently, when it was first created, there was an article about Nobs at the German wiki. However, that article has since been deleted and, if I understand the basis properly, because it is a hoax. Someone understandably tagged the article here as a hoax, but I declined it because I found some evidence he existed. However, even assuming he's real, that doesn't make him notable. Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the evidence I found he existed may not be reliable. It's not easy to look online for dead Swiss painters.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the speedy deletion rationale used in de.wiki: "Begründung: Kein vernünftiger Beleg enthalten oder auffindbar. Mindestens irrelevant, wahrscheinlich Uralt-Fake, 2004 von IP eingestellt. Der einzige Beleg, den es seitdem gab, wurde erst 2010 ergänzt, besitzt als kommerzielle, zum Zweck der Generierung von Werbeeinnahmen betriebene Privatseite keinerlei Autorität und basiert wahrscheinlich selbst auf dem Wikipedia-Artikel." Machine translation: "Reason: included or discoverable No reasonable proof. At least irrelevant, probably age-old fake set of IP 2004. The only document that has since appeared, was only supplemented in 2010, has as commercial, operated for the purpose of generating advertising revenue private page no authority and likely based even on the Wikipedia article." Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a confusing rationale, at least in machine-speak. What I get out of it is that they didn't like the article even if the painter did exist. Thanks for the addition.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was my standard deletion request at de.wp [1]. Let's see if my human translation is better: "Reason: There are no valid sources included, and it's not possible to find any. If he's not a hoax, the artist isn't notable. The unsourced article was created by an IP in 2004, and the only reference wasn't added until 6 years later: a privately run, commercial web site that got its information from the same Wikipedia article to which it was added as a reference later." Since my rationale was confirmed at the de.wp deletions page, and Nobs couldn't be found in the sources where you'd normally find a notable artist, another user requested a speedy deletion that was quickly executed at de.wp. This is not the first hoax I have found, but the oldest one.--Sitacuisses (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced article that makes no assertion of notability. Just because someone is a painter does not mean they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the valid reasoning at the German Wikipedia: from the little I understand without machine-translation, it says that no valid references that predate the article can be found. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This certainly is a hoax, copied from de.wp without caring about valid sources. --Sitacuisses (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carpal Rx[edit]

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

No decentsources provided and is making medical claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This source [2] is not pubmed indexed and is not really a proper secondary source. They basically took the results of CTRS and compared them to "therapeutic massage data obtained in a single-blind prospective investigation of 36 patients who received daily mechanized therapeutic massage of the forearm for 90 days" There appears to have been no control group. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and allow time for article to be improved. I don't accept that the article is making medical claims - it merely informs us that the device is available. The "claims" are qualified, e.g. "designed for treating" not "treating" and "claims to reduce" not "reduces". Biscuittin (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a "delete" vote for the current version of the article. If an improved version of the article ever does appear, including references to reliable, independent sources providing substantial coverage of this topic, then we should revisit. But it is the current version of the article that is being discussed. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The non-secondary source mentioned is British - is there a British or European equivalent of PubMed? Peter James (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pubmed has both British and non British sources in it. It is typically only very poor quality stuff that is not indexed in pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is the National Health Service site Journals and Databases. --Bejnar (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete verifiable, but not notable. Fails WP:GNG. Basically Wikipedia:Too soon. Give it three to five years and you might have something. Wikipedia is not a directory of medical devices. --Bejnar (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two refs, one to the firm's website, and one to something called the British Journal of Pain of a study purportedly carried out by employees of company. Searches yield various non-RS hits of the "does this thing actually work?" variety. Zero substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, forgot one other thing--Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice on how it is kept. The votes are kind of all over the place, with Keep but draft, keep, redirect, but the overall vibe seems to be "keep in some form or another". Whether it can be salvaged in main space or draft space is something that can be discussed on the talk page, assumably after some attempt to update for main space. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Micro job[edit]

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

Poorly sourced essay and non notable neologism Fiddle Faddle 22:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : This is an essay more than an encyclopic article. Lyndasim (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please help me. I worked hard on this article and don't want it to be deleted. People need a way to easily find jobs and micro Jobs are a new niche job market, and a legitimate way for people to make money. Urban dictionary has approved this word for inclusion.

The Wallstreet journal:Serfing the Web: Sites Let People Farm Out Their Chores http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204443404577052353225234154

40,000 monthly searches on micro jobs accouding to Google.

Forbes is writing about micro jobs: Can't get a job? Get a micro job: http://www.forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2012/07/27/cant-get-a-job-get-a-microjob/

This term is relevant in today's society and people are interested in this term. Please let me know how I can improve the article so that it stay on-line.

Also, I am a newbie and did not know it was frowned upon to hire someone to edit my article. I promise not to do it again and I will implement all suggestions ASAP. Please consider helping. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendeyl (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue with this article is that it was moved from WP:AFC into main article space before it was ready. Now there is a rush to get it ready, something we try to avoid with Articles for Creation. There is a possibility that it can and will turn from an essay into an article, though I am not certain. A valid outcome should be to return it to Draft: space, from where it came, and allow the editor to work on it quietly and unhindered by the emotions of needing to protect an article. Paid editing is not of itself a sin despite our deprecating it, but this article shows what a poor paid editor can achieve when not understanding Wikipedia.

a Speedy Close to return this to Draft: would be an acceptable outcome. Since it is now in main article space I thinkl we need consensus to achieve that. Meanwhile I'm doing some work in the article to see if it can be saved in main article space. Fiddle Faddle 07:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NoteI have given the creating editor substantial advice on my talk page after a plea for help, and tided the article a little as well. That advice will head for the archives of that page in a few days. Fiddle Faddle 08:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but redirect - probably to Microwork. We already have a plethora of articles (see Crowdsourcing) about this subject. There are a large number of different terms and neologisms that seem to pop up. I can't see any evidence that this term is otherwise so notable it must stand as an independent article. Any future discussion about which term is more important/notable/relevant is a task for WP:RM. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 07:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete, Send to Drafts -Original author, Kendeyl, needs time to revise in Drafts.Ski02 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)ski02[reply]

Quack much? Bellerophon _{talk to me} 21:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be fair, what will happen is that WP:REFUND will be invoked and the article will return to Draft:. We may as well save the author the pain of refund, and just do it. But, since it is in main space, that really needs consensus.

Do I think there is a snowball's chance in a very hot place that the article will make t to be an article? Well, no, but we have the mechanism to give the author a chance, and he is pleading for the chance on my talk page, so why not? No-one will die if we return it to Draft: namespace, somewhere it never ought to have left in my view, at least in this state. Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs further improvement, and I see no reason why this could not be done in main space. There are some references to show notability, and I think the main problem, as Bellerophon says, is its relationship with similar topics. Given the usual quality of review at afc, I would strongly encourage any editor to do their work in mainspace--the only real purpose of afc at present is as a screen to eliminate the articles which will surely be deleted here. I This did not bypass afc, nor was it reviewed improperly: it was accepted from afc by Huon, an editor with longer experience than mine whom I greatly respect for their high standards which I think generally more stringent than my own. (I've notified them of this discussion) . I think I might have passed the article into mainspace myself had I been reviewing it: the standard most of the experienced reviewers use is a reasonable (perhaps 66%) chance of passing afd, because unless it's impossible, it's better that there be a group decision--such things as OR can be hard to judge by onesel: obviously the nom. considers it OR, but I & apparently Huon do not. Now that it's here, the thing to do is to fill it out with additional sourced material, or merge it as Bellerphon suggests. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep That page's history is a little complicated. I did not accept the draft. Rather, Lyndasim did a copy-paste "move" of the draft into mainspace, and I merged the page histories so Kendeyl is rightfully credited as the original author. That said, the topic seems notable enough and is distinct from microwork; while the article is in need of improvement, I don't think it's unsalvageably so, and AfD is not cleanup. If Kendeyl and/or Lyndasim are willing to give it an overhaul in Draft space, I wouldn't mind that outcome either. Huon (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Wizardman (per G12, no prejudice against recreation) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Costa Kapothanasis[edit]

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

Article is about a baseball player lacking significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. In looking at whether specific notability for baseball, the only criteria he might qualify under is competing in a major international competition is if one considers the European Baseball Championships to be such a competition as he was on the Greek national team. Whpq (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of Baseball Reference Bullpen. Even though the bullpen is a wiki, we are not allowed to directly copy articles from it because it uses different licensing rules. Spanneraol (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The wording can easily be changed to avoid any copyright problems. The European Cup is the biggest baseball tournament in Europe, so I'd say it is "major." Alex (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreating without copyvios, per Spanneraol. After removing the copyvios, there would be almost nothing left of the article. So it would be preferable to delete and start from scratch (assuming he is notable) then to revise what is here and leave the copyvios in the history where they may be restored at some point. Rlendog (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

PGDCA[edit]

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

Page is mainly a list of every college/university someone could think of. I see nothing worth saving. No references at all Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.- Mr X 22:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I removed the list of institutions. I'd assumed that it would be easy enough to find some decent sources to evidence that this is a real type of degree meriting a WP entry. But I didn't. If someone else can provide, happy to revisit. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

MagicMail[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topic — notability of topic is not established. The article is written in promotional tone and relies on primary sources (including two reprints of press releases on third-party sites) and a single blog post with similarly promotional language and no depth of coverage. Of 143 revisions of the article 136 are by two editors with no significant edit history outside this article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 21:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete - I am unable to find reliable, independent sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 21:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - No evidence of notability. —Davey2010→ ✉ - 01:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The only possibly independent ref used in the article is the thewhir.com reference, which on its own is not sufficient. Per nom, article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. + feel free to redirect, as appropriate slakr^\ talk / 02:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Killean Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for such schools, absent unusual non-local RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourceable. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 21:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Killeen, County Armagh per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. —Davey2010→ ✉ 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom then Redirect to Killeen, County Armagh per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to redirect. There are at least two and perhaps more schools with this name. Let folks use BING or GOOGLE to find the school. Not notable. Nickmalik (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., and MrX. Fails WP:GNG A redirect is not necessary. --Bejnar (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Magheralin. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maralin Village Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for such schools, absent unusual non-local RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magheralin per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. —Davey2010→ ✉ 22:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom then Redirect to Magheralin per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom, nothing notable Nickmalik (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A redirect is not necessary. --Bejnar (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's an absurd comment - Redirecting preserves the history and plus anyone searching for the above school will get redirected to something of relevance, Whereas deleting does nothing except show a log of its deletion so thus a redirect is necessary. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true only if you thought there was some value in the content, and hence in the history, or that "Maralin Village Primary School" was a likely search term. I don't think any of those are true. --Bejnar (talk) 03:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Derry. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nazareth House Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for such schools, absent unusual non-local RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Derry per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. —Davey2010→ ✉ 22:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom then Redirect to Derry per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per longstanding consensus at AfD that all but the most extraordinary primary schools are presumed non-notable. Carrite (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy. No re-direct, as we generally do not list primary schools by name in town and city articles. RomanSpa (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's worth noting that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay, not policy. Policy on redirection in this case would be covered by WP:ATD-R, and it's fairly clear that here we would not be creating a "useful direct". Rather, we would simply be creating a directory. And it is clear policy that WP:NOTDIRECTORY. RomanSpa (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, a redirect is not necessary. --Bejnar (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It looks like this got expanded in the middle of the AfD (which means +2 internets to those involved :P), so I'm defaulting up to keep. slakr^\ talk / 03:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Debark (ship)[edit]

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

Pure dictionary definition. wiktionary:debark covers it pretty well. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sink per nom. Two lines that would be at home in a dictionary, not here. Changing my lvote per rationale below. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete. Per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to "keep" based on promised expansion. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's lot more to be said about this because disembarking from a ship or boat can be quite tricky. For a fresh example, see Norman Heathcote (pictured). And one would think that all the recent coverage of Operation Overlord would make this clear too. Anyway, disembarkation is a blue link and so there is scope for some merger at the very least. This is the essential point of WP:DICDEF - that we group similar topics together; not that we should delete them. Andrew (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes it clear that "debark" does not include people, which invalidates the Heathcote/Overlord premise. A one sentence mention of the term in the Landing operation article would cover the topic adequately. After the article is deleted, "debark" can be redirected accordingly. Philg88 ^♦talk 14:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expand forthwith. That restriction appears to be made up. Debarking most definitely can include people. Also, redirecting to Landing operation is unsatisfactory, since that is strictly military. WP:WHAAOE not. I'm switching my lvote; we need an article about the unloading of cargo and people from ships, mentioning container cranes, stevedores, etc. (I'd have included gangplank too, but that uselessly redirects to Plank (wood). Yet more work to do.) Clarityfiend (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per the rationales of User:Andrew Davidson and User:Clarityfiend. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The problem with "disembarkation" is that it combines Latin "dis" with "embark", French. It violates a Samuel Johnson rule about maintaining the roots of words. "Debark" was the original English word, all from French. It's "disembarkation" that is a recent "contribution" by the media or maybe the airline industry. The redirect s/b to debark IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been expanded. This is notable concept the encyclopedia should have. Dream Focus 06:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral but verbs should not be used as the title of articles when there is a noun available. Deb (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the above, I still don't see this as more than an overblown dictionary definition. I agree that an article on maritime cargo-handling could be useful but debark isn't it (indeed I'm not convinced about the word's application to cargo - the cite link gives a "404 error" and a cached version doesn't mention "embark"). If the consensus goes against me, then disembarkation would be a better title (which is certainly not limited to its current redirect), or is debark a particular US usage? Davidships (talk) 20:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that a great many Wikipedia articles are just overblown dictionary definitions. But that is what encyclopedias do, they provide context and detail that a dictionary does not. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The expanded article is not just a dictionary definition. It might be a better article if it was more inclusive such as "Embarkation and Disemarkation", or perhaps if it included aviation as well as nautical disembarkation. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non notable game mod Jac16888 ^Talk 16:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty8[edit]

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

Article is about a real estate company in the video game Grand Theft Auto V. Completely fails WP:N, and has no content to expand on. See WP:NOT. Anastasia (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is about a real estate where you buy ingame apartments not real apartments — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamFordDkPlayer (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 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) 23:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom Withdrawn. (non-admin closure). —Davey2010→ ✉ 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States from BYU[edit]

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

Primary issue is WP:Notability. There is a complete List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States article, which includes school information. There are no other lists of SCOTUS clerks by school, not even Top 10 law schools, so notability of a list of BYU clerks is doubtful. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's author might want to consider adding the list to BYU's J. Reuben Clark Law School article. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator: I have reverted my deletion proposal by reverting my edit to the article. If some kind administrator would assist with a WP:Speedy Keep, I'd appreciate that. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC), updated Lwarrenwiki (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beat on the Brat[edit]

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

The info in this article is redundant, because the Ramones (album) article already discusses basically everything on this page. Johnny338 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too have basically no new info that wasn't discussed in the Ramones (album) article. While Havana Affair has some differing info, it only briefly discusses the Red Hot Chili Peppers cover, and that info is sparse, with only one source that shows the release format:

Keep - Beat on the Brat has a significant number of book and magazine references (as evidenced in the find sources links above). It has been covered and has been alluded to in pop culture. In my opinion, the other songs should not be included in this nomination, as they may or may not be notable.- Mr X 19:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Beat on the nominator~~ (no, I shouldn't say that); make that Keep per MrX. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator per MrX, I should have looked for reliable sources before nominating. Stupid of me! Anyways, could someone please close this nomination? Thank you very much! Johnny338 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ceridian[edit]

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

The page has nearly no references and is written as an advertisment. The company's predecessor has a page, as does its parents. There is no need for a separate page just for this. If not delete, then we should merge this elsewhere. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 18:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are numerous in depth sources such as this one [3]. It would seem to meet WP:ORG.- Mr X 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book appears to be self-published. What are the myriad of sources you are referring to? Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 22:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher may be small press, which could be different, but I still don't see how a brief mention in a small press book is enough to qualify. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 22:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are 16,000 books that at least mention Ceridian. I sampled a couple to see that at least some of them discuss the subject in some depth, for example [4]. Also, WP:ORGDEPTH advises, If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.- Mr X 22:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the 16,000 number is merely a google hit number which has no meaning, there is passing mention in several books. I stand by the page not needing its own page, but if we keep it, all the promotional cruft needs removing. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 22:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a billion-dollar company for which there are ample sources such as this. Andrew (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The article does not have a promotional tone, in my opinion, and instead asserts the company's significance. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (soft). As cited by the nominator, unsourced, living-person biographies violate both our policy on verifiability as well as the biographies of living persons policy. Feel free to request undeletion to have the article quickly restored so that sources can be added. From there, another AfD can take place (should someone feel it necessary) to determine whether or not the subject is sufficiently notable and/or in-line with our other policies and guidelines. slakr^\ talk / 03:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Thomander[edit]

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

unsourced BLP. Non-neutral coat rack with doubtful notability (14.5k Google hits.). The Banner talk 11:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - if this article is kept I will take a look at it and search for sources. It seems to be a notable person from what I can tell.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to look around for reasonable sources to support the biographical claims in the article and found none. Notability doesn't help much without verifiability. Considering that, and the fact that this is a BLP I'd argue for deletion unless someone else has more success than I had. This is a newly registered account, though, and closing admin may choose to ignore my findings, or lack of them. /Vemodighet (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - much of the discography can probably be confirmed by the official media database of the Swedish national (royal) library, which has 94 entries for Thomander. /FredrikT (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But doesn't a BLP need to confirm more than just the discography? /Vemodighet (talk) 16:13, 16 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 17:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 evidence that an article on this topic can ever be more than a dictionary definition. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 01:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factlet[edit]

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

Article on a neologism. Powers ^T 15:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete"WP is not a dictionary"... especially for a word that seems to be only "advocated." Borock (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term has passed the neologism stage and is being used in mainstream media such as the Mother Jones which has a column called Factlet of the Day. In addition, there are tertiary sources such as the Urban Dictionary and the Free Dictionary. The term appears increasingly in mainstream publications such as the San Jose Mercury News. It meets the general notability guideline test of being the subject of substantive articles; for example, the Atlantic magazine wrote an entire article on it called Down With Factoid! Up With Factlet!. New York Times language columnist William Safire wrote about it. Since there is ongoing discussion in mainstream media about how the term factlet and factoid should be used, the subject is not merely a dictionary definition but an encyclopedic topic and should be kept in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly non-trivial substantial coverage of this term, far above what I expected to see and enough to pass WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (somewhat to my surprise). The use of the word in media sources is not sufficient to verify content or establish notability of an article about a word. However, this article cites pieces by William Saffire, Alex Madrigal, and Paul Brians discussing the word as a word, as well as a category of information. Given its brevity, and the brevity of (the non-example portion of) Factoid, the two concepts might be handled in a single article, but the content should not be deleted. Cnilep (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In light of the above keep !votes I took another look at this. I still think this is too close to being a dictionary entry. But maybe I'm wrong. That's the great thing about of AfD. The issue will be resolved by consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 10 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 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia's not a dictionary. —Davey2010→ ✉ - 22:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Factoid, which is a commonly understood concept. The "factlet" discussion has some sourcing and combined with the factoid material will make for a more thorough article on what is essentially the same concept. Factlet is a neologism and a fork. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge factoid into the Factlet article. Given the discussion and evidence on these pages, the superior term, as discussed in the USAGE of the word, is factlet, with factoid being something we should merge into here. Nickmalik (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The Safire article shouldn't count toward the word's notability; as the coiner, he is a primary source and not secondary. Powers ^T 01:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do we have solid evidence that Safire coined the term factlet? In this New York Times article, Safire writes as if the term has already been in use.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am confused, since there is a report in The Guardian which says Safire coined factlet. Still, the 1993 Safire column suggests factlet was in use elsewhere then.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing for the closing admin to consider is that if factlet merges or redirects to factoid, or vice versa, it may suggest to some readers that Wikipedia is recommending one of the other words, which might constitute original research.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even remotely what "original research" means. Powers ^T 12:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose a Wikipedia reader types factlet in the browser bar and Wikipedia redirects them to factoid. They're first likely to think factlet means factoid unless, of course, they finish reading the article, which most people do not do. That is, the original research aspect is that the Wikipedia redirect implies the two terms are identical, when they are not.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Bejnar (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. NOT is policy and trumps N which is a guideline. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE is also just (a portion of) an essay, but it suggests that simply naming a policy does little to advance useful discussion. (Oops, see what I did there: that's another essay.) Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary states, "Sometimes an article really is a mis-placed stub dictionary entry, that discusses the etymology, translations, usage, inflections, multiple distinct meanings [etc.] of a word or an idiomatic phrase. [...] If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted." But it also states, "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources." If you want to participate in an argument, you really need a connected series of statements to establish your position. Cnilep (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF, redirect to Factoid. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia has entries for house, blue, horse, many one-word terms. If we apply the WP:DICDEF standard tightly, then these terms and perhaps half of the encyclopedia should be deleted. But they are not, because the topics are encyclopedic, meaning Wikipedia goes beyond a mere dictionary definition and explores the topic in depth. See, if factlet is deleted on the grounds that it is a dictionary definition, then factoid should also be deleted on those same grounds. But it isn't for good reason. The wiki-article factlet goes beyond a mere definition but describes the history behind the term, how it relates to other concepts such as factoid, its origin, why this happened, its use in popular parlance. In short, I feel the topic is encyclopedic. Clearly it is a notable subject since writers such as William Safire, as well as in The Guardian and The Atlantic are devoting entire articles to it, since people are interested in this topic. A redirect implies factlet and factoid are identical, equivalent, and that would be a mistake in my view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As @Cnilep: pointed out, applicable policy is here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is always "is there a realistic possibility that this could be expanded to be more than a dictionary definition in the future?". Not just judgeing today, but in the future, can it be expanded without a bunch of fluff? So it boils down to educated guess. In this case, I guess not and would say to delete, redirect. If then someone made a section in Factoid, then expanded it over time, and it eventually was justified as a legitimate fork, then so be it, but for now, I don't see it happening. It isn't about one word terms, it is about their utility. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting way to look at things. My sense is the article is already beyond a dictionary definition, already encyclopedic, imparts information especially important for news people (eg CNN) and writers, even Wikipedia contributors. Will the article expand even further in future? My guess is yes. But who knows.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, it's ok if one of us is wrong. If enough people pipe in, on average, we get it right most of the time here ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to factoid. This article, in its entirety, is a discussion of why a factlet is not a factoid. If we strip the POV they mean exactly the same thing. Factoid provides some societal context and background for the development of the term, which factlet is missing (because factlet developed directly from factoid - there's not really any other context to discuss). Ivanvector (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Factoid. WP:DICTIONARY applies on numerous grounds, and citing UrbanDictionary as the source of the definition calls into question the reliability of that definition in the first place, so much so that a google definition query ("define:factlet") only returns Wikipedia. Even "thefreedictionary" returns a contrasting definition, so it's sort of ironic, given we're not a dictionary, and the word also isn't clearly covered by dictionaries to mean what we're saying it means. Keep in mind that for any word that exists enough, original research can be used to paste some uses of it together to form an article. That's also where the WP:NEO of DICTIONARY comes in, because it's not enough that a handful of usages occur, there has to be substantially more WP:GNG-level coverage to support the notability of the word, itself, as a subject of critical analysis. That that bar hasn't been met sufficiently for an independent article, and the fact that the sources covering the word are, themselves, advocating advancing the word into the mainstream would also suggest that, again, in the spirit of WP:NEO, the article serves more to increase notability than to cover the critical discussion of a word-already-notable in an encyclopedic way. --slakr^\ talk / 02:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cabaret on 4[edit]

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

No evidence of notability given for this nn radio series. PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 4 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, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable based on lack of available sources, probably due to the fact that there were only two hours of programming. [[File:|25px|link=]]- Mr X 17:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Searched in a UK news archive: "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." Not a single passing mention. Moswento ^talky 15:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crissy Henderson[edit]

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

Being an "aspiring model and actress" and an ex-fiancé of a somewhat known singer hardly makes you worthy of a Wikipedia article. Shouldn't this be pending for deletion?62.245.69.24 (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for the IP. Ansh666 15:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Not at all notable and fails WP:BIO for lack of independent, reliable sources. This should have been speedy deleted last year, and would have if the article creator or their meatpuppet had not removed the speedy deletion tag 12 minutes after it was added.- Mr X 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a good sign when I've never even heard of the 'somewhat known singer' mentioned above. No notability outside of having an agent who apparently didn't tell their client to not take every job that came their way. Nate • (chatter) 16:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, notability isn't WP:INHERITED LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She has no independent notability, therefore she should not have an article. Aclany (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Aspiring" anythings are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Notable. Teammm ^talk
_email 22:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and above. Notability is not inherited. --Bejnar (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skoolcheckout[edit]

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

I can't find evidence of notability for this application. No independent references are provided with the article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1.)The application is used on several schools' websites, you can checkout http://lufem.skool.ng/manage http://hansebol.skool.ng/manage and several other sites but for the "no-advert restriction" it would've been included in the writeup. This application is authentic, as I'm a user myself

Tweetsmarshal (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it isn't enough that a product is used. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia doesn't cover everything, even if true or useful, but topics that are notable. Check out the general notability guidelines and the notability guidelines for software and see if you can cite references that establish the product's notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG.- Mr X 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article from a WP:SPA account; no evidence that this software is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sources. Google Books found nothing, Google Scholar found nothing, Google Web returned no RS results. Agyle (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC) (Edited 15 June 2014)[reply]

That kind of abuse was completely uncalled for. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intended as humor, as "Skool" subject seems ridiculously amateurish and non-notable, but I edited to follow conventional format. Agyle (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Lead section is a copy-and-paste job from this webpage. --LukeSurl^{t c} 11:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia is supposed to explain what people would/could search for (though things of notability), such that after being read the user has a basic understanding of the topic. Now there's this application 'skoolcheckout' which people around me what to know about. where else do they go asides wikipedia? Now if this topic/page is deleted, you'll have successfully left some users unsatisfied.

Now 'notable' doesn't necessarily mean it has marked 1m hits on google. but that it is something worth the search. How is an application not notable?Tweetsmarshal (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largo Plazo's previous response to you (toward the beginning of this discussion) provides links that explain what "notable" means in this context. Agyle (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the first place a person would go to find out about a product is the product's, or its producer's, website, not Wikipedia. As I said earlier, Wikipedia's purpose is not to be the first source for information about everything. It's meant to be a summarization of information on notable topics that can already be found elsewhere, on reliable sources that are independent of the subject. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Presumably the first place a person would go to find out about a product is the product's, or its producer's, website. I get your point exactly, but looking at the application as a general topic and not just a product, I think wikipedia would be my first point of call for explanation. Use apple's SIRI as an example, you wouldn't go to apple.com to understand this app, would you? Now I have taken the pain to go through other products of the same category (e.g Fedena). The only thing I see different(correct me if I'm wrong) is popularity and its base country.

Re:summarization of information on notable topicsWP says: Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject... I think skoolcheckout satisfies that.

Re:reliable sources that are independent of the subject I totally give in to this argument, the sources are reliable though (because I work closely with the author) but I may not be able to 'prove' it just yet. I'll work on it. Plus there is an independent source check here

Now WP expects that topics are supposed to grow from 'seed to standard'. That can't happen if the page is deleted from conception, as the page is barely 48hrs old.Tweetsmarshal (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where you would go to find product information is irrelevant here. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for article inclusion. Your reasoning runs counter to those policies, and if you want them changed, this isn't the appropriate forum for that.

The notability assessment here hinges on sources. People in this Articles for Deletion (AfD) discussion, if they've assessed the subject properly, have been unsuccessful in locating any significant, independent, reliable source coverage. All the people who suggested deletion are experienced editors who are familiar with AfD assessments and locating reliable sources. Things can be overlooked; sometimes nothing turns up in search engines, but there is coverage offline or from within websites not accessible to search engines. If you do locate sources, just list them here. If the article is deleted and you later find multiple sources of coverage that you think establish notability, you could recreate the article, perhaps using the AfC (Articles for Creation) process to evaluate the topic.

Regarding growing articles, time is allowed to improve an article, but this AfD is about the notability of the subject, not the actual article text. An experienced editor generally wouldn't create an article if notability could not be established; there are different alternatives for incubating "in development" articles before they go live like this article. It's understandable that a new editor wouldn't know that, there's a lot to learn about the whole process. One option you could persue, quoted from WP:MERCY: "If you feel you need more time to work on an article you just created that has been put up for deletion early on, an option may be to request userfication, where you can spend as much time as you wish to improve the article until it meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. Once this has been accomplished, you can reintroduce it into main article space." The term userfication means the article would be moved to your own user page on Wikipedia, where you can work on it semi-privately; the article is removed from the main namespace, so it would not show up in Google or other search engines. To be honest, I think you'd be wasting your time, as I don't think you're apt to establish notability anyway, unless the subject attracts more notice in the future, but you're welcome to try. Agyle (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What else can I say? If you're gonna delete it, please be quick about itTweetsmarshal (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions normally run at least 7 days to allow interested parties time to respond. Agyle (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then Userfy - This application definitely has prospects but for now It does not have enough significant coverage to be on Wikipedia. I tried assisting the author of the article in looking for any Nigerian Newspaper that has written something on it but sadly I found none. Darreg (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relevance does not translate to notability per wiki rules. Darreg (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign footballers in Tajik League[edit]

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

Per the same article but for the Faroe Islands league, no indication that the notion of foreign players in this non-fully professional league as a distinct subject has ever received and significant, reliable coverage beyond routine match reporting as required by GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per past AFD consensus, per WP:GNG failure, and per WP:LISTCRUFT. Giant Snowman 15:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons already stated. Fails WP:LISTN.- Mr X 16:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barry "The Punchline" Valentine[edit]

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

Unverifiable, suspected hoax. The article had one reference, a book, but it could not be found via Amazon UK or Worldcat, and there was nothing on Google search for the subject, the tours mentioned in the article, the book cited as source, or the book's publisher. Peter James (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 and nominated as such.- Mr X 14:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angels (Malayalam film)[edit]

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

Non-notable future film, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 14:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ per WP:NFF. It's already missed its May 2 release date.- Mr X 14:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my comment to keep, based on presentation of sources and clarification of NFF guideline.- Mr X 02:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Jean Markose, Angels Indrajith Sukumaran, Angels Asha Sarath, Angels Joy Mathew, Angels

Keep per meeting WP:NFF (paragraph 3) as being a completed an as-yet unreleased film whose production is notable though coverage. (sorry MrX, but WP:NFF is set to determine notability for completed films when they are not released). They key being coverage, and release is not a mandate. It serves the project far better than deletion to have this remain and be expanded through regular editing and use of available sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale of User:MichaelQSchmidt. Meets WP:NFF. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Place Your Hands[edit]

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

Yes, it passes WP:NSONG as it charted, but I am not seeing any evidence to suggest that this deserves a standalone article. Laun chba ller 13:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong against. Very well known and culturally significant song. Needs expanding, not deletion 82.46.109.233 (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The single has charted which means it may be notable per WP:NSONG #1, but there does not seem to much else to say about the song, so why have a dedicated article? - Mr X 14:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG, several sources attest its importance in Reef's career, there are references, but more detailed coverage is likely to be offline. It could certainly benefit from reviews and other coverage that is likely only to be found in late-90s music press, not online. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question where is the significant coverage? I'm finding trivial coverage of this, so I'm skeptical as to whether it meets WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. While charts often suggest notability, what actually makes a song notable is when it gets significant coverage from reliable third-party sources independent of its album. Coverage from album reviews doesn't make songs notable, and neither does word from their artists or others affiliated with their creation process. WP:NSONGS also indicates that articles on songs shouldn't be made if they are unlikely to grow beyond stubs, and I don't think there's enough to expand this track. Unless significant reliable third-party coverage can be presented, I'm going with redirect to Glow (Reef album), as it is a plausible search term. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea.--Laun chba ller 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Colapeninsula's assessment - other coverage certainly exists in offline sources. This is a well-known top 10 single, which has been used for other commercial purposes, and which continues to receive airplay in the UK (I heard it on Radio 2 last week). This source unambiguously indicates that offline sources exist. The song has been described in national press as "huge", "legendary", a "mega-hit"... Do I have access to offline sources? No. Does the above demonstrate that such sources exist? I would have thought so. Moswento ^talky 15:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to the album, either way it shouldn't be at AfD. Clearly has sufficient real world significance. --Michig (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Government Ekpemupolo. Duplicate of target. If there's any content that should be merged it can be done from history with proper attribution. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Government Tompolo[edit]

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

Duplicate of Government Ekpemupolo - please redirect Gbawden (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Merge to Government Ekpemupolo and redirect the new title.- Mr X 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Albert Moore[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E: Subject is known only in the context of a single event which is otherwise not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E. If the bombing attempt is sufficiently notable (which I doubt), then an article about that subject could be created.- Mr X 13:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a BLP1E that also fails WP:PERP. RS coverage is the routine arrest, guilty plea and sentence cycle. Unfortunately, planting a pipe bomb is not that unusual a crime. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not simply because BLP1, although it might consider deleting, but especially in connection to the imitators of the Columbine High School massacre, who want to position themselves (like in this case the anniversary day of one of the most horrific School rampage, Generations of those at the time, who will never forget that day). Quote this: The Columbine Legacy Rampage Shootings as Political Acts

″Columbine influenced subsequent rampage shootings in several ways. First, it provided a paradigm about how to plan and execute a high-profile school rampage shooting that could be imitated. Second, it gave inspiration to subsequent rampage shooters to exact revenge for past wrongs, humiliations, and social isolation. Third, it generated a “record” of carnage that subsequent rampagers sought to exceed. Fourth, Harris and Klebold have attained mythical status in the pantheon of outcast student subcultures. They have been honored and emulated in subsequent rampage shootings and attempts. In all cases, perpetrators either admitted links with Columbine or police found evidence of Columbine influences.″

AND

″Shootings are identified in the table as “imitated” when the perpetrators copied aspects of the Columbine shooting in their own attempts. Imitations were evident in the attacks in Conyers, Georgia; Fort Gibson, Oklahoma; East Greenwich, New York; Red Lake, Minnesota; Hillsborough, North Carolina; and Virginia Tech University. Perhaps the most imitative shooting was by Jeffrey Weise at Red Lake Senior High School in Minnesota. This particular rampage shooting had several copycat earmarks. First, under the names Todesengel and NativeNazi, he posted rants and expressed admiration of Adolf Hitler on neo-Nazi Internet sites (Benson, 2005). Hitler was lionized by Eric Harris on his Trench Coat Mafia Web site. Second, he wore a duster of similar style to those worn by Klebold and Harris (Wilogoren, 2005). Third, prior to shooting a fellow student, Weise asked him if he believed in God. This last act was a reference to one of the myths that emerged from the Columbine shootings that Cassie Bernall was asked whether she believed in God, to which she responded “yes” before she was shot. Although there was no evidence that this confrontation actually occurred, it became an article of faith within the evangelical community and was reported as fact nationwide for several months before it was debunked.″Read the full pdf. You will recognize that it is IN FACT a serious Problem, with People who go rampage. Some succeed, others not. Like in this case of Moore. Or do Attackers first need to kill first for turn the spotlight on them, when they succeeded. I think that also the main reason why first-time murders, get parole, and then becoming Second-Timers. And so often you hear about it, everyone is shocked: My God, how could this happen....?

http://murderpedia.org/male.H/images/harris-eric/the-columbine-legacy.pdf

So, the KEEP-Reason is not motivated, just because One Single Person, had Just one single Act: The reason is the political IMPACT & ASPECT that stands behind. I guess we could even start a List of Imitators Copycats at WP soon. Gary Dee 16:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gary Dee:. From the citation in the article: "Moore told investigators he didn't realize he had placed the device on the Columbine anniversary.". In fact, I'm not finding any RS coverage for Moore's motive or his politics. Even if he was a copycat, that wouldn't automatically make him notable. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k:. That is something, that probably got messed up in the context. As well i did not say (either guessed) that the fact that articles copycaters AUTOMATICALLY should, could or would be legit to keep it. That would assume, that somewhere out in rural, kids (teens) hearing about (a) robbery of a gasstation next town, they would plan next week a hold-up there as well, and finally would make them elidgible writing an article @ WP, related to their specific crime (lets call it "the snoopy robbers crime spree" or whatsover. Or even worse, about one of the robbers him(it)self. I never noted something like that. But to keep it insight, there is some media attention, about these shootings (and believe it or not, i live in Europe for some decades, Europe has a different view on crime actions, in or through US crime sprees, and as i mentioned, i am US Citizen, i know about what i am talking about). As the world gets smaller and smaller through I-Net and Satellites, GPS and NSA, the more media reports upon such massacres (and in Europe these kind of crimes grow as well here, more & more, just take the recent killing in Brussels)

the more copycaters arise. Definitely Moore is an home grown Terrorist, and was trying to massmurder (although his knowledge about wasnt good, otherwise his attempt would not have failed), and when Feds are involved in this case (as in any other one), the attempted (mass)murder always is a relevant fact and worth being documented. And do not forget: Mr. Moore got sentenced to life WITHOUT the possibility of Parole: Reference

Judge Kane, who thoroughly chastised Moore during the hearing, explained that the harsh sentence was necessary to protect the public and deliver a message to potential future offenders. “It didn’t require Sherlock Holmes to catch you. You were on film the whole time. It was an utterly thoughtless thing to do,” Kane said to Moore. “This is a serious problem, and we’re not going to tolerate it. That needs to be loud and clear.”.....Kane made full use of the hearing to deliver a message to a national population whose average age is on the rise: Age will not factor into leniency for senior citizens convicted of crimes. Exactly that is the reason for keep. If a Judge pronounces such hard words in court (in connection with the harsh sentence), there is no need, that Wikipedia should close its eyes, classifying a man, who was about to kill dozens or hundreds (Oklahoma...?), there is a must to keep such People documented and focused on, and especially at WP !

This also is for a clear view of Terrorists (and Moore is definitely a Terrorist), that is why he is homegrown. And if FBI, ATF, USMS and other other LE agencies cooperate, this attempted terroract, is not simply a little fish, about crimes that happen every day, every hour and every minute just around every one. Gary Dee 17:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, you keep talking about how it must be important if feds are involved. As someone who has spent most of his adult life in law enforcement, I can tell you that's absolutely false. Most often, they are task force members. Local, state and federal agencies commit manpower to these task forces and then it is paid for by federal funds. This gives the locals access to more funding and more equipment, while giving the feds more numbers to justify their existence. I can't tell you how many times I've been involved in task forces that had fed members doing street level drug bust or rounding up fugitives. If you have a warrant in Kansas and flee to Iowa, you just committed the federal crime of interstate flight to avoid prosecution. That means the local task force with the US Marshals will probably go look for you. Does that make you extra notable, dangerous or less of a small fish? Nope. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BLP1E. EricSerge (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the classic case of one event. He made a device that injured no one, I fail to see how that makes him notable. If it absolutely must be kept, we need to tone down the bias in claims like he would kill "doxens of innocents". That is inflamatory language meant to malign the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom., Niteshift36 and above. --Bejnar (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to LGBT rights in Solomon Islands. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT history in the Solomon Islands[edit]

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

I have nominated this for deletion because it contains almost no useful information and there has been no interest in developing this as a stub since it's creation. If somebody can demonstrate an interest please do some substantial work otherwise, best it goes. E x nihil ^(talk) 08:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom. Ansh666 11:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently this is not a notable topic and there's nothing substantial worth merging. It was created from a source that lists places where being gay is criminalized, a subject which would be covered at Criminalization of homosexuality. I would note that there are other nearly identical stubs that could be included with this nomination.- Mr X 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - any relevant content to LGBT rights in Solomon Islands. I concur with Mr, in that a similar/far wider "delete and merge" process could be undertaken on a number of similar scale/developed articles. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with LGBT rights in Solomon Islands then Delete per GNG failure. "Merge" is a bit of an exaggeration - the article consists solely of one short sentence. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with LGBT rights in the Solomon Islands. While certainly there are some countries (i.e. the larger ones) where there's enough meaningful content to write that we can spin "LGBT rights" and "LGBT history" into two separate things — and no prejudice against recreating this in the future if and when some actual substance and sourcing can be added to it — we don't need a separate "LGBT history" article that consists only of a single sentence identifying the year in which homosexuality was formally criminalized. Bearcat (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with LGBT rights in Solomon Islands, per what has been said. Aridd (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LGBT rights in Solomon Islands. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Stubs of this nature on WP went out of vogue sometime in the spring of 2001. Carrite (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Merge Anarchangel (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge w/LGBT rights in Solomon Islands. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as WP:NOTHOWTO and spam. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Facial Yoga To Stay Forever Young[edit]

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

Unsourced promotional article, WP:NOTHOWTO. Prod removed by article creator with dubious self-serving fluff as justification. TheLongTone (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article mostly seems to be a way of promoting her article on another site. Either way it's unsourced and contrary to WP:NOTHOWTO. Valenciano (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This unsourced article is clearly written as an advertisement. Cowlibob (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think the article quite qualifies for WP:CSD#G11, but it does seem to be a non-notable topic and thus fails WP:GNG, and WP:NOTHOWTO.- Mr X 13:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrX. Clearly not encyclopedic. --Finngall ^talk 16:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Nothing encyclopaedic about it. —Davey2010→ ✉ 19:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus in this short discussion is that the subject qualifies for an article per available sources. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mambo Kurt[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Cwobeel (talk) 04:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mambo Kurt real name "Rainer Limpinsel". Did the nom. really perform the due diligence of WP:BEFORE? Immediately, I found a book, in French, that has several pages devoted to Mambo Kurt, 107-112. It starts out (translated) How six Germans from Schwerin, a small town in East Germany, have revolutionized metal music and reinvigorated what we thought was a moribund German music scene. Barde, Antoine; Jauniaux, Pierre; Verry, Patrice (2006). Rammstein: les crasheurs de feu (in French). Rosières-en-Haye (Meurthe-et-Moselle): Camion Blanc. ISBN 978-2-910196-91-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help) Then I found two pages in Grisko Michael (2000). Fernsehperspektiven: Aspekte zeitgenössischer Medienkultur (Television perspectives: aspects of contemporary media culture) (in German). Kassel, Hesse, Germany: Hessische Landesanstalt für privaten Rundfunk. pp. 75–76. ISBN 978-3-929061-79-6.. Did the nom. look at the German Wikipedia article and the material there? There is substantial coverage in independent sources, it is just not yet documented in the English article. The Barde book supports the proposition that Mambo Kurt meets the requirements of WP:CREATIVE. --Bejnar (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak German and my French is very basic, so these sources were not visible to me. If there is a well sourced article in the German Wikipedia, be kind enough to add material from there and provide sources. Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would but my French is pathetic, modern music is not my scene, and I have other priorities. I have posted a request for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Mambo Kurt, but while it is nice to improve an article during an Afd, it is not necessary. The purpose of Afds is to remove articles that don't belong not to improve those that do, although it is a nice side effect in many cases. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Bejnar's articulate, well-researched, thorough summary. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:24, 5 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 09:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bejnar and the sources evident in the German version. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus here is that the subject meets notability guidelines (WP:BASIC/WP:GNG) per source coverage. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asha Mevlana[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines for music. The article is also poorly sourced, especially for a biography of a living person. In addition, it appears that the creation of the article as well as essentially every non-trivial edit was performed by one of two single-purpose accounts Paisarepa (talk) 06:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was fully expecting to find absolutely nothing out there for her and to argue for the article's deletion. However she has received quite a bit of coverage and the website for Invert shows quite a bit of coverage. Some of what is currently on the article could be seen as trivial, but other sources aren't and there's enough here to where she'd pass notability guidelines. For example, her stint with the TSO did get her specific notice in various different papers that reviewed the performances. It's not the best out there, but she does seem to pass overall. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Tokyogirl79. It appears that Mevlana's band "Porcelain" is one that is easily confused with at least one other band. In editing the article, you listed three albums by the band, but two of them were actually a different band named porcelain (from France). Also, the third album you listed with Invert was recorded after she had left the band. Only one album was produced on a major label (The Last Song (I'm Wasting On You), with the band Porcelain, label Universal), see: https://itunes.apple.com/au/album/last-song-im-wasting-on-you/id347260762, note that only the title track is on there. I can only find one song from the album on YouTube (the title track, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61uqKIKVi0M) and even though it has been up for four and a half years, it only has 10k views, and a lot of those are likely due to the fact that it has the same exact name as a popular Evanescence song (as confirmed by many of the YouTube comments). I was able to find the album on Soundcloud, but none of the songs had even hit 300 listens. The album is the definition of a complete flop. Neither band that she has been a member of is notable, so it follows that her membership in those bands isn't near sufficient to show her own notability. She has gotten a little more coverage with TSO, but still nothing that wouldn't be classified as trivial. She is not a prominent member of the band; she is only a touring member, not a permanent member. As to news coverage with them, she never even gets a sentence to herself in any of the news articles linked to on the page as references or in any others I have found, much less is she the subject of the articles. Most if not all of the non-trivial media coverage she has received seems to be due to the fact that she had breast cancer at a young age. I don't want to diminish the battle of beating cancer, but it does not make you a notable musician or person by Wikipedia standards. I know they are suggestions and not rules set in stone, but she has not even come close to attaining a single one of the WP:MUS criteria.Paisarepa (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails wp:NMUSIC, seems mainly to be a session violin for hire. Film & TV/web presenting also trivial & non-notable. 94.195.46.205 (talk) 04:11, 4 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 09:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these sources: [10] [11] as well as some good sources in the article. This bio easily passes WP:BASIC.- Mr X 13:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MRX who's found more appropriate sources, Passes WP:GNG. —Davey2010→ ✉ 19:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrX SW3 5DL (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Irfan[edit]

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

I can find no evidence anywhere that the subject of the article satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Scarcely any content can be traced to reliable sources anywhere. The only source cited barely mentions him, and there has been no improvement even after the article has been tagged for sources for nearly 4 years. Searches for information about him (once one has filtered out content about other people of the same name) produce only sources which are not independent, not reliable, only barely mention him, or two or more of those three. Online sources include the likes of Facebook, Linkedin, the Wikipedia article, a page at the web site of an organisation he belongs to (www.isna.net), and a page at www.militantislammonitor.org, which does not appear to be a reliable source. The one perhaps reliable and independent source I have managed to find is the book "Sports in America" by Barry Leonard, a 58 page book which briefly quotes Irfan once, and which is not listed by any of several major booksellers I have tried, not even Amazon.

A PROD was contested with an edit summary that said "If claimed awards are true, I would like a broader determination of their worth as a proof of notability", so I have spent some time checking the list of awards. I have been able to find scarcely any source anywhere mentioning Kareem Irfan receiving any of these awards, apart from sources which give word-for-word the same list of awards as this Wikipedia article, all of them dated more recently than the Wikipedia article, and apparently copied from it. Even more striking is the fact that for most of those awards I have been unable to find any evidence even that the awards exist, apart from claims that the awards have been given to Kareem Irfan, in most cases using wording identical to that in the Wikipedia article. For example, one might expect that a "Distinguished Interfaith Collaboration Award" issued by so prominent a person as mayor Richard Daley of Chicago would receive substantial coverage, but a Google search for "Distinguished Interfaith Collaboration Award" "Richard Daley" produces only 38 hits, and every one of those pages mentions the award only in claims about Kareem Irfan, most of them in quotes from the Wikipedia article. Similar results hold for other awards listed. The Community Service Award of the Muslim Bar Association does exist, but I have found no evidence that the award is in any way significant, and no independent or significant mention of its having been awarded to Kareem Irfan. (If anyone else wishes to search for information about these awards, it is important to carefully avoid false positives: for example, a Google search for -"Kareem Irfan" -"Kareem M. Irfan" "Community Service Award" "Muslim Bar Association" produced a page mentioning a Community Service Award from the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, and coincidentally mentioning the Muslim Bar Association in a completely different context.) At best, we have unsourced and unverifiable claims of Kareem Irfan's having received a number of awards, most of which are so obscure and insignificant that it is impossible to find anything about them at all except that a Wikipedia article says he received them, and that other websites have copied that from Wikipedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the WP:CHICAGO director, I was the deWP:PRODder. There are a lot of seemingly interesting awards. I want these to be fully considered before the article is deleted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that is why I have tried to fully consider them. If anyone can find better evidence that they are significant awards, and that they have indeed been awarded to Kareem Irfan, then I will be likely to change my view on the article, but I have really tried hard to find such evidence, and can't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete For now, I can't find any evidence of the subject pushing past WP:GNG - all coverage seems to be from organizations of which he is a member, and a whole lot of it seems to have been copy pasted from this article or the other way around. Either way, kudos for the nom for an incredible effort in getting to the bottom of this though I understand, based on the comments above, why the article was initially dePRODDed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 9 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 09:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found 124 articles on HighBeam, mostly from Chicago-area newspapers, but also NPR, Washington Post, Deseret News, National Catholic Reporter and various other news organizations. Meets WP:BASIC.- Mr X 14:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Gary Dee 19:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User: MrX, those would be quite significant but I haven't been able to find anything of the sort. Could you share some of that with the rest of us for the sake of clarity in the discussion? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[12]- Mr X 03:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that's a lot...change my mind to keep. The article needs improvement but there does seem to be a threshhold passed of significant coverage. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gary Dee. The article does a nice job of substantiation but needs to provide more context. --Bejnar (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New York University#Student organizations. There is certainly no consensus to keep. Opinion is split on whether to delete or merge. A straight merge would leave the main NYU article's Student Org section unduly overweighted on this org, so a selective merge seems in order. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Plague (magazine)[edit]

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

No evidence that this meets WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article's dead links fixed, illustrating two NY Post Page Six articles in which the subject was the main topic of a notable publication. JesseRafe (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New York University#Student organizations. Not enough content here, nor clear enough notability, to merit an independent article at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It merited an independent article for seven and a half years. It survived its notability exam then. Since, some of its links died and it was nom'd because of that. Those links have been replaced. As this was nom'd solely on failing GNG it now passes GNG ergo its nomination deserves to be absolved. Should not be merged as it passed GNG. Nominate it on another grounds if you see fit, but there are literally thousands and thousands of worse articles worth the attention, not this one. JesseRafe (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This nomination was not made because of dead links. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - JesseRafe, would you mind explaining exactly how GNG is met? Which source provides in-depth coverage? Is that a reliable source? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The New York Post, the nation's sixth-largest newspaper by circulation, running two articles about nothing other than 3 articles about the subject (NYP piece mentioned two independently) isn't reliable and in-depth? JesseRafe (talk) 18:02, 10 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 09:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two "articles" that are barely one paragraph long doesn't do it for me. The argument that "It merited an independent article for seven and a half years" is wrong, with millions of articles around here, some are bound to go unnoticed for a long time. --Randykitty (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article lacks sufficient available reliable sources with which to establish notability per WP:GNG.- Mr X 14:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to make sure you guys are thorough, make sure to delete every other article listed at College humor magazines when you're done here! Let's make wikipedia better by deleting useful information, guys! Yay! JesseRafe (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Try reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as I suggested to you earlier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New York University#Student organizations. Hardly enough content for a separate article & does not seem to be notable enough for a separate article, but as pointed out simply deleting content of some value does not make Wikipedia more useful.TheLongTone (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New York University#Student organizations, where this magazine is mentioned. Some content may be worth incorporating, but from the brief amount of independent coverage presented I'm not convinced that a standalone article is warranted. Gongshow talk 17:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, all these votes were cast before further sources and citations had been added. JesseRafe (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I see no reason to change my !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- These aren't votes, but having just reviewed the article again, I stand by the nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If they're not votes, what are they? I see people voting. Am I missing something? JesseRafe (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you do not. Please see WP:NOTVOTE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence above makes no sense. JesseRafe (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Concur with RandyKitty, all the new stuff adds is a list of various minor mentions and the like. This should be merged and redirected as I stated above. There's no shame in such an outcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added Alumni section which includes notable figures in comedy such as Judah Friedlander, Dan Milano, and Frank Sebastiano, as well as other notable contributors like David Alan Mack. GlennHauman (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC) 19:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC) — GlennHauman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You appear to have a conflict of interest. Please see also WP:NOTINHERITED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I usually favor a low bar to articles on publications, but this seems to be based on a few incidental mentions of this campus humor magazine, several of which merely disparage it for its lack of wit. There is one 1994 interview in the footnotes with the "regular" NYU campus paper that might count towards GNG, but otherwise I'm not seeing it. Campus newspapers generally pass go and collect $200 at AfD, alternative student publications generally end up paying rent on Boardwalk... I guess that's a reasonable compromise for inclusionists and deletionists to make... Carrite (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above vote should not be counted for being a clear out-right lie or lack of actual English comprehension. "several of which merely disparage it for its lack of wit" is patently false. There is one single solitary disparaging reference in there and it is there solely to reference the claim of the rivalry between the WSN and The Plague, so why would the WSN not disparage it? That's what was referenced. JesseRafe (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Like all editors here you are required to assume good faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Assume good faith" does NOT mean "blindly grant good faith no matter how objectively false a statement is", does it? Carrite's claims are false on multiple counts as stated above, face-palm-worthy falseness. Absurd that someone can so blatantly not pay attention and outright lie on a project page and the person who points out their either purposeful deception or egregious failure to read gets reprimanded with a pillar. A more important tenet should be "actually read the article first, then actually read the sources, then actually read the sources in the context of the article, not THAT'd be a great tenet, wouldn't it? JesseRafe (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were doing alright until you said "face-palm-worthy", which is uncivil, and then said "outright lie", which is a personal attack. You continued with personal attacks and incivility by claiming "purposeful deception" may be present, at least without sources to prove it. JesseRafe, with all due respect, you need to calm down. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? This Carrite person claimed "several" of the sources disparaged the subject of the article. How is that not either a lie or a blatant mis-reading? It must be one or the other, because it is unequivocally false. There is no gray area, either Carrite has difficulty counting past "one" or has a very different conception of the word "several" than common English usage. It is NOT a personal attack to objectively state that someone is egregiously wrong, it is, in fact, good science. Many people, who do think they were doing "good" have been wrong, and in the grand scheme of things Carrite's lies/ineptitude are moot, but nonetheless as factually unsound as any other proven falsehood. Again, reiterate the absurdity that I'm called out on WP:Civil for a non ad-hominem attack when merely pointing out that one voter's opinion ought be discredited due to incomprehensibly poor reasoning. JesseRafe (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This (i.e. the difference between "one" and "several"), of course, is also a separate issue from the context of that singular "disparaging" source, which is there solely on the claim that the cited source has a rivalry with the subject of the article, hence it stands to reason that one rival should disparage the other, that's not contested. JesseRafe (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darting back in to this day's AfD and I'm rather surprised at the vitriol. What objectively false statement have I made, I wonder... "I usually favor a low bar to articles on publications, but this seems to be based on a few incidental mentions of this campus humor magazine, several of which merely disparage it for its lack of wit." — Oh, I see, this is taken as an attack on content rather than the factual characterization of what the sources show. I guess my reading comprehension must be low, when the New York Post says "SOPHOMORIC MAG TAKES WHACK," that actually is not an incidental mention of the subject emphasizing its lack of wit, it is actually an in depth history of the subject counting to GNG. Silly me! I did see another piece of very similar (non-)coverage on the internets, but I guess somebody is just going to have to Assume Good Faith that it's out there, since I'm not seeing it immediately and have other things to do. I've actually got no dog in this fight, if there are a couple sources which emerge in addition to the interview I mention, ping me and I will happily flip my AfD opinion. —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// "This Carrite person" Carrite (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here's the other one I saw, "CAMPUS CRETINS." Yep, this is one of the pieces being counted towards GNG by some people. In its entirety: "NYU prexy John Sexton can’t be happy about the new issue of the school-funded student mag, The Plague, which portrays him as a diaper-wearing buffoon. A satire under his byline and titled “My Pooping Regimen” reads: “I have a problem. My small intestine is very big and large intestine is quite tiny.” It goes into nauseating detail. NYU rep John Beckman told us, “It’s amazing. You can be a student at a top university in the country and still be totally fixated on potty talk.” Not very "in depth." More like an indictment of the publication's lack of wit. I guess I can count past one, which will be news to some people. I called two items "several," I confess — but at least I'm not the person trying to claim that one piece of independent, in depth published coverage about the subject is "multiple," which is what WP:GNG calls for... Carrite (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, in all seriousness, delete every page listed within college humor magazines - What is this article lacking that The Oxymoron, Golden Words, Stanford Chaparral, The Cheese Grater, Fish Rap Live!, etc. have? Are they all going to be deleted? Or only this one? If so, why? Please excise universal and equitable judgment. If this subject, which is surely more notable per wiki-inline citations (even prior to the recent spate of edits to avoid deletion) than many of the other items with WP pages listed in college humor magazines, is not noteworthy, then delete everything other than the Harvard Lampoon and simply wholesale remove reliable, cited, and noteworthy information from the servers. It's not like it's in WP's or WM's mission statement to be a wealth of all the world's knowledge or anything, right? Why, instead of being a Bradbury-esque fireman, not help improve articles you think aren't "quite there", but choose to erase with broad strokes? Whom does that serve? If this subject matter doesn't interest you, then ignore it. Live your life. Hundreds of television shows have individual episode WP articles, do you judge each and every twenty-two minute broadcast television emission on its own merit? After all, notability isn't inherited, right? So it doesn't matter how influential the series is on the whole, but what makes episode 17 of season 4 of whatever TV show itself notable? Was it written about in several published scholarly books (The Plague has been!), has it been mentioned in an on-going manner in mainstream news outlets over the course of decades (The Plague has been!), have excerpts of it been included in anthologies preserved by private collections and university libraries (The Plague has been!)? These are all cited, as well. What is missing in the notability department, pray tell? JesseRafe (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For the third time: please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As to your closing question, have you read [{WP:GNG]]? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the third time, yes! 1) As I said from the beginning how does the two NYPost mentions alone not satisfy GNG? 2) You didn't answer my question, are you going to delete those other comparable articles as well? If not, then why this one? Which clearly is notable and passes GNG in multiple sourced ways. If it's not notable enough, why not spend all this effort to help make it better rather than delete it? JesseRafe (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have told you already why I don't think those two NYPost mentions work for me. As for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: there are over 4.5 million articles on WP. Of course, there will be articles that don't meet our guidelines, that's only to be expected. But with a limited number of editors, you cannot expect that an article not meeting GNG can only be deleted if all other articles not meeting GNG are deleted, too. WP is a work in progress, done by volunteers with a limited amount of time. You see a problem, you try to fix it (by either expanding or going to AfD), you don't go looking for a dozen other similar problems... WP:There is no deadline. --Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When? How does a reputable and reliable source like the NY Post in two separate articles about nothing other than the subject fail GNG? You never explained it. Also, you are still evading the question, are you going to delete the other college humor magazine articles or not? If not, why are you spending so much time and energy trying to delete this one? Nobody ever said every article not meeting GNG should be deleted, except, maybe you, as you feel for some strange reason that this article fails GNG and should be deleted, my argument is that this doesn't fail GNG and should not be deleted - how you got to the point where I think this and "other(?)" GNG-failing articles should be deleted is beyond me. From what I can tell your only argument is that you don't care about this subject matter. How this subject matter you care so little for got on your radar I also don't know, but since that's the only logical conclusion why you are making this a pet-crusade of yours to delete this well-researched and well-cited article, but NOT deleting all the similar subject matter but worse-researched and worse-cited ones seems to indicate some hypocrisy. Go ahead and put your deletion notices on the other articles if you're not a hypocrite. If you don't you're exhibiting a clear bias. JesseRafe (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that above. You are exhibiting a rather severe case of Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. And, no, I don't intend to go around looking for articles to delete. This one was at AfD and I specialize in magazines (and academic journals), so I watch all AfDs concerning magazines. Why it then makes me a hypocrite if I don't go around searching for similar articles, given the foregoing, is beyond me. Perhaps in a few weeks, I'll stumble upon one of those articles, following a link or a thread or just by chance, and perhaps I'll take it to AfD then if I have time. In any case, for some strange reason, I don't react well to people calling me a hypocrite. Comment on content, not on the contributor, like I -and others here- do too. Personal attacks like that are not very well tolerated on WP. Calm down. In this case, people have another opinion than you. Too bad. Move on, happens all the time. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got confused between Randy and Andy, either way, accusing me of merely claiming "I didn't hear that" is wrong, as nowhere in this thread is you or anyone detailing how and why it fails GNG. Just saying it is not explaining it. And I did link to the other articles already. As can clearly be seen they are all, en masse, worse than this one. It's a legitimate question - why not delete every single item on that list of college humor magazines? Literally, why are you not doing that? JesseRafe (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Literally because, as I already said, I have other things to do. If you or somebody else feel they don't meet GNG, I'll !vote if an AfD is started. --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you have all this time to railroad a legitimate and well-sourced article? And you seemed to have been unable to point out where exactly you enumerated your list of reasons why this failed GNG, surprising... JesseRafe (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me to explain why the current sources in the article do not get it past GNG:

Dan Fiorella's blog posts: Personal blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. Furthermore, as Fiorella is one of the founders of The Plague, sources authored by him also fail the "independent" requirement for GNG-satisfying sources.
Lil Brannon et al. (1982), Writers Writing: While I don't have access to the book, the article currently only states that the authors called The Plague "hilarious". That's hardly significant coverage; for all I can tell it's nothing more than a passing mention.
This PageSix.com blog post from 2007 (which is published by the NY Post): A one-paragraph unsigned blog post on what is probably the most minor kerfuffle ever to face a satirical campus newspaper. Significant coverage? It's a bit more than Writers Writing, but it's really about a piece that ran in The Plague, rather than about The Plague itself. Notability is not inherited (not that I think this makes the piece that got published notable). For this to serve as evidence of notability would be the equivalent of allowing inbound citations to articles published in an academic journal to serve as evidence of that journal's notability. I would also note that the reliability of the New York Post's Page Six has been questioned in the past, given it's their celebrity gossip page.
This PageSix.com blog post from 2006: A one-paragraph unsigned blog post discussing a piece that ran in The Plague poking fun at George W. Bush. See above. It's just an inbound citation.
Dan Fiorella's stories being republished in Sherlock Holmes compendia. Basically, this is just Fiorella's stories being republished. Much like the Page Six mentions, these are about as good as an inbound citation.
This interview in The Washington Square News from 1994: WSN is NYU's student newspaper. Student newspapers have always been a bit shaky basis for establishing notability, especially of topics that are local to the school. Furthermore, interviews are often not considered sufficiently independent of the subject to be reliable sources. While there is some commentary by the interviewer before the interview transcript, there's only about one short paragraph actually describing the newspaper. The rest talks about the people being interviewed.
This squib on the NYU Local blog from 2009: The Plague produced a short video that was shown at a campus movie festival. You might just call this the equivalent of an inbound citation for The Plague, though really it's such unsubstantial coverage that even if it was all about The Plague magazine (rather than things it has made or published), it wouldn't do much. It's just over 60 words on a NYU student organization's blog.
This interview of David Mack by the Hero Complex blog in 2012: Near the very end of the interview, where Mack is talking about his work and educational background, he mentions in passing that he had been an editor for The Plague. That's it. That is not significant coverage.
The directory of humor magazines and humor organizations in America (and Canada): Arguing that this supports notability is like arguing that having your number in the phone book supports notability, or that your website comes up on Google supports notability. It doesn't.
This undated NYU Alumni Connect entry: It discusses an old NYU satire magazine that died in the 50s. It mentions The Plague in the final paragraph as being sort of a successor to the older satirical magazine. This might be independent, but I don't think I'd call it significant coverage. I'm also not sure whether it meets Wikipedia's standards for being a reliable source.

Everything that's left is either patently unreliable or obviously not independent. Of course, it's possible that there might be other sources, but that this is all that's been added to the article speaks volumes about what's likely to be out there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I know it's not merely the sources being used in the article that determine notability: I'm merely explaining why the provided sources aren't sufficient as JesseRafe contends they are. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for, unlike all the other detractors who merely stomp their feet saying it fails GNG and claim to have explained why, actually taking the time to point out its foibles. Does the aggregate of all these close calls not count for anything? JesseRafe (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per Mendaliv's list above: I'm okay counting the NYU campus newspaper's interview as 1 towards GNG. One more really good piece of in depth coverage or two somewhat lesser pieces of in depth coverage is sufficient to fulfill GNG, in my eyes. But I'm not seeing any of that. Of course, my reading comprehension is low and I'm a liar, so consider the source. Carrite (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny in that you're trying to be sarcastic, but your reading comprehension is low. You now defend your claim as being that "two" sources were disparaging (not one, though neither equal "several") yet you can't recognize the difference between an article (written by a journalist, or even a "journalist" re: gossip rag) and a quotation within an article. An article can be disparaging and if the author has a point of view, that POV will be the article's. A quote can likewise, but merely including a quote, especially if as a zinger does not make that the sentiment of the article in which it was placed, but a neutral reporting of that party's opinion expressed via a direct quotation. Last I checked they taught this in middle school — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesseRafe (talk • contribs) 16:57, 18 June 2014‎

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

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

The result was Delete. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Directed Studies at Yale University[edit]

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

No significant coverage outside non-Yale sources. Third-party sources only make passing mentions of the program. Not much improvement since last PROD 8 years ago may indicate that there's nothing really much to write about this program for it to be an article in its own right. 舎利弗 (talk) 03:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

It would have made sense to hit the talk page with a heads up it's worth attempting to engage the page history and/or talk page before bringing this to AFD because I would have mentioned these things. And at the very least, this title was always a candidate for redirect to something like great books rather than needing outright deletion. czar ♔ 13:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the links provided, only the first one qualifies as a third-party source that has significant coverage. All other sources only make passing mention and cannot contribute to the actual content of the article. The last source is explicitly affiliated with Yale. One source, describing the contents of the program, is not enough to establish notability IMO. 舎利弗 (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading the second source at the citation provided. There is plenty enough in what I provided to meet the GNG, and I haven't even dipped into the book sources yet. If you think the above links are insufficient, you'd love the WPVG fictional characters discussion right now. czar ♔ 20:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is not a valid argument. But seriously, I can similarly provide sources as shallow as these for programs of obscure universities in Asia. Do you think Wikipedia should include an article for every academic program that has a couple of documents online describing its contents? This needs sources, most preferably outside academia, that provide significant coverage of it (i.e., not passing mentions) to truly establish its notability. Otherwise this should just be merged and redirected to a Yale University article if not deleted entirely. 舎利弗 (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a historian of education. The vast majority of the work that is interested in this program will be academic. I didn't make an OSE argument—I suggested that your bar for sigcov is super high and referenced a dialogue whose bar is super low. This is a landmark and distinct classics program in one of the world's best known universities, and I showed you sources that indicate as much. Comparing it to something "obscure" is self-defeating. Of course something "obscure" is less likely to be notable. That isn't the case here. I have nothing else to add. I'm very familiar with the policies. czar ♔ 22:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I almost !voted keep, but I think 舎利弗's arguments convinced me otherwise. This is not the type of content that is going to be valuable to anyone outside of a narrow selection of readers. The content should be summarized and included in the Yale University article.- Mr X 16:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per 舎利弗. A sentence about it at the Yale University-page, referenced with [13] will give sufficiet coverage to it.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per 舎利弗's arguments and MrX SW3 5DL (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and MrX, as above. --Bejnar (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Methamphetamine. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sisa (drug)[edit]

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

Investigating the cited sources, the drug appears to be regular street methamphetamine. "Sisa" appears to be what users call meth in Greece. 5 of the cited sources are subject to media bias, with the only authoritative source (Belgian Early Warning System on Drugs) stating the substance is simply methamphetamine. Lostos x (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Sisa (drug)[reply]

Delete - I'm unclear on what this substance specifically is. Some sources list it as just another name for meth. Others define it as a specific preparation of meth. This defines it as
"A new and very cheap drug is killing Greek youth who no longer can see a future for themselves. Sisa is a form of crystal meth being mixed with filler ingredients such as battery acid and engine oil. It makes users violent and kills within six months. Enter the relatively new drug called sisa (pronounced as shisha) that arrived on the scene about two years ago and soon became the drug of choice because it's the cheapest of them all -- a hit costs less than 2 Euro ($2.50). Easy to make at home, sisa is a deadly mix of crystal methamphetamine filled with the most weird and dangerous ingredients: battery acid, engine oil, shampoo and cooking salt. The Greek independent press eNet English has called it "cocaine of the poor" and the UK edition of Vice says its the "the epitome of an austerity drug."

It sounds like meth is being cut with other things and they're calling it sisa. However, reading this seems fairly sensationalized "It makes users violent". Really? You can make a blanket statement like that not knowing what's in it? Are they free basing meth cut with battery acid or are they free basing meth cut with cooking salt? I would think you'd need to know that before you decide that it makes you violent and kills you in 6 months. I was also under the impression that many drugs are cut with other things on occasion, so the fact that this is being cut with other ingredients isn't necessarily a notable thing. This article talks about it a little more coherently, discussing that it's a preparation using meth and some other unknown ingredient.

However, if this specific preparation is getting a lot of press it might be notable enough. I'm leaning toward this having a mention on the general article for methamphetamine though. I suspect "sisa" might be a passing thing and it would be better as a section on the meth page. Bali88 (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just another nickname for methamphetamine. Of course the stuff being sold on the streets in Greece has been stepped on, of course it has a nickname. Nothing remotely notable about either fact, certainly not enough to justify an article.TheLongTone (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EMCDDA Paper[edit]

According to this paper from the EMCDDA, methamphetamine use has only recently become a problem in Europe, with availability rising sharply in the past few years. On page 6, the paper states:

"In a number of countries in southern Europe, evidence of a
fledgling trend in crystal methamphetamine smoking has been observed. Use of methamphetamine in crystal form, locally known as ‘sisa’ or ‘shisha’, has been reported from
Greece since 2010"

Every media source that implies sisa is a new drug preparation reeks of sensationalism. The case seems to be that meth, an unknown substance in the Greek drug scene before 2010, got the street name "sisa", nothing more. Lostos x (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would make a lot more sense. From everything I've ever been told, meth is already made from numerous dangerous household substances. It seemed strange that suddenly they're adding more substances to it and it's somehow being made cheaper than it already is. Battery acid, shampoo and motor oil aren't necessarily cheaper than the normal stuff that is used to make it, so I'm not sure how that changes anything. Bali88 (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Methamphetamine. Our article on methamphetamine is a good article that provides lots of detailed information. The article on Sisa does not establish its independent notability and, at most, should be a subsection in the parent article. Andrew³²⁷ 06:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Exo members. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lay (singer)[edit]

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

The article was nominated and deleted beforehand: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lay (singer). It was recreated 3 months later with the same content, no real differences or major event added that would prove he is notable outside his band. Article uses fansites and personal blogs as sources. I also request that the after being redirected to List of Exo members, the redirect be protected against recreation. if someone wants to recreate the article once his notability is proven as a solo performer, they can request it at the talk page, providing sufficient reliable sources. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 12:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect to List of Exo members. The Allkpop references cited are about EXO, not Lay and notability is not inherited. The few other references are fansites/blogs and not reliable sources. Fails the notability guideline for musicians and ensembles. Not sure about stopping recreation short of full protection for the redirect. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Noteable enough for 3 reasons... 1. A local child star in China appearing in many variety shows and contests since a very young age... For China, he is equivalent popular to that of an American Idol contestant... 2. Is an influential figure in most of Asia since he has more than million followers on SNS like Weibo, Instagram etc...and growing... 3. He is member of a popular/notable boy band, with participation in other acts and projects outside that band too, like SM Performance... FudgeFury^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 19:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, he has also been listed in Top 10 Most Handsome Asian Men lists twice by Asian media... one time even garnering 27 million public votes... This counts as an achievement in Asia, if not in USA... (see references on page) FudgeFury^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 19:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are typical fangirl "reasongings". Someone will not be notable just because he is popular. These are two different notions. Youtube/Twitter/Instagram follower numbers do not mean encyclopedia notability. If it were so, any youtube flick maker could have an article. What you need to provide is credible sources that discuss Lay and his individual achievements and not his career in the light of his band only. Currently I do not see any credible major sources who cover him only. Popularity polls where fangirls sit in front of their computers and operate voting bots to increase votes hardly matter as major achievements, I'm afraid... 27 million votes and not 27 million people voting.Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 18:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - subject does not warrant a seperate article from the group. 1292simon (talk) 13:24, 8 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 09:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not much going on here, independently. Even as a piece of the group, he doesn't seem particularly indispensable or different from the others. If he was hit by a bus tomorrow, there are countless other aspiring stars for the pop company to make do the exact same things. This SM the Performance thing isn't at all "outside the band", in real life. Only in branding.

Voting is something the voters or pollsters do, not the subject of the vote. Five billion people could think he was sexy, and it still wouldn't count as an accomplishment itself. But it would be worth noting, if he already had an article for valid reasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as several passing mentions are not enough to demonstrate independent notability, so the nominator's original concerns were not overcome. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synthwave[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because this is not a genre with enough exposure and is pretty much dedicated to strictly a fan base with no strong Third Party sources. As shown on the talk page by a user who objected to the original idea for deletion. Even talk page reasoning for keeping the page fails WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE. There is not a strong enough definition of the genre from any serious academic or even popular culture source nor is there any third-party sources describing their sound in this way. Just because people are using the term, doesn't mean we can hold onto it until we get some actual back up from real sources. Not just bands promoting themselves, internet message board conversation about sub-sub-sub genres and so forth. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:25, 31 May 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 May 31. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I deleted this as an expired PROD, and it was then restored after an objection - I pointed out at the time that it is lacking in good in-line reliable secondary sources (and still is). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to new wave music. Some sources that are not cited in the article ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) indicate that this genre actually existed; however, there is too little information to actually form a notable article. It can be passed on with a few sentences on the new wave article in my opinion. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't re-direct, those articles label several things as synthwave but don't offer up a definition nor do they state it's relationship to new wave. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:30, 9 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 09:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've found this article, which I believe offers a definition. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added that, but it sort of ignores anything else mentioned in the article. Is that one source make it worth an article on it's own? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely revamped the article, adding extremely credible sources and such. This definitely suffices based on wikipedia's guidelines. There should be no issues anymore. Kaleb Alfadda (Kaleb Alfadda|talk) 14:06, 18th June 2014 {MST USA} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.47.100 (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It clearly fails WP:NOTE, one very limited reference is not sufficient.--SabreBD (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then here is some more articles about Synthwave. How is none of this valid?

http://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Synthwave/
www.letoilemagazine.com%2F2014%2F04%2F09%2Fwe-will-rock-you-welcome-to-the-future-this-is-synthwave%2F&h=wAQHjdqM4
http://www.latimes.com/wtxx-midge-ure-and-ultravox-arrive-at-the-stafford-palace-theater-on-january-11th-20130108-story.html
http://pitchfork.com/news/42333-new-release-com-truise-galactic-melt/
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/may/29/retromania-simon-reynolds-review

These include the guardian, pitchfork, rateyourmusic, la times.

Is that good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.47.100 (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synthwave, no matter how relatively unknown to mainstream audiences, is no less legitimate than any other. This applies to all music genres, for that matter. While I could understand it being deemed "questionable" if it was difficult to find any trace of the genre, this is obviously not the case. A simple search conducted on SoundCloud, a website second in popularity only to Youtube when it comes to music hosting, produces more results for the term "Synthwave" than it can number individually. That's over 500+ tracks uploaded under the Synthwave banner. Are you telling me these musicians and producers aren't qualified to label their own music? Hundreds of artists under the banner, and they're ALL wrong?

The term "Synthwave" on soundcloud lists 222 artists. That's 222 artists on the Soundcloud platform alone. So to say that the genre is "questionable" is to say that the existence and credentials of each of the artists who produced under this genre are also questionable. What credentials do YOU have to question the collective product of hundreds of musicians songs? What credentials do you have to tell thousands of fans (over 2000 in the Synthetix Music Facebook group) they are simply wrong?

I'd put far more trust in a musician defining the genre they are dabbling in than a Wikipedia editor with no perceivable background in music. Actual music production and performance experience trumps your 10,000 hours of article editing.

Now if we assume each song within the Soundcloud search results is an average of three minutes long (which is a conservative estimate), and we stick to only the initial 500 tracks on SoundCloud, then we're talking about 1,500 minutes of music that you say doesn't exist. This is an insult to any artist who defies mainstream expectations and tired artistic pigeon-holing.

I would also like to point out that the artist Power Glove is a synthwave duo. They created the SYNTHWAVE soundtrack to the critically acclaimed Far Cry 3 DLC "Blood Dragon." According to the Blood Dragon Wikipedia entry: "At gamescom 2013, it was revealed that the game had sold over 1 million copies, and Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot stated that physical copies of the game may be available at some point.[29] The game is the fastest selling downloadable title in Ubisoft history.[30]" This means that the genre of Synthwave has reached over 1 million people. Did those 1 million gamers hear imaginary music since the synthwave genre is supposedly questionable, and non-existant? Many fans of the game and music genre, myself included, became interested in the game after hearing samples of the soundtrack.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 History of the Jews in Scotland#Middle Ages to union with England. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Brown (Scottish Jew)[edit]

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

The man apparently did nothing but be recognized as a Jew in Scotland. He wasn't the first in the land, just the first someone else noted. Article says he was a trader, but the one source mentioning his existence doesn't note what he traded, whether he was succesful or anything else that should be key to a biography. This stub is better off just a sentence in History of the Jews in Scotland. Otherwise, we're setting a bad example for what makes someone notable (their ethnicity, entirely). InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, that one source doesn't say anything at all. It's dead. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human comment: Thank you. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of the Jews in Scotland where he's already mentioned. He is covered in books e.g. Caledonian Jews: A Study of Seven Small Communities in Scotland By Nathan Abrams, p.8[19]. But I don't see that this makes him notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator seems to want to exclude the subject on the grounds of his ethnicity. This won't do - see WP:CENSOR. Andrew (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I want to exclude him because his ethnicity is the only reason he's included. Not anything he did, but just who and where he happened to be. People should earn notability through deeds, not inherit it. If he was the first Jew to hold a high position or cause an important event, that'd be fine. But he merely became a resident and trader, like thousands of ordinary people. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be a VIP to be notable in Wikipedia terms. Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. This person is covered in numerous sources including:

Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora
Caledonian Jews
Transactions of The Jewish Historical Society of England
The Jewish Year Book
The Edinburgh History of Scotland
Avotaynu guide to Jewish genealogy
Scottish Life and Society
The Jewish Monthly
The Origins of Scottish Jewry
Saving Jews: The History of Jewish-Christian Relations in Scotland, 1880-1948

These sources provide significant coverage. Disparaging and dismissive opinions of this person are irrelevant if they are not based upon such reliable sources. Andrew (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is more than a mention. I don't have access to all those sources, but if one of them notes what he traded, with whom and how that went, that'd be significant in the article. As it stands, it seems they've nothing to say but his name, location and ability to write an application. The treasurer's decision to support him may have had more to do with the Covenanter situation in Edinburgh than vouching for his business skills. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of the Jews in Scotland. No need at all for a separate article. It doesn't appear much is known about him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Colapeninsula and Necrothesp: the ultra-stub says all there is to say about Mr. Brown, the most relevant parts of which are already mentioned in History of the Jews in Scotland. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to article about history of Jews in scotland. He was just there, he did nothing truly notable, and no one has done indepth coverage of him at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not for what he did, it's for what he was. Come to think of it, most aristocrats and royals, and so called celebrities, don't do much either.-MacRùsgail (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What was he? The first person of a particular religion recorded by name (not existing, but only recorded) in a particular country. I find it highly unlikely that, in the 1690s, he was the first Jew ever to live in Scotland! The point is that there is nothing further that can be said about him other than what's already there. Since this is also in the larger article, why do we need a standalone article? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually it is highly likely. Although there is the possibility of Jews having lived in Scotland during the medieval period, they are not recorded, and there is no evidence of that. The English expelled their Jewish population, and it was only under Cromwell, that Jews returned there. Since Scotland came under the English crown in 1603, and was fully annexed in 1707, it is likely that Scottish Jewry in this period came via England.-MacRùsgail (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just my (rather uneducated) opinion, but if the Bishop of Glasgow forbade dealing in borrowed Jew money, it seems likely that this was a common enough problem in 1180 (or 1190, according to Wikipedia and the sites it spawned). And proximity seems a likely cause for common problems. Then there's the whole Stone of Scone/Jacob mystery.

In any case, being the first recorded Jew apparently had no effect on the rest of his recorded life, so can't be called a notable quality/achievement. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - at least until more information may be found. It's less than a stub right now. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- It's got two references, and a quote. That's a lot more than thousands of articles on Wikipedia! -MacRùsgail (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all content and Redirect to History of the Jews in Scotland per Users Colapeninsula (talk · contribs); Necrothesp (talk · contribs); הסרפד (talk · contribs), Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs); Bearian (talk · contribs). By the way the title of this article is terrible i.e. "(Scotish Jew)" while other works may choose to identify people like that (do they?) WP does not, otherwise millions of biographies are now going to have to be relabeled as "(Scotish Hindu)"; "(American Muslim)"; "(Chinese Christian)" etc etc etc ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Bad edit and bad precedent. Thank you, IZAK (talk)
Comment - Can we please get out of the habit of looking for references online? Use a physical library please, not everything is on the internet, and Scottish Jewish history is barely recorded online. I've seen more information up on boards in the main Edinburgh Synagogue than on the entire internet! Google is a commercial search engine, and a money making business, not a true research tool.-MacRùsgail (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with the original poster's sentiments, this seems not to meet notability requirements and sets a poor precedent for notability. It works well in the History of the Jews in Scotland article, though. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wong Tai Sin District#Schools. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Tai Sin Catholic Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable Primary School with no significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. Redirect to Wong Tai Sin District#Schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Non-notable primary school; we don't generally keep stand-alone articles of such schools. Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fakir-u-llah Bakoti[edit]

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

cannot verify claims fails WP:V. All edits that I checked are promo, plus an attack page. User:Atifsati sockmaster of a collection of blocked spammers (autobiographies/ WP:BIO / WP:V failures). socks are User:Paharhikhan, User:Molvi333, User:Birotvialvi, User:Bakotbakot, User:Malik zahoor, User:Syedbasit raza, (possibly unrelated User:Millertime246), User:Novice6, ... Widefox; talk 23:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not currently in a position to comment either way. I will say that on the surface, there are sources which may possibly be reliable. If they are indeed self-published/promotional, it will take time for other users to confirm. I might try to look into this myself soon, but I will say up front that this one may likely be a tough call. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 25 May 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation The article is already looking a bit fishy, but I for one am not ready to say whether or not deletion would be valid here. What I will say is that we have two sections which are worthless in terms of establishing the subject's notability. The first is the Descendants section, which is irrelevant per WP:NRVE. The second is Books related to immortal speritual mission and life of Pir Bakoti Usmani which is just an unsourced list of books which the subject supposedly wrote, no proof that they actually exist. So I would say right off the bat that in terms of assessing this subject's notability and the merit of the article that those two sections should be ignored. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing...the subject died in 1921, and there is only one source cited for the section on the subject's death...from 1868. I'm no math whiz, but that source is about fifty years before the subject died, so how is it a citation about his death and his estate? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:58, 3 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 09:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 01:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmer Jamil Khan v. Federation of Pakistan[edit]

This article has been created and written by the person, who claims to be involved in the case. This case has no notability. Hundreds of cases have been registered with various courts of Pakistan, of whom Bytes for All has notable coverage in this regard. This article fails in verification and is a blatant advertisement.

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

SAMI ^talk 23:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had created this page, and I am the one pleading it in the court. However this is one of the ONLY two cases in Pakistani courts against Internet censorship (the other being Bytes for All v. Federation of Pakistan) The other case is pending before the Lahore High Court, and this one before the Sindh High Court. The case got wide media coverage, both times it was heard by the Court. I fail to see how this is blatant advertisement. Ahmer Jamil Khan^Who?_Chat? 06:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question': "case got wide media coverage", you argue. Would you be willing to provide citations for that coverage? The clearest good source here doesn't refer to this particular case at all, but the other Youtube case. I would be unsurprised to find that this case had achieved signficant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, but I don't see that the sources in the article right now meet that bar. As you are a lawyer, I say to you, present your best evidence, please. Thanks! --j⚛e decker ^talk 23:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:The first three references are about the case at hand. There were a few more Sindhi Newspapers which have reported the case on their front pages like the three sources in the Article, but these newspapers do not have web archives of their newspapers. I do have photographs of the newspaper articles and the pictures of the TV when this was being reported live on air (in Urdu). I guess that would not be a good source to cite.Ahmer Jamil Khan^Who?_Chat? 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as a nominator.~~ -- SAMI ^talk 10:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above. The nomination itself is the delete !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 12 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic and educational page about unique law case with good source coverage. Fascinating implications for freedom of speech. — Cirt (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This issue is certainly a pertinent one, however the article needs to be lengthened. If a consensus is reached for deleting I suggest merging the article with Internet censorship in Pakistan--Cube b3 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both this case and the BytesForAll case into the article on internet censorship in Pakistan. No reason for independent articles for EITHER of these cases. Nickmalik (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tsuen Wan#Schools . j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Pa Street Government Primary School[edit]

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

NN primary school. We don't generally provide stand-alone articles for such schools, absent a level of coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found in independent reliable sources. Redirect to Tsuen Wan#Schools per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 08:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trinity College, Kandy. in the event someone uses this search term, they will at least get to the parent article. I've left the history intact in the unlikely event that any of the text could be merged in the future. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ryde Gold Medal[edit]

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

Even after making full allowance for WP:Systemic bias, this unreferenced content has no place in Wikipedia. The medal is obviously important to boys at Trinity College, Kandy, but at a world level is entirely non-notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information to Trinity College, Kandy. I wouldn't put the list of winners on that page, but I think a mention is at least appropriate. PaintedCarpet (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 23 May 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 17:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While in general I agree with PaintedCarpet above, the medal is of at best only local significance, and no redirect is necessary, any article which might chose to mention that their boy won this medal, would already have linked to Trinity College, Kandy. I do agree that a one-liner there can adequately mention the award. --Bejnar (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been around since March 2006 and lacks any independent source. --Bejnar (talk) 02:27, 2 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 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimadh Bhagvad Gita Rahasya[edit]

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

Per WP:NBOOK Edmondhills (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK. 1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. Mentioned on the article page. 2. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Jyoti (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dharmadhyaksha and Jyoti.mickey, author is very significant. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now adequately referenced, proving notability. Notable work by notable person. Nomination can be withdrawn.--Ekabhishek^talk 12:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. The nomination seems to be in bad faith. The nominator had edit dispute with the creator of this article on some other article.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimadh Bhagvad Gita Rahasya[edit]

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

Per WP:NBOOK Edmondhills (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBOOK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK. 1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. Mentioned on the article page. 2. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. Jyoti (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Dharmadhyaksha and Jyoti.mickey, author is very significant. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now adequately referenced, proving notability. Notable work by notable person. Nomination can be withdrawn.--Ekabhishek^talk 12:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. The nomination seems to be in bad faith. The nominator had edit dispute with the creator of this article on some other article.Shyamsunder (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The majority of the keep votes are quite underwhelming to me, and not convincing. None of the sources presented prove the existence of a "Piano rock" genre, as distinct from music that is part of the "Rock" genre that happens to be played on the piano (or where the piano plays a leading role). A genre is a style of music, which is largely independent of the instrument on which it is played. This is why there is not one other subgenre of rock that is defined by a specific instrument. You can play rock songs on a ukulele, but that doesn't make it "Ukulele Rock". It's just rock played on a ukulele. Gwalla's comments were the most convincing to me in this AfD. The sources presented do not convincingly prove that this article is not original research. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 01:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piano rock[edit]

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

A previous version of this article was deleted at AfD. Article has had a notability tag on it since February 2014 and the article was PRODed and declined during the last week. Seems like a good time to settle the notability issue once and for all, so taking it back into AfD. Safiel (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the topic is notable as there are multiple books devoted to it including Improvising Rock Piano and The Everything Rock and Blues Piano Book. Andrew (talk) 06:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are those sources on piano rock as it is described in the article (a particular genre of rock music centered around the piano), or are they about rock piano (playing piano in the context of rock music)? The titles imply the latter. — Gwalla | Talk 17:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is one of those articles on Wikipedia that falls into a grey area with regard to notability. However, there are no sources in the article that actually describe the genre or style itself, but merely list the artists that fall under it. While I'm sure there may be one or two reliable sources out there that may mention it as a genre briefly, I don't think that's enough to necessarily warrant its own separate article. The sources mentioned above seem, as Gwalla said, to be more about playing rock songs with the piano. We don't have articles titled "saxophone rock" or "horn rock" either. I'd say this could easily be merged into the Rock, Soft rock, or any other rock related article. Having it as a separate article seems to make it doomed to being a stub for good. Of course, articles all have a chance of expansion into good articles, but I don't see much potential with this one. Johnny338 (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and Gwalla seem to be guessing rather than having any actual knowledge of the topic and its sources. The source The Everything Rock and Blues Piano Book is an excellent one for this topic as it discusses the genre and its artists in detail. Andrew (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful if you quoted some passages from the book that makes it a notable topic. That may help us reach a consensus. Johnny338 (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reading the prefious AfD was enlightening. Frankly, the problems that resulted in the previous deletion have not been addressed. While I have no doubt the term is in use, with its self-evident meaning of "rock music in which a piano is prominent", there does not appear to be significant coverage of it as a topic in and of itself. The use of piano in rock music has of course received coverage (in instructional books and others), but that is a related yet distinct topic. Incidentally, I thought I had found something supporting this (albeit not an actual source), an album titled "35 Rock Piano Classics", but it turned out to just be a collection of piano covers of rock tunes. — Gwalla | Talk 21:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 24#Category:Piano rock songs. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – For starters, I find User:Uncle G's comments in the previous AfD to be rather strong, and he identifies specific sources. Doing my own research, I see a number of newspaper articles (even without the availability of Google News archives) that do appear to take "piano rock" seriously as a genre, even if the discussion of the genre is fairly short within each article: this in the LA Times, this in the Orlando Sentinel, this in the Deseret News. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first of those uses the term "piano rock" once: it's an article about Ben Folds and refers to his music as "piano-driven power pop", and goes on to talk about how the piano has been important throughout rock & roll history, namedropping various artists who had piano on their songs (many of whom aren't pianists or primarily known as pianists, like Chuck Berry and Lennon/McCartney), which doesn't really make a case for it as a distinct topic. The second, similarly, is about Ben Folds and only uses the term once to introduce a list of rock & roll pianists he likes. The third is about a tour teaming up Elton John & Billy Joel, and only includes those two words in sequence in the passage "With the exception of Bruce Hornsby's one-year dethroning attempt, the two have ruled piano rock 'n' roll since the early '70s." All of these are the sort of thing I was talking about when I said that the term was in use with its self-evident meaning, but IMO none of them constitute significant coverage. — Gwalla | Talk 18:47, 6 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 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletors would like you to believe that their arguments are reductio ad absurdum, but they really are just straw men. We do not have articles on saxophone rock because there is no such thing. There are enough experts that say that there is piano rock for us to establish its existence, and a pretty darn good idea what it is, because of the scores of examples that sources say are guitar rock. This is not "name-dropping", this is evidence. And finally, a simple explanation: Guitar rock is not a category because it is a tautology. That rock is led by the guitar line is understood. So every Category:Rock song is a guitar rock song, except for those that are led by the piano line, which should be Category:Piano rock song. Capiche? Anarchangel (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keyboard Presents Classic Rock, edited by Ernie Rideout. Ernie Rideout, Preface, pg 11 Anarchangel (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since this book revolves around the piano, you will also lean about pop pianists/songwriters such as Elton John, Billy Joel, Randy Newman, and to a lesser extend newer faces like Tori Amos, Ben Folds, Rufus Wainwright, and others. Grouped together you could call this "piano rock" or "piano pop". Differentiating between those terms is something to explore as well and distinctions will be made about the sometimes hazy discrepancy betweeen pop and rock in chapter 12.
    — Eric Starr, The Everything Rock & Blues Piano Book, pp. 9 (ISBN 9781598692600)
  - The subject is covered in detail on pages 213, 214, and 215 of the above book. Anarchangel (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Several issues. The existence of a piano score book does NOT confirm a genre exists, there might well be a book "Classic Rock for Dobro" but it doesn't mean the song was recorded with a dobro. Nor does calling Elton John a piano player create the genre. The omission of some very significant piano-players confirms that this is WP:OR. Grabbing artists together because they employ a keyboard player is not illuminating, not significant or encyclopedic. What could be encyclopedic is the development of piano in rock music. There's plenty of references for that. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first source Anarchangel mentioned above on pg 11 is merely an interview with Al Kooper, specifically detailing lessons he received from Muddy Waters and his joining the Blues Project. A keyboard player joining a rock band is not enough to establish the notability of a genre. With regard to the second source, Amazon offers a description of the book: "Written by an experienced musician, recording artist, and music journalist, 'The Everything[registered] Rock & Blues Piano Book with CD' offers the basics of rock and blues piano playing in a fun, easy-to-follow manner. This practical guide is packed with advice on playing in this exciting style, including how to: play with soul; learn basic and advanced techniques for playing rock and roll; and perform 12 Bar Blues, Shuffle, and Boogie-Woogie. The accompanying audio CD includes over 50 examples of rock and blues piano, played by the author. Music lovers and students will enjoy learning the rich history and development of blues and rock music while mastering the art and science of piano playing." This sounds an awful lot like a book teaching students how to play rock songs on a piano. I'll admit I don't possess the book myself, but this doesn't sound like a reliable source to sustain a separate genre article. Again, if someone could quote some passages from the book that say that it is a genre, (and by that I mean more than just a vague grouping of artists under one term in passing) that would be helpful. And with regard to the sources Paul Erik brought up above: all three really do little more than group certain artists under a vague label of "piano rock and roll" and the like. Better than nothing, but a genre article needs to be more than a simple list of artists. It needs to detail history, as well as unique characteristics that make it a genre. A rock song played with a piano does not (IMHO) constitute a genre by itself. It would appear that The Everything Rock & Blues Piano Book is the best source provided so far (again, I'm judging purely on what others have said, as I do not have the book myself). However, three pages in one book isn't enough to sustain notability on its own. Now if there are other, better sources out there that describe the genre "piano rock" in detail with perhaps a detailing of the characteristics of piano rock songs as well as maybe some history of the genre, then I will gladly accept this genre article on its own. For now, I'd say: Delete. Johnny338 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While sourcing is sparse, what's there does seem to indicate that the terminology for the genre exists. There may well be sub-genres which could provide opportunities for expanding the article in the future. The previously deleted article was unsourced. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 00:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nobody is disputing that the term exists. The question is whether it is a distinct subject: is it used to mean something more than simply "rock music featuring piano", which is self-evident from the term itself? Is it more than the sum of its parts? — Gwalla | Talk 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barely nothing in google scholar. Barely a genre. But a genre, barely. Some stuff in google scholar. We have space to fit it. Esoteric? That's OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could you post the links you found in Google Scholar? I couldn't find anything. The only link I came across that unambiguously lists "piano rock" as a genre (in a bio on Ben Folds) turns out to be a bunch of excerpts from Wikipedia. — Gwalla | Talk 17:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Without prejudice with regard to the proposed rename. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R. R. Morris[edit]

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

Possible hoax biography. No evidence that this person ever existed. Fails WP:BIO. - Mr X 00:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did find one sole mention of this, although I'm not sure how accurate the website is. For someone who played for a large group for about 3-4 years in the 1930s, this website seems to be the only mention of him. I'm going to wait to see if anyone else finds anything, but so far this does look like it's a hoax since the only proof is a website that doesn't exactly scream "infallible". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This Independent article mentions "Thomas is the first Welshman to be capped from Bristol since Ronnie Morris, another outside-half, in 1937." He may also be the Ronnie Morris who was lauded as one of the "able captains" in the third-to-last paragraph of this 1950 official programme, though that's not clear. He should probably be moved to Ronnie Morris (rugby) since that appears to be the name by which he is known ~~and there are no sources for the "R. R"~~. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an internationally capped player for Wales - see [20] - and not a WP:BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:38, 1 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 08:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still open? He satisfied WP:NRU point #1: Wales is a "High Performance Union" country (whatever that means). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Ronnie Morris (Rugby) -- a stub, but clearly not a hoax. Rugby was not a professional sport at this period, but he represetned Wales, a country, which should be good enough. WE need to be careful not to dismiss sportsmen of earlier periods as NN, because at that period, sport had not been flooded with TV-rights money. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non State Actors (NSA) Panel of Barbados[edit]

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

This topic lacks notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Vanjagenije (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think the article should be about NSA Panels in general rather than the one in Barbados? --Roosevelt O King (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:02, 1 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 08:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 European supercentenarians. Leaving history intact in case anyone things any of this could be useful in the parent article, although doubtful. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friedrich Wedeking[edit]

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

Non-notable supercentenarian. Relies on two sources: (an uncited GRG list) and a mention about a club. Information (age, DOB, country, etc) already available in other longevity articles CommanderLinx (talk) 06:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to be deleted. It is the oldest man early, and at time of his death, he probably was world's second oldest man ever. Your Deletion policy is wrong.--Disputed (talk) 10:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to List of European supercentenarians. As per nom. Fails GNG by not having "... received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", emphasis on significant and sourceS (plural). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:27, 4 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 08:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to List of European supercentenarians. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Child marriage among Muslims in Kerala[edit]

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

Not an wide concept like Child marriage in India for a standalone Wikipedia article. Cherry picked news sources presenting a particular community in a particular state. Edmondhills (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been directly nominated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion within one day of its creation. It does not contest Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Copyrights. There has been no discussion on article talk page. --Jyoti (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a widely reported and occuring human rights issue in Kerala. "Over 45,000 child marriages, bulk of them from the Muslim community, have occurred in Kerala since 2001." according to Deccan Herald. ^[1]. It is widely reported in mainstream news and in the award winning "Paadam Onnu Oru Vilaapam " film about the topic. In Kerala, the "issue has been raging for months" ^[2]^[3]^[4] and is reported also in books:India Child Rights Index, see Google, and another source says this is not new, has been occurring for decades (or longer). The vast majority is in the Muslim commnuity, but maybe nevertheless it should be moved to Child marriage in Kerala. --Calypsomusic (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following which WP policy is this nominated for deletion? The subject is well noted. It is notable and unique also because the said community has moved to High Court requesting them to legalize child marriage for their community. Jyoti (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. A notable topic with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. If the article is moved to a more concise title, it should be to Muslim child marriage in Kerala as it specifically addresses the Muslim issue, not the wider issue of Child marriage. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anything like "Cherry picked news sources" is simply matter of doubt, or it doesn't apply here. Even if it does, you should really explain. You are discouraged from cherrypicking the information, that is something I am aware of. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that this topic isn't notable enough on its own for a standalone article. We're looking at a decent amount of coverage at a steady rate for over a year from multiple reliable sources; as far as I know, that passes WP:GNG and then some. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.deccanherald.com/content/170084/child-marriages-high-kerala.html
^ http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blogs/blog-rknair/the-politics-of-child-marriage/article5247403.ece
^ http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/2013/10/age-is-not-just-a-number-a-look-into-the-recent-controversy-about-legalizing-child-marriages-among-kerala-muslims/
^ http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/underage-marriage-among-muslims-in-kerala-ignites-debate/1177466/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Shavelson[edit]

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

Over 7,000 results.. But that's because of twitter, facebook, discography sites. Paint it Black is a notable band, but not the members. OccultZone (Talk) 07:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk) 17:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk) 17:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Two albums with professional reviews on AllMusic. That shows sufficient notability to me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: How reviews decide WP:GNG? He is part of a notable band, so it may happen that one would comment on him, but how it makes him notable enough for having separate page. OccultZone (Talk) 02:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the information. Those were band not solo album reviews. In which case it's still keep for WP:MUSICBIO 6 "is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know that I can actually withdraw if someone provides me 1 source concerning the artist. You are encouraged to provide some good source. OccultZone (Talk) 03:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:13, 1 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 08:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3M High Visibility Signals[edit]

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

Not able to find reliable, secondary sources meeting WP:GNG. There may be specialist sources, however, although there's already several paragraphs (none of them sourced) at traffic signal, so I don't believe that a merge, or at least much of one, there is warranted. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and failing WP:GNG and WP:VER. Notability on why a specific signal should merit its own stand-alone article not established. Blue Riband► 12:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 2 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 08:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete - There doesn't seem to be enough for a detailed article, with this being the only result I've found. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Zietz[edit]

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

While not deeply problematic (there had been a couple obituary-like phrasings, which I've removed), and while I lack a good h-index calculator, the cite counts and locations of appearance of this fellow in Gscholar listings does not leave me to think he would beat the Average Professor Test. I don't see any of the specifics of WP:ACADEMIC being met, nor WP:BASIC. As someone with a previous math background, I would be delighted to be proven wrong, so, additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 7, which one can count on one's fingers, is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in applied mathematics. There seems to be not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 2 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 08:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the article as it stands adds up to notability. He does have one reasonably well cited paper, "Structured Light Using Pseudorandom Codes", but he's the fifth of six (non-alphabetical) authors on that one, so it's hard to use that alone as the basis for a claim of academic impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Kyle Callan-McFadden[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Player may well go on to become notable but currently has not yet played a single minute of adult football and per WP:CRYSTAL should be deleted until the day he does. Dweller (talk) 08:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Murry1975 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player who has not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fails WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements garner significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 02:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations)[edit]

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

This is list is useless. We already have in Wikipedia lists of Worlds Largest Cities, Worlds Largest Cities Proper, Worlds Largest Municipalities, Worlds Largest Urban Areas, Worlds Largest Metropolitan Areas, Worlds Largest Conurbations, World Megacities and World Megalopolises and this list is just a mixture of metropolitan areas, urban areas, conurbations and city cores, without any unifying criteria!, so we don't have any need for this list.The population figures on this page usually represent metropolitan areas, urban areas or core cities, without any real specific unique urban agglomeration criteria. Besides we already have respective lists of all the previous criterias I mentioned, we don't need an unfair un-neutral mixture of them, We already have too many world population lists! Ransewiki (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - list is useful for people looking for such information. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 08:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why would people want to look for outdated corrupted figures. As I earlier said the list doesn't have a single united criteria. These figures are infact a mixture of different criterias for different cities. Wikipedia can't have a list of cities by population, if the figures for some cities are metropolitan and others are city core, because they are completely different things. Ransewiki (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. This is like comparing apples and oranges. Most of the statistics on this list are not even urban agglomerations. Staglit (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exactly, that is what I meant. Ransewiki (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many times you vote for delete? Third time. Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Nomitation is vote for delete, you (nominator) can not vote again, only comments. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- The last I checked - Commenting wasn't !voting for deletion, You yourself may want to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion before pointing everyone else to it!. —Davey2010→ ✉ 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: second vote, 3rd vote. You "checked" it? ~~Please do not lie!~~ Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Subtropical-man: - Ah apologies for that comment!, I assumed you just meant the "comments" above, I ofcourse didn't check the history!, —Davey2010→ ✉ 20:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok :) Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 20:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 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 08:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not useful at all, Plus no evidence of notability. —Davey2010→ ✉ 19:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or selectively merge relevant content to Urban agglomeration. Urban agglomeration already has its own list of largest urban agglomerations, which seems sufficient for this particular demographic category. This separate list-based article is redundant. --Mark viking (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is normal to see nominations based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and deletion votes based on unfounded assertions and WP:NOTUSEFUL. But all in the same AfD, no. Especially not with the extremely rare (these days) Keep vote of USEFUL. You all need to go read WP:ATA and WP:DEL. Anarchangel (talk) 05:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From the article: "The basis of the data is not consistent, so the list cannot be relied upon as hard fact." The criteria for inclusion and ranking are not just inconsistent, they are regionally subjective depending on which authority is doing the counting. How can this possibly be objective? Not appropriate for an encyclopedic list. Ivanvector (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems of Oriental Philosophy (journal)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 10:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences. I don't see any evidence that is notable enough per WP:NJOURNAL. De728631 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 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 08:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by De728631. I cannot find anything establishing notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above as no evidence of any notability. —Davey2010→ ✉ 19:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Willie L Stewart[edit]

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

Can find no independant reliable confirmation of notability. Suspect this is a promotional autibiography. TheLongTone (talk) 08:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the article creator. Willie L Stewart is well known for being the first author in history to bring a lead character from a book and integrate him into all of social media for the public to interact with. This was first discussed by an independent online blogger March 1, 2013. [21] Willie L Stewart further challenged history by becoming the first author to create a rap video and rap song for a book. He is noted for utilizing ground breaking techniques to release a book that have never been used before. [22] Under Wikipedia inclusion guidelines Willie L Stewart's article should be included for the greater good of the library under "WP:AUTHOR" due to being recognized and known as The FIRST person Known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. Willie L Stewart's techniques involved concepts not listed or tried anywhere else and have been noted in major online sources as such.

09:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willstew1968 (talk • contribs)

Delete Reads very much like a wiki designed for self-promotion. Limited local press coverage of a non-notable individual. Other sources are unreliable such as PRweb and PRNewswire which can be used by anyone to distribute their own press release. No independent verification of the claims from a reliable source, blogs don't count as WP:RS. Main contributor has clear conflict of interest,WP:COI, with the wiki and doesn't show a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. Potentially Speedy Delete under G11 of WP:SPEEDY. Cowlibob (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were reliable sources attesting to Stewart's innovations, he might be notable. But aside from a bit of local press coverage, he has not been the subject of reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to X.Org Foundation. There was no support for keeping a separate article expressed, the discussion centered around a better organization for our content. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xload[edit]

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

a tiny ancient X utility which is now unused and only interesting for it's historical use, which is not covered Ysangkok (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - leaning towards merge, as it is a historical utility and part of larger, notable software. Would List of Unix utilities be an appropriate target, or is the definition of utility used in that article too narrow? Can anyone suggest an alternative merge target?Dialectric (talk) 08:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Unix utilities is about CLI software, so xload will be inappropriate there. It could be merged (along with Xcalc, Xclock, Xedit, Xeyes and other X.org components) into X.Org Foundation, which hosts it. Alternatively a special standalone list for enumerating all X.org components could be created. P.S.: I would suggest to withdraw this nomination and nominate all these X.org utilities together. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The X.Org Foundation article is still relatively short, (particularly if the listcrufty 'Developer's Conference' section goes), so a merge into a new section on X.org utilities sounds good to me. I'd suggest a WP:BOLD approach with the Xcalc, Xclock, etc, and just merge them without the afd.Dialectric (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so be this discussion closed as "merge to X.Org Foundation" (which I hereby cast my !vote for), I'll perform the merge. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nepali television channels. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Araniko Television[edit]

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

2/3 weak (passing mention) sources. Lack of RS fails WP:GNG. WP:V issue for what little here - unlikely to build an article on it. Orgs EXT is dead. COPY/LINKVIO now fixed. Best action may be (merge and) redirect to List of Nepali television channels . Widefox; talk 10:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Nepali television channels. If, at some future time, there is more information (and sufficient reliable sources), it could be broken back out into a stand-alone article, but as it is, there's nothing here. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 1 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 19:05, 1 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 08:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Statler Brothers discography. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Innerview[edit]

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

More than 30,000 results about the album. But that is because of the songs and re-listing of discographies. The band is notable, but I am not convinced that the album is notable. OccultZone (Talk) 17:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion I personally can't see the point of these 'track-listing' articles. Album articles that give interesting or valuable information about their subject, yes. But do we need a track listing for every single album that every artiste or band that is notable enough for an article? I think not. As the article stands, any notability for this album is dependent on the notability of the artistes. Yes, they are notable. Is this? Again, I think not. A redirect to the band's article would do quite well until someone comes along and tells us more about this album - and gives references for what they post. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Statler Brothers discography. Article reached 12 on the US country chart, but this article itself doesn't demonstrate album's notability. I'd redirect it until RS can be found, if at all. PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 May 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 19:08, 1 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 08:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 | babble _ 01:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Ashford[edit]

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

Content basically already exists in another General Hospital related article, "Children of General Hospital". Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be considered for deletion. I'm working on fixing the page and I believe there are other editors who are kind enough to help like Kiraroshi1976 (talk) by correcting the errors. Plus, I'm aware of the fact that it does exist in the children's section, but this character plays a very significant role and I believe this ficticious character deserves and should have it's own page just like other ficticious characters, so considering it for deletion would be a very bad idea. Please do reconsider, thank you. --Princessruby (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Support: Unless the page can be fully developed to the high standards of the Soap Project, I support the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livelikemusic (talk • contribs) 01:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 2 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 08:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of sources that demonstrate other facts but don't mention this character, nothing significant that does to establish independent notability. A redirect would probably be fine after delete. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Dennis Brown. Inadequate basis. --Bejnar (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Children of General Hospital per not meeting WP:SIGCOV. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 00:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While I prefer more participation I can't see relisting a 3rd time. Nothing has negated the primary concern, that notability isn't established. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CEG TEK International[edit]

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

I don't think it falls under WP:A7, but most of the media coverage is secondary at best and doesn't seem to establish notability for this company Zeus^u|c 18:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 May 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 02:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is not well written to describe its own notability, but the references are interesting because they prove examples of the impact that the company is having: specifically transparency to the problem of media piracy. Perhaps the article should state that the statistics generated by the firm are the source for many general interest articles about piracy, but the references bear out the idea that their work has created an impact. I think it's a keeper. Nickmalik (talk) 07:07, 2 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 08:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I actually thought I was going to recommend a corporate Keep for a moment; but then I actually read the sources and discovered that, in the best case of them, the Producers Guild of America mentions CEG in two paragraphs dedicated to them, but those mentions are merely acknowledgements that CEG has (presumably paid the dues and) joined the Guild; in the second best case, the article subject CEG was interviewed as a primary source for that article which related to another topic (the subject of copyright piracy which is CEG's business); and in the rest of the sources, CEG mention is nothing more than an acknowledgement of them as a publisher of statistical information used in those articles relating to the topic of piracy. None of the sources does anything to demonstrate the notability of CEG; rather, they simply confirm CEG's existence as an ongoing business concern, which is insufficient to satisfy WP:NOTE. WP:NCORP states “Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.” and that is all the 13 references in the CEG article provide. Some of the statistical information included in the article may be appropriate for merger into Piracy (media) or otherwise. Cheers — Who R you? Talk 19:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 by RHaworth.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

RUMAGES[edit]

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

Can't find a definition of RUMAGES beyond WP mirrors. The source given is a dead link. Fails GNG and I doubt this term is real Gbawden (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. More heat than light here, including Yossarianpedia, who is bordering on WP:DE as they are stating they want the maximum number of articles at enwp deleted regardless, but I will leave that for another admin to determine. The other delete votes I think missed the mark and didn't overcome the rationales used to justify a keep here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Law of One (Ra material)[edit]

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article. See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_(2nd_nomination) --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should qualify for a speedy deleted by WP:G4; Contested by an admin for a reason that is likely erroneous. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot qualify for a speedy delete, admin Mikaey is correct in his decision. It is nominator's responsibility to look for such bizarre copies before nominating one of the copies for deletion. Logos5557 (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has the same unreliable sources with only Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits being the only independent, reliable and arguably significant (I disagree) source. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits is an independent and reliable source, why didn't you add it to the article as a reference then? Logos5557 (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's reliable but it's not significant enough in coverage, in my discretion, to use as a source. I am not able to use it as a source nor write any material based on it. It is well-preserved in the article history. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"significant enough"?? This is quite relative.. When the theme of that source is considered, one can not expect the law of one books to be covered extensively in that source. The existing coverage is enough. Logos5557 (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I declined to delete this under CSD G4 because this article was obviously not a recreation of The Law of One -- the current article has history that goes back to 2009, whereas The Law of One's history only went back to January of this year. It does appear, however, that they may substantially be the same article -- it appears that someone may have tried to perform a cut-and-paste move from this article to The Law of One, creating two forks of the article. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 11:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would this be considered a reputable source? Introduction: Stairways to Heaven by Jay Kinney from Gnosis #36, Summer 1995 Discussion of the Law of One (Ra Material) begins about halfway through the article with "Be that as it may, one of the most intriguing systems for considering the inner planes to appear in recent times comes from a rather unexpected source: the Ra Material, a collected series of transcripts of 100 or so sessions channeled by Carla Rueckert in the early 1980s...." and continues for the rest of the article. Bathmiaios (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:Fringe, no. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bathmiaios , please be careful about whom you're asking. User Immanuel Thoughtmaker seems as a second account of another user or a beginner/novice user, who just started editing on 20th of may 2014. He/she thinks Introduction: Stairways to Heaven by Jay Kinney from Gnosis #36, Summer 1995 is a self published source. He/she does not have any miniscule experience/expertise to see that http://www.lumen.org/issue_contents/contents36.html is actually GNOSIS magazine, in which that article was published. And yes, it is a reliable source in its context/content, and can be added to the article as a reference. Do not expect these type of users to accept their mistakes; they will just dance around only. There is no "reputable source" defitinion in wikipedia; do not take those, who spill phrases like "neutral sources", as credible/reliable, because their grasp of wikipedia policies and guidelines are weak and/or twisted. I recommend you to study wikipedia rules/policies and guidelines on your own and defend your point of view and position. If you think that the article is reliably sourced and do deserve a place in wikipedia, you can vote as "Keep". Logos5557 (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't specifically asking Immanuel Thoughtmaker, but I do have a question for him: Why have you pruned the article to a stub after you were asked not to do so again in the previous deletion discussion? ("Thoughtmaker: this pruning operation of yours verged on disruption. Please don't do that again this drastically during an AfD discussion.") Bathmiaios (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC

I don't recall ever being specifically asked not to prune articles. I recall only being asked not to generatively claim in a revision that I was just removing unreliable sources when there was one reliable source. I failed to mention I removed one source because it did not have significant coverage. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked not to prune drastically during an AFD discussion. I linked and quoted it for you above. And yet, you have done it again -- you pruned the page that we're discussing to a stub, and did so after the discussion began. Bathmiaios (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that Immanuel Thoughtmaker would not make the mistake twice, but obviously I was mistaken. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bathmiaios:It's better not to discuss whether a source reliable or not; if the source is reliable according to your judgement, then it is reliable. There is another reliable source here, which discusses the law of one (ra material) extensively. It seems that the book was published many times, but googlebooks shows the 14th edition published in 2008. While the google copy discusses the law of one only in page 192/193, the pdf copy (that is the latest edition) has a separate section 193 through 197 Logos5557 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And just as equally, according to your relativistic logic, a source is unreliable if it is unreliable according to one's judgement. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Gnosis article qualifies as a reliable source. It is intelligent and sensible; not sensationalistic in the least. It discusses the Law of One (Ra Material) in the context of Theosophy, Alice Bailey, the Golden Dawn, Gurdjieff, and W.E. Butler, and it explains how the Law of One material brings a new dimension to the our existing models of the inner planes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bathmiaios (talk • contribs) 17:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Some evangelical publishing houses have even had their own mini-boom in books proving that channeled entities, UFOs, and most media-celebrated angels are actually luciferian counterfeits..." With statements like this, I cannot find myself being intellectually honest in saying this is an independent and reliable source. It would be a shame to see this article based on mystical, slanted statements like this and see Wikipedia becoming a new type of New Age Opinion-Editorial. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's wrong with that statement. It's quite true that some evangelical Christians see New Age ideas as inspired by Lucifer. Bathmiaios (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...Some evangelical publishing houses have even had their own mini-boom in books proving that channeled entities, UFOs, and most media-celebrated angels are actually luciferian counterfeits.(2)"

"...proving that channeled entities, UFOs, and most media-celebrated angels are actually luciferian counterfeits.(2)"

It's claiming that this work is actual, real, factual proof that this phenomena is luciferian. It presumes lucifer is real. It cites this work as proof that certain content is actually lucifer-inspired, not as a sidenote but as a factual source. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you could have misunderstood that statement any more thoroughly. It's saying that the evangelicals thought their books proved Luciferian influence, not that they actually did prove it. Bathmiaios (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really well read in western esoteric traditions. I'll admit I'm wrong here. However, the source confused me and its incorrect interpretation of The Law of One had me assume the worst. My apologies. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuel Thoughtmaker:; you just need to read this arbcom ruling on fringe/paranormal, several times if needed. It emphasizes, as related wikipedia policies & guidelines, one more time that, the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia is not truth or proofs, but verifiability and notability. You can't demand from the christianity article on wikipedia, to proove with reliable sources that jesus was the son of god. The other thing you do not understand is, since this article is about the books on a fringe subject, the reliable sources in this context will be fringe (or new age sources) as well. If, for example, all the content of this article were inserted in Ra article, then WP:Fringe would fully apply, because mainstream view about Ra is quite different than this article talks about. Then in that case, the content of this article would be fringe in the context of Ra article, and many users would object the inclusion of the content of this article in Ra article, because there are no mainstream reliable sources mentioning the claims of the law of one books about Ra. However, since this standalone article is about the law of one books, the criteria for evaluation are different. Logos5557 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fix and Keep As per WP:N, WP:BK, WP:RS, WP:BIASED, WP:Fringe and this arbcom ruling on fringe/paranormal the law of one books are notable and do deserve an article in wikipedia accordingly. To me, reducing the article to a well sourced stub version would be most logical decision. In order to prevent unsourced, WP:OR and WP:SYN edits in future, an admin should be approached and asked for a protection, if possible. Logos5557 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to specifically cite how all of those policies support your claim. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 16:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:FRINGE " fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. " I do not see that bar as having been met. While there are several books discussed in the previous AFD, they all appear to be books promoting this and other fringe ideas, and therefore do not pass the independent test. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the law of one books, not about a standalone fringe theory or aspect of a fringe theory. Nevertheless, there are many reliable sources referencing the law of one books, as stated in previous deletion discussions many times over. Nearly all of these sources were published many years after the first publication of the law of one books, therefore, the aim/function of these sources were not promulgating and/or popularizing. When you look at the seth material, which was well before the law of one books, you will see that nearly all of the sources are fringy or new age. Logos5557 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Law of One (Ra Material) is similar to Edgar Cayce, the Seth Material, and A Course in Miracles in terms of the respect with which it is viewed and in its influence on New Age thought. In addition to the sources mentioned above and books listed on the talk page, a quick google books search found

Makram Abu-Shakra Interplay: An Artist's Approach to Spirituality Infinity, 2013 ISBN 0-741-48042-5 (references to the Law of One/Ra Material)
Ronald Story The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters Constable & Robinson, 2012 ISBN 1-780-33703-5 (references)
Terry Newbegin Genesis: Your Journey Home BalboaPress, 2011 ISBN 1-452-53326-1 (references)
Dr. Cheri St. Arnauld Cosmic Connections Balboa Press, 2014 ISBN 1-452-59067-2 (references)
Terance Wall The Symmetry of Gnosis: The Universe explained? Trafford Publishing, 2012 ISBN 1-466-95888-X (references)
Joel Bjorling Reincarnation: A Bibliography Routledge, 1996 ISBN 1-136-51140-7 (references)
Joshua David Stone Hidden Mysteries: Volume 4 of The Easy-to-Read Encyclopedia of the Spiritual Path Series Light Technology Publishing, 1996 ISBN 1-622-33551-1 (references)
Marcia Beachy, M.s. This Divine Classroom AuthorHouse, 2004 ISBN 1-468-51721-X (references) Bathmiaios (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me point out that I looked at five of the books listed by Bathmiaios, and they aren't published by reputable outfits. Light Technology Publishing publishes esoteric stuff on angels, UFOs, and sacred geometry; AuthorHouse is of course self-publishing; Balboa House and Infinity are also self-publishing companies and Trafford Publishing is a pay-to-play operation. In other words, whatever is said in those books is not acceptable for use in an encyclopedia that wants to take itself seriously. Bathmiaios, are you at all familiar with WP:RS? Drmies (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So that leaves two books out of seven. The book published by Constable & Robinson could in principle be acceptable (it's an independent publisher, though they say precious little about their editorial process), but this happens to be the Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters, and anyone who reads it can see it's pure fringe ("we have much to learn about the metaphysics of UFOs"). The only real reliable book in the bunch is from Routledge; unfortunately, it's nothing but a bibliography with one single entry for our "Ra material"--so, we can safely say now that it exists, but that's all. No discussion, so nothing to write, and no reason to think this adds up to notability. Drmies (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: You're an idiot who needs to read WP:NBOOK. All of those sources meet the criteria. Read the definition of "independent" and "verifiable". Yossarianpedia (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:, are you familiar with WP:BIASED, WP:NBOOK and WP:FRINGE? Or were these policies & guidelines not developed and clarified enough when you became an admin? Seriously, you might have stuck to some previous versions of those and there might be no use in discussing with you. You also seem to have some civility issues; the tone of your language might be considered offensive by some. For example, if I were Immanuel Thoughtmaker, I would give you a warning for "SLAP" expression of yours. Especially admins should refrain from such tone & language. Logos5557 (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Logos5557:, might I suggest that escalating the confrontation isn't really helping here? I really don't know what, if any, of the article should be kept and what, if any, should be deleted (as I'm only here trying to help the process), but I'd strongly suggest that the way to enhance your position is to explain how those policies support your view rather than derogating other people's understanding of them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I vote to delete this article, because I'd rather that wikipedia was not the first hit on google when someone google's something. The more wikipedia articles that are deleted, the better. While this page has a tortured history and over 50 sources have been mentioned at various points showing that the series of book is notable, there is no point in trying to keep this topic on wikipedia because the admins don't even know their own rules. A prime example is User:Drmies :@Drmies: who doesn't know the wikipedia definition of a reliable source or a notable book as per WP:NBOOK. In conclusion, DELETE this article. Yossarianpedia (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've reverted @Immanuel Thoughtmaker:'s deletion of almost the entire article. Sure, there are some non-RS sources there, but the reliability of the sources used in the article is what people here are trying to discuss - and they can't if someone unilaterally deletes everything. Immanuel Thoughtmaker, you did the same thing in a previous AfD and were trouted for it - in fact, what you did could have led to a reversing of the delete outcome. Two people have now reverted your blanking, so please do not do it again - if you do, I'd expect it to be seen as disruptive and/or edit-warring. Should this discussion result in a "reduce to stub" decision that would be fine - but that's for the community to decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my reverts. Unreliable sources and respective material, in my view, should be removed at will. There is no reason why Wikipedia should stand to let people read unreliable material. I have too much respect for the reader to leave the article as it is. I will only abstain from reverting until the consensus on the reliability of this article changes towards the fact that this article is a poorly-sourced, poorly-made piece. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boing, I agree completely. Immanuel, I find it hard to believe that you persist in what I thought at first was just a mistake caused by youthful zeal. Doing this during an AfD discussion serves no purpose, and just increases the temperature. I suggest you rethink this standing by your reverts, if so many people are telling you you're not helping the cause. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Immanuel Thoughtmaker:, I'm sure we all share your desire to rid Wikipedia of poorly-sourced material - and I applaud it. But the decision, now that this AfD is in progress, is one that will be made by Community discussion - not by you unilaterally. I simply ask that you do not try to impose your personal will while the AfD is in progress - just let the Community decide. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have one principle: Make sure reliable sources are provided and are followed completely. I will stand by this principle. I am happy to hear suggestions but, again, I will stand by my beliefs in this regard and I am quite confident there are plenty of people in this community that resonate with my beliefs. I will continue challenging the quality of this article until I've exhausted the limits of this community. I have the patience to do so. I have not been disruptive and I will not be disruptive within the consensus of the vast majority of the community. I am simply following WP:BOLD and I will continue to do so. Thank you so much for time and making your desires and preferences known, along with everyone else. I am the community as well and I am making decisions in unison with the community. Let all of the voices speak on equal standing and honor. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is clear to everyone that articles can be edited while an AFD is on-going thus I feel very justified in everything I've done. I remain unchanged in my views. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, articles can be edited during an AfD. But just as at any other time, when you're challenged and reverted you have to stop and wait for consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation To whomever closes this deletion discussion: I strongly ask that you make a decision as to the reliability of the sources of this article and make a judgement as to what sources need to be never used again in this article in the future and why. My main responsibility I wished to take on in deleting this article is the removal of the unreliable sources of this article and ensuring this article is adequately represented into the far future. If the article is deleted, this is inherently done. I am very upset at the quality of this article first and foremost and I believe Wikipedia needs to be held to a higher quality standard in this type of material. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I would like to give a great thank you to all involved in this deletion discussion and the previous one as this process is essential to maintaining this encyclopedia and holding it to a high quality standard. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 22:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the second AfD for The Law of One (which turns out to have been a fork of this article at this article's original title), Drmies pointed in his closing statement to Strange Weather: Culture, Science, and Technology in the Age of Limits, p. 39 as a valid source. Bathmiaios has added the Gnosis article. And I have found The Reincarnation of Edgar Cayce?: Interdimensional Communication and Global Transformation, by Wynn Free and David Wilcock, which is substantially about the Ra material in relation to Edgar Cayce (and is mentioned in our article on Wilcock). Both books are cited once in the uncut version of the article. As per the Arbcom ruling linked by Logos5557, we are not forbidden to use sources that share the philosophical approach or religious tradition of a work in referencing or in establishing the significance of that work (we do not, for example, exclude Christian or Jewish sources in referencing or establishing the significance of a work of Christian or Jewish philosophy, any more than we exclude experts in a particular tradition of art in referencing or establishing the significance of a particular artwork). This series of books has been the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources and in addition has been the topic of a book within its particular tradition of thought. That suffices in my view to establish notability. The article should be kept, moved back to the simple title, and further improved. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yngvadottir, it's always nice to see someone who is willing to do the work and can balance more than one principle at the same time. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I still contest the nature of these sources and I will continue to cite WP:NOTRS over other guidelines. I believe in order for this article to be accessible to the mass of the public, in a neutral view, more sources like Strange Weather are needed. I would highly recommend only sources like Gnosis and Strange Weather are used, that are semi-neutral and semi-analytic in prose. I still think they are very poor sources but they are the better of the bunch. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Immanuel Thoughtmaker:, WP:NOTRS can only apply when a source covers a fragment (or any information) from the law of one books, or any issue related to it, in a fictive or untrue way. For example, if a source claims that the authors of the law of one books had taken the content from extraterrestrials by meeting in their UFOs, or Don Elkins had died of natural causes instead of suicide, or moai were built by ra, then these information becomes fiction instead of fact and the source becomes questionable. In other words, the responsibility of secondary sources is to publish information from primary sources without distorting, as it is. So, while building an encyclopedia, the criterion is not ultimate/universal facts -or 1st degree of facts-, but 2nd degree of facts (i.e. reliability of the secondary sources). Assessing the value or 1st degree factuality of the information presented, should be left to the reader. Logos5557 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With only these sources added (Gnosis, Strange Weather), we are left with a limited scope, still with very slanted, casual analysis of The Law of One books, which in my discretion is not acceptable. These sources do not meet the grade, in my view, and if Wikipedia is to have its quality reduced to a mediocre compilation of the nearest New Age bookstore, then by all means I will accept it. However, I will continually stand against it. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors know how to view the history. Drmies (talk)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

30 sources for this topic, non-exclusive list[edit]

Here's a screenshot of the sources for this topic--sources that were deleted by the irresponsible hacksaw deletionist admin User:Drmies and his vandalizing allies Immanuel Thoughtmaker and User:Dougweller.

'Drmies, the Irresponsible Hacksaw Deletionist, and the screenshot he doesn't want you to see

'The following was selectively deleted by Drmies:'

Screenshot of sources for The Law of One article before it was vandalised and then deleted.

@Yngvadottir:

@Dougweller:

@Drmies:

@De728631:

@Logos5557:

Are you fing kidding me? There are 30+ reliable sources listed in the pre-vandalism history of the page. This debate in this talk page has no importance and will not receive justice. I am making my objections public for the sake of posterity alone. If you want to see the sources:

Go look at the history of the page pre-vandalism.
Go look at the history of the talk page pre-vandalism.
Go look at the previous AfD discussion where 30+ sources are extensively discussed and analyzed, and consensus found that they were reliable according to the wikipedia definition of "reliable" which you have not familiarized yourself with.

This debate has already been done and it's very visible in the history of the page and the previous AfDs; the history which has not been consulted by the current deleters attacking this page. Without an "admin in my pocket" my claims fall on deaf ears; I understand this all too well. If you or your allies were interested in due process, you would examine the history instead of asking that all that labour be repeated. Your kind will always demand that others do all the work even when it has been done in exhaustive detail. When you've read this entire page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One then you may speak without embarassing yourself. Anyone who has not read that entire page and understood the poles of the debate speaks from ignorance and exposes themselves as lazy deleters happy to erase hours and hours of work without a care. Shame on all of you for your intellectual laziness, dishonesty, and irresponsible deleter reflexes. Yossarianpedia (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of the Sources Pre-Vandalism

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossarianpedia (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable sources. Fails general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Kurt Heilbronn[edit]

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

Don't believe that he is notable enough - only known for being on Eisenhowers flight crew which I don't think is enough. Fails GNG - the info in this article are from Oral Histories and the Eisenhower papers Gbawden (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 17:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — WP:NOTE, WP:BIO, WP:SOLDIER — Articles sources appear to be good RS for the article statements they presumably support, but do nothing to demonstrate that the individual is “worthy of note” per the above guidelines. — Who R you? Talk 18:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't appear to have done anything to merit notability, he's just happened to encounter notable people. On that basis, I'd qualify for my own article! RomanSpa (talk) 09:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Labrador City. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Labrador Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN 246,923 sq. ft. mall. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed. Being the largest mall in a town of 9,354 does not make it notable. Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its the largest mall in Labrador, not just Labrador City.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 29,178-person ~~district~~ northerly "region" of a province? Same point, but thanks for clarifying what seemed to refer to the town. Epeefleche (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that the prior AfD discussion mentioned that, and verified via the sources.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I see you revised the article, which formerly indicated it referred to the town. It might be helpful if you could add an independent ref to support the statement that it refers to "Labrador region", and not Labrador City. It appears that sources sometimes use the phrase "Labrador," without clarifying whether they are referring to the town of 9,354 or the region of 29,178 ... both of which strike me as rather small in a province of half a million people. Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. All of the references are either self-published, or, in the case of the The Aurora article, inconsequential (as per WP:IS NOT ABOUT PARKING LOT TRAFFIC PATTERNS). List of tenant stores and vacant areas are inherently ephemeral, and thus non-notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can find nothing that would demonstrate the notability of this minor mall. All I can find, in the article and elsewhere, is either not independent or not substantial. Reyk _YO! 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This topic is wp:prominent at Labrador City, so if the topic is found to be non-notable, as indicated by WP:ATD, the remedy is a redirect without deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without prejudice against a redirect to an editorially appropriate article he is mentioned in j⚛e decker ^talk 00:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith M. Moore[edit]

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

Not notable IMO, fails WP:SOLDIER and GNG Gbawden (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This guy led a $3 billion program. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cant really see any indication of notability, being a program manager is not particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending independent sources — Currently, the only source is the US Marine Corps, which certainly reliably documents the Colonel's existence, but does nothing to satisfy WP:NOTE / WP:BIO. He was awarded the Bronze Star, Meritorious Service, and Navy & Marine Commendation, so one would expect that there's probably, at the very least, a local article or something about him somewhere; and it wouldn't take much to satisfy notability if one or two of those can be found; but without that, WP rules say not notable. As Gbawden points out, and I missed it before, WP:SOLDIER is even clearer, and Moore doesn't make the cut according to those specific notability requirements (unless some other source demonstrating notability can be found). — Who R you? Talk 18:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG, and we wouldn't give him the benefit of the doubt based on his rank or awards, per WP:SOLDIER. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle fiasco is clearly notable. The various people who ran this program aren't. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly have to agree with you on this one. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is a fiasco. Moore has been working on it since 2005, as program manager since August 2008, and I think his prospects of promotion to brigadier general are getting slim. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After a couple of relists, the addition of some sources and a not inconsiderable discussion, no clear consensus has evolved as to whether the sources are sufficient to confer notability or not. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 23:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pelly (civil servant)[edit]

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

Article says just about everything there is to say. A completely non-notable civil servant. Emeraude (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Biography without ref. No proof of notability. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His position is clearly enough to satisfy notability, as the senior financial official of an Indian presidency and a member of the Legislative Council. Although appointed and not elected, that clearly seems to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seems to be enough information to fill out a decent stub on the subject. I started the process to rescue this. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article only cites a single reference in its current form (which isn't enough to get a person past GNG, let alone any of the more specific inclusion criteria for any particular occupation), and fails to actually make any substantive claim of notability even with that source present. If it actually reaches a viable HEY by closure, then I'd be comfortable with keeping, but if it's still in its current form then it needs to be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny, I would consider "revenue member of the Madras Legislative Council from 1862 to 1866" to be a pretty good claim to notability! That makes him chief financial officer of one of the three great presidencies of British India. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's correct, a civil servant. I agree with Bearcat that there's a possibility of reaching the standard, but it's not there yet. Emeraude (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, if it were properly sourced (which it isn't). For one thing, it's not exactly clear what "revenue member of the Madras Legislative Council" even means in this context — that phrasing would normally imply a political officeholder, but the fact that he's described and disambiguated as a "civil servant" instead of a "politician" implies that he was an employee of a legislature in a non-political role. That's why better sourcing is needed: does "revenue member of the Madras Legislative Council" make him a politician (which would certainly qualify him for an article), or a bureaucrat (which might not)? And the only source in the article is a genealogy, which casts no light whatsoever on that problem whatsoever even if genealogies counted as valid reliable sources in the first place (which they don't). Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for that. It really sums up why I made the nomination in the first place. He may be notable; he may not. The article as it stood gave no justification for inclusion and AfD seemed a good way of getting it sorted out. Emeraude (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - As a British territory, none of the officials of British India were politicians. They were all bureaucrats. Does the fact he was unelected make him any less notable? Of course it doesn't. As I've said, the Revenue Member of the Legislative Council was the chief financial officer of the presidency. The fact you don't know what it means doesn't make it an invalid claim to notability, now, does it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it doesn't. But, without meaning to sound rude, the fact that you do doesn't make it valid either. Is there some way of including this "fact" in the article that would satisfy this? Emeraude (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No, but the fact that the claim isn't properly sourced does make it a potentially invalid claim of notability. Even Presidents of the United States, the textbook example of a role that automatically confers instant notability on every single person who held it, still aren't entitled by virtue of that role to keep unsourced articles — valid sources do still have to be present in the article. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...one reference is generally insufficient to establish notability.--MONGO 18:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Just for safety--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are now two references. I think it's good enough, although barely. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete — Inclusion of a name in what is essentially a list of employees doesn't qualify as an RS for the purposes of WP:NOTE/WP:BIO. The sources provided are good as RS for information included in the article, but they do nothing to demonstrate that this person was in any way “worthy of note”. It's the equivalent of every person that has performed military service in the last 500 years; they all exist somewhere in an official government document or ledger, but that doesn't mean they all get WP articles about them unless there is some additional source to indicate that they did something of note during that time. Cheers — Who R you? Talk 18:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He was not merely a functionary. He held a very senior position. That is worthy of note. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you said before, to which I must respond as I did before: can this be demonstrated within the context of the article? You see, I think the argument could hold true that given his position he could be notable, but just saying so in an AfD discussion doesn't, in itself, suffice. The wording of the article does not suggest notability - which is why I nominated it for deletion - but I could be persuaded that the article could be rewritten/reworded to demonstate notability and would happily withdraw the nomination in hat case. But so far, I do not see this. Emeraude (talk) 20:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The head staff member of the City of Toronto city council's budget committee has a very senior position (whatever his/her title is), but he/she doesn't have a WP article. The head bureaucrat in the Canadian or American federal government responsible for budget and finances has a very senior position, but they don't have WP articles. The Chief Executive Officer of Chrysler under Lee Iacocca certainly had a very senior position, Iacocca couldn't have succeeded without him, but (to the best of my knowledge) he doesn't have a WP article. Same notability rules apply to all; essentially, if the mainstream media of the day didn't take note of them somewhere along the line, and nobody bothered to write major publications about them after their death, they don't make the cut. — Who R you? Talk 07:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not having an article yet does not mean they will never have an article ever. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Does the top American finance bureaucrat really not have an article? The top British finance bureaucrat certainly does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is not about a city council. British India was run as three Presidencies - Madras, Calcutta and Bombay. Above them was the Viceroy. There were no elected politicians, so that the Indian Civil Service were the rulers of India. The analogy with a City Treasurer is a false one. Effectively his was the Finance Minister of a colony. In a crown colony, he would probably have been number 3 after the governor and colonial secretary. We have articles on governors and many colonial secretaries, so that I do not see why we should not have them on Finance Members. If Madras was an independent state he would have been Finance Minister. The article cites its sources, though not through in-line citations: there should no objection on that count: The question is whether information is verifiable, not whether it is verified by in-line citations. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two more sources which mention him. I'm not entirely convinced that this person is notable. He was part of that privileged English society which wrote about itself, so there are sources which record his marriage and his post, but he appears not to have distinguished himself. Without independent sources which write directly about him in terms of what he did or why he would be notable, we are left with nothing substantial. He held some form of post, which we are unsure about. If we cannot even establish what he did, or that his occupation is worth writing about, I'm not seeing the value of the article. What he have is some papers which indicate he existed, but that by itself doesn't appear enough to show notability. On balance I am leaning toward delete, but I see no great harm in the article remaining on Wikipedia for a little while longer to see if more information can be dug up. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jéské Couriano (talk • contribs) 18:27, 11 June 2014

Dance Evolution[edit]

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

Sources are all either to the game's developer or its official website. Sources aren't sufficient. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 06:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient sources out there to establish notability. See Metacritic for example. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Philg88. The link to Metacritic shows what reliable sources have reviewed it. Dream Focus 11:36, 11 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) 13:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Snow keep—these debates go by the sourcing that is available and not the current state of the article. There are reviews from almost every major video game journalism source (as listed at WP:VG/RS) including IGN, Game Informer, GameSpot, Eurogamer, OXM, GameZone, etc. Withdrawal recommended as snow keep czar ♔ 14:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Chambers[edit]

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

This article was clearly created by the subject himself, likely for purposes of self-promotion. This violates the stated mission/purpose of Wikipedia. The author also used the page to link to external websites, such as his wife's website (in multiple instances), further supporting the notion that he created the page for self promotion. This individual is a freelance conductor/assistant conductor/pianist and staff member, who does not merit a Wikipedia entry at this time. This individual should wait until he meets the notable persons criteria, and public interest results in an objective article written by a third party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Tibbet (talk • contribs) 04:24, 3 June 2014

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete A glance at the article is all that is needed to justify deletion. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 06:29, 5 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 06:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It could probably be speedy deleted because of how incredibly promotional it is, but overall this guy just isn't notable enough for an article at this point in time. Other than some primary coverage and a few trivial mentions, there's really nothing out there about him. Chambers just doesn't pass our notability criteria. I can't find mention of him in any reliable sources that are independent of himself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also pretty heavily lifted from his personal website, so it could probably go because of copyvio concerns as well, but it would probably be better for this to go through a formal AfD so it can be deleted again in the future if it gets re-added before GNG is met. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go Chuck Yourself[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. This album provides no sources and so little information which is hardly worth having its own article. With this I am also nominating Happy Live Surprise to be deleted, which it currently redirected to Go Chuck Yourself --Wudumindif (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unlike the other two Sum 41-related articles currently at AfD, this release has sufficient coverage - the Allmusic review from the article, plus reviews by Exclaim! and Winnipeg Sun/Jam! - to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow talk 05:52, 27 May 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, Go Phightins! 02:47, 2 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 06:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper (robot)[edit]

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

Aside from a short mention in the znet article, doesn't seem to meet our GNG criteria. Suggest merging whatever small blurb here into the company's article (which is almost nothing). Shadowjams (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; er, the zdnet article is certainly not the only mention. A quick search revealed sources from Reuters, BBC, NBC News, CNN, CNET, PCMag, IEEE Spectrum, Computerworld, Gulf News, TechCrunch, and The Verge, just to name a few without including non-English sources. These are all dated around the same time due to the robot just being announced a few days ago (and presumably based off of the same announcement), but there's significant coverage to make it notable, and plenty more to include the current stub. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SuperHamster. BBC, CNN and and PCMag on their own would be enough to convince me of notability. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Robotics-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Commercial ad for a product that does not yet exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Cédric at Aldebaran. Beside the media coverage, the product does exist, as it's being used by Softbank in their shops [23]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — It's only six-days-old and it's already got coverage by zdnet, The Verge, & Japan Times. One would expect, if it actually goes on sale sometime around Feb 2015, there will be substantially more coverage at that time. It leans a little bit towards promotional, but it also is of encyclopedic interest. Meanwhile, there already seems to be enough coverage to keep the stub per WP:BASIC. — Who R you? Talk 17:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG, and per WP:NTEMP. The notion of a merge can be discussed on an article talk page if warranted. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oakville, Ontario. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oakville Place[edit]

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

NN 453,248 sq ft mall. Had been PRODed, but PROD was removed. Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ~~Selective merge~~ to Oakville, Ontario. Coverage is primarily local (e.g. [24], [25]), and the topic doesn't appear to qualify for an article per WP:AUD. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is more appropriate. If you are going to add refs, you may as well do so to the target. And the existing article at the time of nomination (and now) was wholly unreferenced, and not therefore containing appropriate merge material (though the target now at least has it). Good job on the refs that show, if not notability, that it exists. Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said nothing about WP:V problems in your nom. Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: I find sourcing existing content in support of a merge to be easier and less time-consuming than rewriting content within the Oakville, Ontario article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I see you rewrote content, at the end of the day, in the target article, reflecting the sourcing, etc. I think redirect is therefore now appropriate. In general, I think it's a better idea to create the material at the target. First, it cuts down on the steps that need be done -- there is no need thereafter to move material. Second, it clarifies the scope of what the editor may wish to have merged, which otherwise is not clear. --Epeefleche (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can do that too. I've went ahead and added more sourced content to the Oakville, Ontario article. It's likely that more sources are available to further verify information in the Oakville Place article, so I retain my selective merge !vote, which will ultimately result in a redirect anyway. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without deletion, with Template:R with possibilities ~~Delete and redirect~~ ~~Fails WP:V, so the article requires a complete rewrite.~~ As far as wp:notability, I found no hits on news.google.com/newspapers, and two gazetteer type hits on regular Google news. On Google books, the Directory of Major Malls shows that the nearest competing mall is 2 miles away, so perhaps this mall has a smaller influence on the region than a smaller mall in a smaller community. There were a number of minor hits on Google books, shifting between brief business connections, and gazetteer type attention. I found no metrics in the primary source: no GLA, no acreage, no store count, no anchor count, no parking places, no annual visitors. I count 106 stores, while the article lists 98. I suspect that the topic is wp:notable, but it is enough for now to keep the topic included in the encyclopedia in a way that it can be expanded. Unscintillating (talk) 03:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote changed. Article has received the major rewrite, and in aggregate now satisfies WP:N, although consensus is that there is no current need for a standalone article, which is completely normal as per the lede of WP:N. Unscintillating (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the two sources in my !vote above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noted them. One tells us that there is weak drywall in the mall, along with some details about one of the escalators. One references the mall as a venue. As for WP:V, they don't help because they are not in the article. As for WP:N, I felt that they carried little weight, although no one can say that the topic has not been noticed by the world at large. Unscintillating (talk) 06:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, I'm still for a selective merge anyway due to coverage I've found to be local-only (WP:AUD). FYI, they were added to the article, for procedural purposes, as articles are typically supposed to have some sources. Additionally, regarding a merge, while content in Wikipedia should not rely upon primary sources (e.g. the Mall's website), they are usable to verify content in articles. In a merge scenario, some sourcing from the mall's website would be fine to use in the Oakville, Ontario article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More sources have been added to the article to verify content within it, in support of a merge to Oakville, Ontario. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or, as discussed above, redirect ... in any event, either way the main focus here, the deletion of a stand-alone where one is not warranted, would be accomplished. Epeefleche (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oakville, Ontario, preserving the revision history per my comment above. Struck/modified my initial !vote above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with a redirect. Epeefleche (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer - Consensus herein thus far is now unanimous for a redirect, per the nominator's comment directly above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evan Rosen. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bounty Effect[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines at WP:BK, only some reviews. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 21:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reviews are usable as far as showing notability goes, per WP:NBOOK. I'm leaning towards a weak keep overall. There isn't a lot out there and part of me thinks that it'd be better to have a page for the series as a whole as opposed to individual articles, but there is coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 3 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 02:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to author Evan Rosen. Not enough information for a stand-alone article on this book. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. To be honest, there is currently no reliable sources in the article. (The Washington Times is not reliable.) Bearian (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Bat Company[edit]

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

I can find no significant coverage about this company to indicate that it meets general notability, or specific notability for companies. The Boston Globe article listed in the references which claims to be about the Maine Bat Company is in fact about the LaCasse Bat Company owned by Jesse LaCasse which is based in Maine, but it makes no mention of the Maine Bat Company. Whpq (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Company, WP:GNG. I couldn't find any sources other than their own youtube video and a product listing on Amazon. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity Self promotion page with no evidence of meeting GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bastard (Tyler, the Creator song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, redirect was reverted by article author while logged out. STATic message me! 04:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt due to lack of reliable third-party coverage. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:21, 2 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 02:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. —Davey2010→ ^{Talk to me} 02:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Danger 1996 demo tape[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NALBUMS, or WP:NSONG. Mere existence is not sufficient for notability: Notability requires verification. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find independent coverage in reliable sources for this demo; appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 05:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is due to connection to album Where have all the merrymakers gone? --Hootsk-- (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should be retained because it is some of Harvey Danger's most popular and most-discussed work released in another, earlier format. Although this cassette did not appear in the media—it was not well known to journalists, as it was never distributed to them or sold—it is very well known to music industry professionals, principally as a major missed commercial opportunity. Peter Koepke, then the president of London Records, heard the tape in 1997, yet allowed his then-intern Greg Glover to release most of it and a subsequent recording on Glover's Arena Rock Recording Company as the album Where have all the Merrymakers gone? Koepke was then forced to license the same recordings back from Glover in 1998 when they became popular. --Hootsk-- (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: i wrote the following before noticing that some citations have been added, and apologize for my haste. I will await the result of the discussion, but will keep the text since some points still stand.@Hootsk:Please read Wikipedia:Notability, an important guideline, and Wikipedia:Verifiability, a Wikipedia policy. From the WP:Notability intro: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Even if this tape is well-known among professionals, verification is still needed (and presumably would be easier to locate than were it not the case). If you have any reliable sources that call it a "major missed commercial opportunity", please cite them, otherwise it is indistinguishable from a personal opinion (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought). These notability and verifiability guidelines are in place to prevent original research, and to ensure that Wikipedia articles summarize existing knowledge rather than unduly promote or highlight subjects that never received attention in the first place. Should this demo tape fail notability, it can be redirected to, say Harvey Danger, and the tape discussed there (with citations, quite lacking in that article as well), until the point when enough reliable sources are identified to warrant a separate article.--Animalparty-- (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 2 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 02:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. —Davey2010→ ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. No coverage in reliable sources found. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — The story told for the "Keep" plea of this AfD is interesting, and might support an article; but the article itself has no references for anything about the 1996 demo tape (only generally about the Harvey Danger group). There is nothing RSed to indicate that the tape itself is notable. If "music industry professionals" know the story of this tape, then there must be some mention of it in some independent RS industry publications somewhere. Unless RS are found to support the notability of the tape, merge the information in Harvey Danger 1996 demo tape into Harvey Danger & delete per nom. — Who R you? Talk 04:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Flask[edit]

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

Article appears to exist solely to promote a non-notable athlete. The one noted source is not in Times of Malta archives, and subject's claim to notability isn't really notable enough anyways. There is massive bias in every part of the article, using peacock words, weasel words, unsourced claims, buzzwords, and many more WP:NPOV violations. It even sounds a bit like an obituary. The subject might arguably be a total hoax with this little WP:VERIFICATION! ----Mr. Guye (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Found this, a website published by the Maltese government who would (one hopes) not simply swipe stuff off Wikipedia in the belief that it bears a passing resemblannce to reality. If judged reliable, it establishes his existence & menberhip of the national water-polo team. Which, given the gobsmackingly low bar for the notability of sportspeople, surely makes him notable. It's still a horrible and (if the Maltese Times source is not kosher) unsourced article.TheLongTone (talk) 18:26, 3 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 02:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does seem like a hoax with the weasel words and lack of WP:V. Fails WP:V, WP:GNG, no reliable sources found. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Move this to a hoax page if it is definitely a hoax, so it appears on the hoax list. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant independent coverage to meet GNG and does not meet any other notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.162.5 (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Fort Wayne, Indiana#Sports. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcat Baseball League[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable minor league. The only source I could find that discuss the league in detail are two Examiner.com articles. While Examiner.com is sometimes considered a reliable source, the lack of other coverage for the league indicates that this simply isn't notable enough for an article. Should someone find another source I failed to find, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a minor league, this was actually a local Indiana children's league of the early 1960s. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 3 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 02:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. User:Narutolovehinata5, I found a SportsIllustrated article about this, apparently it does have a general notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One human interest story in a magazine does not make this local youth league notable. Spanneraol (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable. Alex (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Fort Wayne, Indiana#Sports.--Pink Bull 19:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hash BioTech Labs. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vikrant Sandal[edit]

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

Vikrant Sandal is a special and driven business men can be concluded from the article started about him last week on wikipedia. But for presence on wikipedia that is not enough. For persons, the WP:Notability (people) holds, which requires he has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I think that is not the case. The references given say much about spirulina and his company, but his name is only incidentally mentioned. Furthermore, the IIMSAM and his company Hash Biotech links should be taken with reasonable caution as they can not be considered independent of this person. I could not check the hindustan times article, but from the title it is not inferred that he his the subject of the article (rather: his rotary club). And even if it were him, then that single source would not be enough to satisfy the criterion mentioned above L.tak (talk) 16:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 May 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 14:55, 1 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 01:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hash BioTech Labs for now. The nominated article, the proposed target and also other articles - eg: Dasuya - have been created or heavily edited by people who obviously have a conflict of interest and obviously are attempting to use WP for promotion/spam. Some of the health claims they make for their product seem very wild and some of the claims regarding connections to the United Nations lack credible sources (basically, the sources simply regurgitate obvious corporate press releases, when something should be available from the UN itself). I'm not convinced that Hash BioTech Labs should exist either but am willing to give that one a chance; this guiy, though, is notable only because of that company and notability is not inherited. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed a bunch of stuff - IIMSAM is clearly a "connected person" in the legal sense and by no means neutral. It looks to me like a walled garden is being created through the association of IIMSAM, Hash and Sandal himself. - Sitush (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Redirect although the company's article seems to also lack a bit of substance. I couldn't find much despite searching Times of India, The Hindu (I saw the "First biotech farm of state comes up in Dasuya" article) and the Business Times. Nothing much to add and change the article's current condition. SwisterTwister talk 21:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Bacon (clerk)[edit]

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

non-notable clerk 75 * 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A member of the forerunner to the Royal Society of Arts, published author, temple clerk and featured in the Dictionary of National Biography certainly push him beyond the notability guideline. Four references added to the slightly expanded/cleaned up article. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Inclusion in the DNB alone is generally considered proof of notability. User:Sɛvɪnti faɪv, did you look for additional sources to meet WP:GNG WP:BEFORE nominating an article for deletion? Boleyn (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Inclusion in the DNB, which has far more stringent entry criteria than Wikipedia, is perfectly sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I withdraw this notification due to the Notability standards. --75 * 19:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsall UFO[edit]

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

Our guidelines for writing articles about these kinds of subjects explicitly warn against using News-of-the-Weird or slow news day reporting to establish notability of an event of dubious provenance. This seems to me to be exactly the case with this stub. There is not likely to be any further development of sources which would satisfy our independent sourcing requirements and this remains essentially a WP:ONEEVENT problem here. jps (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable here, just old news, and never much news. Szzuk (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think there is enough reliably sourced content available to justify an independent article. The only reliable source seems to be the BBC article linked in the external links section. The content should be summarized and added to UFO sightings in the United Kingdom.- Mr X 16:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrX. Insufficient in depth coverage for its own article. Best to merge any usable content to UFO sightings in the United Kingdom. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it could be mentioned in UFO sightings in the United Kingdom, as it apparently followed other UFO sightings in Derbyshire (Derby Telegraph mention of these, but not including Bonsall, as well as passing mentions in coverage of Bonsall sightings). I'm not sure that it's worth mentioning in that article, but as there's a possibility that it could be used, or at least discussed, in development of that article, I suggest moving it to a talk or user subpage. Peter James (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There were multiple sources of independent reliable source coverage of the event in 2000-2001, in BBC News, The Mirror, Straits Times (apparently - mentioned, not linked), and other news sources, which as nominator points out could be dismissed as "slow news day" stories spanning eight months. However, less-detailed accounts in this 2008 Sciences 360 article and this 2013 book suggest that the incident has attracted ongoing attention in reliable sources, lending credence its perceived importance. It also seems to transcend WP:ONEEVENT status by having a lasting impact, spawning ongoing reports ("known internationally as a UFO hotspot") in this 2008 book, UFO tours/walks & "International Bonsall UFO Society" meetings at the Barley Maw pub mentioned in this 2005 book and this 2013 book, and other tourism-drawing UFO nonsense in the area.

The reliability of The Mirror seems dubious. The BBC was careful to avoid confirming even the factually verifiable details, like whether the videotape was really sold or whether NASA said they saw a similar craft; it uses "has reportedly" and "are said to have" to artfully disavow the claims. The Mirror, by contrast, confirmed the payment, the NASA story, and not just that a UFO was filmed over a field, but that "a flying saucer hovered above her home". (A later 2002 Matlock Mirror article identified the film buyer as Fox TV). Of the 3 sources cited in the Wikipedia article, the aboutderbyshire.co.uk article seems well written but equivalent to a personal blog (i.e. one author, no apparent editor/organization, self-published), this UKTV link is dead, and [www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087848/Two-alien-aircraft-sightings-week-Chatham-Kent--UKs-UFO-hotspot.html this Daily Mail article] contains only a minor one-sentence description of the event. The author of the aboutderbyshire.co.uk also wrote a similar piece for peakdistrictonline.co.uk, but that seems to be a tourism site than a news site. Agyle (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - UFO Flap articles tend to be poorly sourced and of limited encyclopedic value. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the category. I'd support merging into a list of British UFO flaps, or plain deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) 08:33, 13 June 2014
Delete The sources are just an echo chamber of space-filling commentary, and there is nothing encyclopedic which can be said about "events" like this. It is possible to create a good article about fake photographs, see Cottingley Fairies, but someone claiming they filmed a UFO with no possible verification and no secondary-source analysis does not make an article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.deccanherald.com/content/170084/child-marriages-high-kerala.html

[2] ttp://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blogs/blog-rknair/the-politics-of-child-marriage/article5247403.ece

[3] ttp://www.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/2013/10/age-is-not-just-a-number-a-look-into-the-recent-controversy-about-legalizing-child-marriages-among-kerala-muslims/

[4] ttp://archive.indianexpress.com/news/underage-marriage-among-muslims-in-kerala-ignites-debate/1177466/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]