Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 June	20 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Daly (Music Journalist)[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing that discusses this person or their work. Drmies (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notabiity. Byline accreditations in articles written by Daly are not references, regardless of the number cited. No other sources found. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking sources about subject. Creator seems to think that by just using the "ref" tag over and over, they'll demonstrate notability. --Rob (talk) 07:19, 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. (Delete all, of course.) j⚛e decker ^talk 02:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matan Ariel Lazmi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Avi (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both fail WP:GNG and WP:FOOTY SW3 5DL (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 24 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. G4 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Aburjania[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined by a non-admin without providing a reason, and should therefore still apply in my opinion as the article is not sufficiently different from the one that was deleted yesterday. In any case, the underlying issue persists. Mr. Aburjania has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. I am unsure why @ChrisAnorthosis: has removed the G4 tag, they are not an admin and so don't know what the previous article looked like. I am and can confirm they are similar enough for the G4 tag to be considered valid, but whatever, we're here now. I would also advise the article creator @Anola177: that repeatedly re-creating the same non-notable article is disruptive and might result in a block should it continue. Giant Snowman 21:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Given that WP:G4 so unambiguously applies here and that ChrisAnorthosis is not an admin and did not provide a reason for remvoing the G4 tag, are you not permitted to delete the article despite their objections? Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, but given the fact I have expressed an opinion to 'delete' the article here, I would be considered INVOLVED. I will, however, re-add a G4 tag. Giant Snowman 16:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afro-Eurasia-America[edit]

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

Original research. Idea seems made up or marginally obscure. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a poorly sourced essay. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Content was copied without proper attribution from Beringia (compare the version just before this page was created). Beringia is clearly the common name for this subject; I find only one source that mentions "Afro-Eurasia-America". Indeed, the title is misleading as Africa is barely mentioned in the article. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:46, 25 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 Brainfuck. Content was merged but then removed. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 04:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ook Ook[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Of no real academic value because of isomorphism to brainfuck. ï¿½ (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brainfuck per the existing discussion which appears to have gained a rough consensus but was never executed. Ivanvector (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I'd call that a consensus. Of four participants, one was opposed, one was in favor "only in case we can provide reliable sources", and two expressed no opinion. Agyle (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Brainfuck per Ivanvector. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brainfuck per above. I must admit the article made me laugh! Philg88 ^♦talk 09:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge. Insufficient significant reliable source coverage establishing "notability" for keeping, and no reliable source establishing a connection to Brainfuck for merging. Poétique des codes sur le réseau informatique ~~and Learn Pearl 1 are both~~ (is a) reliable sources that provide modest coverage to the topic, but not enough to establish notability, or to provide reasonable encyclopedic coverage of the topic (e.g. any information about its creation). Neither mentions its connection to Brainfuck. Both articles cite dangermouse.net's Ook! page as a reference, and while I don't consider that a reliable source, perhaps some would accept it as "inheriting reliability" from the books. It says Ook! is "essentially isomorphic" to Brainfuck but with fewer syntax elements~~, a claim I'd dispute; they both have eight syntactically identical commands~~. The Wikipedia Ook article also cites a topdesignmag.com post which says Ook! is similar to Brainfuck. If consensus accepts either of those two links as reliable sources, it verifies a similarity between Ook! and Brainfuck that could warrant some merging, though even then it's not verifiable through the sources whether one was based off the other, or which came first. Agyle (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "fewer syntax elements" referred to the three differently-punctuated "Ook" elements, which in pairs formed eight commands. Also, it seems Dangermouse.net is the webpage of the creator of Ook!, not just the author of a description of it, and as such probably constitutes a reliable (though primary, non-independent) source. Also, note that Learn Perl 1 is self-published through lulu.com, and not a reliable source. Agyle (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An article on the same subject was previously nominated for deletion four times:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Morgan-Mar "No result" 5 March 2006 (multi-article AfD)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ook! programming language "No consensus" 5 April 2006
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages#Ook! programming language "Delete" 5 September 2006 (multi-article AfD began 30 March 2006!)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ook! programming language (second nomination) "Delete" 24 September 2006

Agyle (talk) 07:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brainfuck#Derivatives, where it is already mentioned. I have not found in-depth RS to establish notability. But uncontroversial facts, like the language exists and is a derivative of Brainfuck, are verifiable in authoritative primary sources like the creator's Ook! page. It's worth a redirect to the Brainfuck derivates section, per WP:PRESERVE, but a full merge would give it undue weight in my opinion--there are lots of BF derivatives out there. --Mark viking (talk) 22:09, 23 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hajjar[edit]

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

Although this person appears to have published a few books, he does not appear to have been the subject of any reliable independent published works himself. The sources provided in the article are reviews of his works and do not discuss him; the "selected works" is a list of his publications. He does not appear to have received any accolades or awards, has not held any significant academic posts, and although he may have been a director of a journal (I could not independently confirm this), "director" is not the same as "head" or "chief editor" (the journal currently has five "directors"). I do not see enough material for this article to pass WP:NACADEMICS. KDS4444^Talk 19:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 19 June (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some GS cites may pass WP:Prof#C1 in the very low cited field of theological scholarship. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC).;[reply]
KEEP 25 academical articles listed in JSTOR. other arguments for notablilty in article. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseph_Hajjar&action=edit# Clive Sweeting, 21 June 2014
Keep -- He looks like a scholar with a significant output. Since much of it is apparently in French, a lack of English coverage is unsurprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 22 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CompareXpress[edit]

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

Promotional piece, no indication of significance. Itsalleasy (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets wp:GNG, nothing promotional here. Duckduckstop (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. I realize that CompareXpress is not a household name in the United States, but it has received important media recognition in Asia, as the references list demonstrates.--Jpworth3rd (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. CompareXpress was Singapore's first financial comparison website to launch in 2010. It has strong media followings in Singapore and Thailand.--Roysiew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article appears sourced and is not promotional-enough for it to be an improvement to delete it. CorporateM (Talk) 03:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just about passes WP:ORG/WP:NWEB. Offline references accepted in good faith. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:17, 24 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 Moved to draft. Requested on IRC (non-admin closure) --Mdann52talk to me! 18:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem (Company)[edit]

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

Promotional article recreated by probable socket puppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saleem_Technologies Itsalleasy (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Page is deleted four times in the last three months. I'm not seeing the notability. The reliable sources only mention him in passing. A Google search is not turning up anything meaningful for me. I'm not seeing anything significant. The tone of the piece suggests this is a vanity article. I'm inclined to support a delete unless somebody turns up something more significant. Ireneshih (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 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 Speedy Keep per WP:KEEP#5: article is presently in Main Page "Did you know...". Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kakan Hermansson[edit]

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

Media profile that fails WP:GNG. All sources are Swedish, and all sources but one in Swedish language, indicating possible notability in sv.wiki, but not necessarily in en.wiki. Google searches find results only in Swedish language. No indication of notability in the English-speaking world. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - flawed reasoning for deletion. No such mention is made at Wikipedia:Notability. The sources may be in Swedish but the confirm everything mentioned in the article. Also the article seem to pass every single point of the GNG. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I don't doubt that what is said in the article is supported by the sources. But that is not the same thing as she being notable. Based on what you say on WP:Notability, you seem to have it backwards; notability in sv.wiki does not necessarily mean notability in en.wiki. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about notability on English and Swedish wikipedia. And totally disregard the fact that this is a well sourced article. And as Dwpaul points out you have no case when it comes to WP:NOTABILITY. Hermansson is a very known name in Sweden atleast in younger circles and she has been feature don several television shows and radio show. Which she has hosted. At the talk page you claim to have never heard of her, still you have a strong opinion about her not being notable. It is a contradiction. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compensate a lack of notability with a high (well) number of sources. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to your way of viewing notability, then yes. But my arguments as well as Dwpaul are based on guidelines for notability and not a personal opinion. About a person that you by your own words "have never heard of or seen before"...Still you have a strong opinion. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have no strong opinions on her. I only respond to your arguments. Try to stick with the issue. But I would have guessed; nobody wants their article deleted. BabbaQ, this may be personal to you, but it isn't to me (neither towards you or Kakan). No matter what you want to believe, it is a good faith nomination. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, do not worry I dont think you nominated this article in bad faith. I think you are nominating this article based on a flawed view of the guidelines. Or your lack of using the guidelines correctly when placing this article up for deletion. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then why do you question my motives with insinuations such as For a person who "never heard of her" before, you seem to be a person with many strong opinions about this particular person. Interesting."? HandsomeFella (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is grossly premature. A discussion concerning the subject's notability was just initiated by the nominator on the article's Talk page. This article was just today included at DYK, and the addition of the template at this time seems both unfortunate and perhaps untimely. If this AfD continues (though I would ask it be speedily concluded), I certainly would !vote ~~Keep~~ Speedy Keep; my arguments are detailed on the Talk page. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just initiated the discussion. I also marked the article with {{notability}}, which you reverted soon after (you don't mention that here for some reason). Don't you want more proof of her notability? Maybe in English? HandsomeFella (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I "want" is not at issue here. This is question of policy and procedure. I reverted your placement of the {{notability}} tag because the GNG, which the tag references, clearly does not require English sources (and explicitly says it does not). Dwpaul ^Talk 19:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand me. Where have I said that notability requires sources in English? I have only said that the lack thereof indicates lack of notability. Also, it's you who have the burden of proof: you have to demonstrate notability. It's not I who have to demonstrate the lack thereof. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "burden of proof" all our arguments are based on guidelines. Kakan Hermansson is covered and notability confirmed.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, the guidelines confirm she's notable? Oh. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is notable here in en.wiki is defined very clearly at WP:Notability (and,as another editor has pointed out, at WP:Notability (people) as it pertains specifically to people). I do not see anything there that establishes some limitation by continent or language, and I see a number of things there that disclaim such limitations. If you have some policy to point to, versus your own, thus far unsupported, concepts of "en.notability" versus "sv.notability", please point to it. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Of course notability was established by 14 sources provided no less. The notability tag should have not been even introduced. We must check sources, before adding tags that are not necessary. We editors have translation automated machine tools and not knowing a certain language does not excuse us of putting notability tag without at least reading the provided sources, albeit in roughly translated version which is almost always enough to understand even if not grammatically full-proof. werldwayd (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no such Wikipedia policy that I know of that allows deletion in English Wikipedia space because the subject "indicates possible notability in XX.wiki (say Swedish), but not necessarily in en.wiki. In general if a subject is notable in his/her country, he/she is notable. Period. Take a football player, the best in his country's official professional league, but never mentioned in Sports Illustrated or the sports pages of The New York Times. Or a singer who is number one in his country but has never been mentioned in Billboard or Melody Maker, or an MP in his country's Parliament, but never mention in the London Times or Paris Le Monde or a financier, an influental one in his own country, but never mentioned in Financial Times or The Wall Street Journal. Or else, I can name you tens of thousands of English Wikipedia articles on individuals who have only been mentioned only in their local medias and never in USA or UK, but still merit articles in English Wikipedia. For me, English Wikipedia does not mean and should not mean A US Wikipedia or a UK Wikipedia. It just means a Wikipedia written in English language, meaning a Wikipedia where anybody who wants to check information in English language finds it in English language. Nobody browsing say in Beirut, or Johannesburg, or Rio de Janeiro or in Tokyo should go to Swedish Wikipedia to find a Swedish notable individual and in case he doesn't know Swedish, well tough luck and all the best to him.. I suggest a strong keep for this article. werldwayd (talk) 19:56, 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 Track'em. In the meantime, the article itself has been moved to Draft:Kashif Saleem. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 07:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Saleem[edit]

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

No indication, why subject is important to be included as encyclopedic subject. Itsalleasy (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that Saleem is not a noteworthy person to be on Wikipedia. Joey Gallo (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC) pre-pended "* Delete" for clarity. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please *keep.* Notability has been asserted. Saleem has received considerable media attention for his invention, Track'em, as the references in the article show.--Jpworth3rd (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an editor notified me of this discussion. ~~I have not decided if I will participate or not.~~ See comments below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Updated. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to Draft for further work unless significant coverage of this person is found from reliable, independent sources during the course of this discussion. The bulk of the reliable, independent sources either talk about the company associated with this person or its products and services. Others talk about him but even together they do not provide significant coverage of him independent of his role with his company. The one reference that would be okay (Sas, Nick) is not independent enough to be used for a notability assessment, as this person is a former employee of that newspaper (the presumption is that a newspaper would be inclined to brag about its former employees but might not write an article about the same person under the same circumstances had he not been a former employee). I will not object to deletion but I prefer moving to Draft to give editors more time to find adequate references. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Updated davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Update: No objection to redirecting to Track'em per Lankiveil's recommendation below. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment articles about this person's company have been created and deleted on multiple occasions: See Draft:Saleem (Company) and the deletion logs and AFDs of Saleem (Company) (AFD) and Saleem Technologies (AFD). An article about this person's company's primary product exists (Track'em) but it is in need of cleanup. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Track'em. There has been a significant amount of marketing material regarding this firm posted over the past few weeks under various titles, the vast majority of which is unsuitable for Wikipedia. The product may be notable, but the company and its founders clearly are not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:05, 25 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. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are now no recommendations that the page be deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bizhou[edit]

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

Not sure of the point of this disambiguation page, since the provided articles are modern locations, with no indication of why the ancient incarnations are significant/notable. McDoob AU93 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAW with clear consensus to keep. Support speedy close. --McDoob AU93 15:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Sourced article on the Heilongjiang town created, which is not going away any time soon due to WP:NGEO. I'll get to the Jiangxi one when I feel like it. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee ^welcome!" 02:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The current red link is a populated place per WP:GEOLAND and thus inherently notable. Two DABs is OK per policy. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Philg88 says it all. PamD 14:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. In the current version, all of the entries other than Bizhou, Heilongjiang fail WP:DABMENTION. The linked articles do not support the claimed usage and for all anyone can tell without further research, these entries are indistinguishable from a hoax. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, there is at least one other valid entry. I have commented out the others until such time as there is content in an existing article that supports the claim. older ≠ wiser 15:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep All entries have articles or meet MOS:DABRL / MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 17:32, 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 17:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Kem[edit]

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

Lack of notability and mainly reliable sources. Only Award claim is supported by self-published sources. PROD was removed by article author without a reason Stanleytux (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly promotional. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stanleytux. Versace1608 (Talk) 19:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Made for promotional purposes. Cowlibob (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Promotional piece without appropriate citations. --Jersey92 (talk) 18:34, 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.

Keep: The article meets criterias 8, and 11 of WP:MUSICBIO. Per the aforementioned criteria, "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria". Since Lil Kem meets two criterias of MUSICBIO, he is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Also, the sources cited in the article are independent of him. Lastly, the artist's debut music video has more views on YouTube than establish artists like Yung6ix, etc.--Coal Press Nation (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pulsonix[edit]

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

No evidence of encyclopedic notability. Subject appears to fail WP:CORP. A Google did not yield much other than the usual promotional hits and very thin run of the mill coverage that does not satisfy GNG. Beyond which the article appears to be an advertisement by a naked COI - SPA. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - the Overview section qualifies as blatant ad, no reliable sources are presented that cover the product (two refs are the company's own site, the third doesn't mention Pulsonix). It's WP:PROMO. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find no substantive coverage via Google, and the one reference given in the article doesn't support the claim of rave reviews, Pulsonix being mentioned nowhere in it. Besides that, what is the Hermes project, and would a rave review by one customer amount to general notability? —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC) Weak keep Based on the additional sources (thanks, 91.125.182.5), I am, at least, not convinced of the unreasonableness of the product's coverage here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. As above, the only independent source, the Hermes Project, does not mention Pulsonix, and likely does not meet RS guidelines. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No clear notability. No callout in Hermes newsletter. Review is a blog that is more about low-end/inexpensive tools. Apparent WP:COI. Glrx (talk) 18:45, 17 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, Jenks24 (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. See here for why I've relisted what is seemingly a slam dunk delete. Jenks24 (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ (moved to Neutral per discussion later in this thread) Analysis of sources as of [1] revision:
1. Elektronikpraxis - ~~I almost bought into this as a valid source, until I realized that it was written by an engineer at the company that makes the product - technotron.~~ The independence of this is I think debatable, after investigating more, the claim I made here is incorrect, technotron appears to be a seller of Pulsonix. Note the technotron at the bottom here and the relationship between the two apparent in the discussion at [2] This is signficant and detailed coverage, I think the question boils down to whether we believe it's independent.
2. elettronicanews - appears to be a warmed over press release
3. ATS - passing mention doesn't rise to "signficant coverage"
4. DIYDrones - probably does not meet our journalistic oversight hurdle to qualify as a WP:RS
5. Elektronikpraxis (PCB-Design in MCAD exportieren) feels like a press release of a single new feature annoucement, and is a little weak on significance, a little weak on independence as a result. I think it's plausible to think people could differ on this one.
6. passing mention of "Pulsonix"
Of course, I am open to further discussion and analysis. (Struck part of my own comment here for incivility.) -j⚛e decker ^talk 17:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Decker Cheers, my $0.02:
1. Elektronikpraxis - The name at the bottom is a footnote from the asterisked byline that has two names. Kucera is the editor (or journo there whatever) of Elektronikpraxis; Schulte, is an "applications engineer" at German distributor technotron (programmer/tech person basically). I read it as having someone at whoever makes/distributes what is highly technical software (and speaks your language) to contact with queries being cited as a courtesy (or perhaps a German thing?).
  By contrast, I have also seen rehashed press releases there, although much older. One reason I discarded [3] was it had the name Peschges-plus-phone number at the bottom who Pulsonix.com's press release page 2006-ish mention as a then reseller. I'd distinguish it from the ref used in the article.
  The other link you gave is part of a 15-article series (or 21 parts) on the ins-and-outs/industry trends where they had a 'panel of experts' of various types (one on circuit boards (manufacture?), one on assembly (putting chips/components on them) and one on layout/design including CAD (who works for a vendor--technotron, who sell several pcb design tools in Germany--in training, sales and, translating technical documentation). It looked well-researched when I read it in gtranslate. I saw no focus on any vendor's products, other companies' products e.g. Allegro were mentioned; even when Pulsonix appeared in one page which the technotron person was cited as having helped with, it was on a screenshot caption. The magazine appears independent.
2. elettronicanews - Hmm. I wasn't too sure about this one either way. It goes beyond a press release 'foo will now distribute in $country' style that sometimes includes a soundbite by said new distributor; on the other hand I can see why you say that.
3. ATS - you mean SMTA, right? I removed ATS added by the COI-creator as it wasn't much good and didn't mention the software. It's about the EU Hermes project overall with the software a small part and Pulsonix singled out as a passing mention, though it's more *what* they said "Confronted with this situation the consortium contacted the most important EDA tool suppliers and convinced them to support Hermes. This consists of the following EDA tool suppliers: Cadence, Mentor Graphics, Pulsonix and Zuken. The first activity was the evaluation of the capabilities of the tools...blah. Brief though yep.
4. The DIYDrones one is a blog authored by the editor in chief of Wired magazine. I think for software & technology this qualifies the ref as an RS under WP:SPS. -- 91.125.29.135 (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply, I'll match my numbers with yours here:
  1. I'd intended in my original point 1 to only refer to ref 1 in the article. I'd believe "application engineer at a distributor", that's well-within the realm of what I was seeing. I only pointed at the other page (one of your refs) to document the appearance of a connection between the two. I don't know that line of business, the high-end equipment manufacturers in my own industry do have fairly tight and financially-driven, incentive-driven relationships with their distributors, but that may not be the case here (because I"m in a different industry and/or a because I'm in a different country), that was just my intuition. I don't have a problem a priori with the publication, it seems reputable.
  2. Fair.
  3. ATS/SMTA : Yes, that's right. I pulled "ATS" from the domain name on the URL.
  4. DIYDrones. Excellent point. Chris Anderson (writer) is no longer, according to our article, EIC of Wired, but that doesn't really matter, he was for many years, and more importantly, he is certainly someone with some authority in this field. As such, I consider that coverage that goes towards notability.
  I'm pulling back to at least neutral for now based on your responses and such. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  @Joe Decker: Thanks for reply (my IP's changed btw:). Agreed on Wired point, I think (?) he was ed. back when the blog entry was written anyhow. I hadn't really noticed the ATS thing; just found it on google scholar. I checked SMTA's site (an industry body in that field) and they don't provide free fulltext access so may as well link to the ATS copy. 91.125.182.5 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On balance it meets the bar set in WP:GNG and principles in WP:BASIC. Some of the better sources being, Elektronikpraxis and the DIY Drones one by Wired magazine then-editor, Chris Anderson. I added other potential sources I found onto the Talk page, and all in all they establish sufficient notability. --91.125.29.135 (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler, Largoplazo, Dialectric, Czarkoff, and Davey2010: I did some work on the page. I've done as much as I can to improve the text and find 3rd party RSs. I added refs from EDN magazine [4], some Russian journal [5], and Elektronik [6], another German tech magazine. EDN had a few more articles covering it but I didn't understand what they said so... Also had a stab at explaining the Hermes EU/European Commission thing. I removed nearly all of the SPA creator's text except the features list. The topic's a bit too technical for me, hopefully I didn't introduce any mistakes. (pinged prev participants). 91.125.182.5 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral; it is clear that some good effort has been put into this page, and that it is no longer the page that it was when I cast my earlier !vote. However, I do not have time at the moment to evaluate the new sources; in deference to the effort, I have struck my earlier !vote. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:41, 27 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. Withdrawn — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Mendis[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. The article appears to have been written by someone closely associated with the subject. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Reliable sources include:

"Commercial Providence: the secret destiny of the American empire," Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, May2011, Vol. 48 Issue 9. Abstract: A review of the book "Commercial Providence: The Secret Destiny of the American Empire," by Patrick Mendis is presented. (Database: Ebscohost)
"Book reviews." Australian Journal of International Affairs. Sep2004, Vol. 58 Issue 3. Abstract: Reviews various books on international relations. (Database: Ebscohost)
Tom Hintgen. "Former Spartan now a diplomat", Fergus Falls Daily Journal (MN), 03/23/2012. Abstract: Biographical piece. (Database: Ebscohost)
"Dr. Patrick Mendis", Daily News Sri Lanka, 16 Sep 2010. Abstract: Biographical piece. (Database: ProQuest)
"Patrick Mendis: Sri Lankan-American scholar appointed to UNESCO to represent US", Asian Tribune [Hallstavik] 27 July 2012. Abstract: Biographical piece. (Database: ProQuest)
"Sri Lankan-Born Former American Diplomat Meet with the Chinese Ambassador", Asian Tribune [Hallstavik] 04 Feb 2014. Abstract: Info on Mendis and visit by Chinese Ambassador. (Database: Proquest)

There are more in the article not listed here. -- GreenC 18:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: those are all the same book review/press release. He was appointed to UNESCO but he claims he worked for the U.S. State Department. I couldn't find any reliable source to verify that. He seems to have really only worked at and through University appointments. The internet is loaded with these webpages that have the same book review/press release. When he was in China, he was there through the Alumni Association of the UMinnesota. I can't find any reliable source that shows he's a diplomat or anything more than a college professor who has written a few books and is really good at self-PR. If you can find links that other editors can follow, and verify the claims in his BLP, I will withdraw the AfD but so far, I've not found it. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is an elected Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science [7] which is a highly prestigious honor, only 730 fellows elected worldwide in an organization chartered by Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer. According to Wikipedia: "Election in the WAAS is considered as one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist." It meets WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". The sources you are calling "press releases" are not visibly so, it's an accusation that all of these publications from over a 10+ year span are unreliable (reliable pubs publish PRs with notification). I'm not surprised the US State Dept doesn't have old stuff online through Google but lack of Google hits from 10+ years ago isn't inherit reason to believe he is a fraud. The article may contain a little puff, was he really technically a "diplomat", I don't know what the exact definition of that word is. Any source listed above not online is accessible through WP:REX, I provided the database source so it's easy to request. -- GreenC 22:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking all that. I'll sort through it. His article is awfully puffed, and will need trimming. But I'll withdraw the AfD. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:14, 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 17:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Yudelson[edit]

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

Subject of article has not received signficant coverage in publications independent of the subject as required by WP:BIO. Owns non-notable religious publisher. Article is mainly original research. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Avi (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Also fails WP:PEOPLE. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 07:20, 22 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 17:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGSIG - Cwobeel (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article version date April 4th (prior to it being re-written and then blanked to its current state) had two reliable third-party sources, and a simple Google news search turned up dozens more. The subject is clearly notable, although is merely a stub in its current state. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could not find any sources, most if not all of the Google search results are for stock quotes or press releases. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I Google for "Arthur J. Gallagher", and select a news search, the results are primarily related to various acquisitions. Some of these are clearly published press releases, but there are several which appear to be original articles by the publishers. Granted, many of these still miss the in-depth coverage part ... but there are still enough with adequate coverage to meet the threshold of notability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've added several external links to the article, some of which provide better coverage than others. I have no arguments with moving these from the external links section over to the talk page; I just wanted to flag some potential sources that someone can use for expanding the article. I don't have time to do so myself right now, but may see if I can assist in expanding it later this month. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Barek. This is a well-known company in the insurance industry with a long history. Some additional examples of coverage: [8][9][10][11] --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the promotionalism has been removed. What needs to be added is the basic financial data that shows it is a NYSE company with over $ 1 billion revenue. For such information Yahoo finance is a reliable source. A simple rule that any NYSE company is notable would solve many problems, including the need to quibble about what sources are substantial. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as promotional content's been removed, Just needs expanding more which can be fixed anytime. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments and WP:LISTED. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm (from the UK) that the company is widely known outside the USA, and has made several notable contributions to its industry. Their UK operation has won a number of awards for the quality of their services, and insurance industry professionals would certainly consider the firm notable. Keep, obviously. RomanSpa (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the news search proposed by Barek brings back many relevant hits specifically talking about the business. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:42, 23 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) 01:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young (MCC cricketer)[edit]

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

nn partial name from a single source, 185 year old amateur sportsman of whom nothing else is known. C'mon. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. No, you "c'mon". This person played in a first-class cricket match and therefore meets WP:CRIN as a notable sportsman. As for your comment that he is "185 years old" what has that got to do with anything? We have at least one notable cricketer who was born in the 17th century. Cricket has been a professional team sport since the 1660s and the word "amateur" in cricket does not have its everyday meaning. The greatest player of all time, arguably, was officially an amateur. If you are going to make nominations, please check the project definition first and cut out the "clever" remarks which impress no one. What a waste of time. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Also, you say "single source". There are two as he is mentioned in the Haygarth book (see bibliography) but that has not been cited inline. I'll look up the page number when time allows and include it. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - losing battle on this one I'm afraid Kintetsubuffalo. Young played at the highest domestic level of cricket in England, passing WP:CRIN, WP:ATH and by extension WP:GNG. Although thus far only his surname is known, that's not to say in the future more information won't be discovered. I've recently gone through the Marylebone Cricket Club category and found a few "A. Jones" who since their article was created more information, such as their full name and dates of birth have been discovered. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's a useful one. Not seen it before. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the non-cricket familiar an article like this is the classic example of one FC match making it look like the subject did pretty much nothing with their cricket. Instead, Young likely had a much more extensive life as an amateur cricketer, of which his FC appearance was the pinnacle and satisfies the notability criteria. Expansion and more detail is needed! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't remember the article in question, but wasn't there a similar surname-only micro-stub that was merged to a list last year? The guidelines for notability of cricketers (and footballers for that matter) are extremely undemanding compared to other sports (e.g. boxing), but personally I would err on the side of keeping. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That can't have been a cricket biography unless it was a non-FC player who deserved mention in a list but not his own article. WP:CRIC members themselves have often PRODed or AFDed biogs about minor players. This is why the conditions in WP:CRIN are so precise. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it revolves around the perception that "oh, they only played one or two games, the cannot be that notable" when in reality it ought to be "actually, they've done so much just to reach the level where they would play one FC match". S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he probably had good blood, or family money, and someone was trying to butter him up! Harrias ^talk 10:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More info. Haygarth confirms Young was a gentleman member of MCC on p. 152 of S&BII. I've added that to the article. There were still a fair number of MCC members in the 1830s whose full names are unknown but, as SGGH pointed out above, we have often found out more about them not only in cricket but because they tended to be distinguished in another field. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good point. As an example, three years ago we had Codrington (MCC cricketer) and now it's Christopher Bethell-Codrington. Also W. Harbord (MCC cricketer) is now William Harbord, 2nd Baron Suffield. There would dozens more similar examples, these were just of the top of my head. Jenks24 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NSPORTS and in addition meets one of our fundamental principles – "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." An inclusion in Haygarth's Scores & Biographies, which is effectively a specialist encyclopedia should merit and inclusion in Wikipedia. Jenks24 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is an excellent point. I will always argue that Haygarth is a more notable source for C18 and C19 than the online databases. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:14, 24 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. WP:CSD#G11 §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Richard[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Subject is a musician in the R&B and gospel genres, but the article makes no assertions of any particular notability: no awards, no major album releases, etc. All citations are unreliable: reverbnation profile, submissions to various guitar tab sites, a wordpress blog that was started just this month and has only two brief articles, etc. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatantly just a piece of promotion for an unknown. Deb (talk) 18:19, 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 keep. If anybody wants to merge the article to Wroxham, then they can initiate a discussion at the articles talk page, (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barton House Railway[edit]

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

Notability questioned. Use of first person in content suggests promotional and WP:COI. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 14:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as AfD nominator. Note the first person here [12]. Appears to be Gs44767's promotional article. ⇔ ∫Æ_S dt @ 14:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - OK, the article needs improvement, but AfD is not for weeding out articles that fall under this criteria. The BHR is not only a ridable miniature railway, but also a railway museum and museum of the Norfolk Broads. Museums are presumed to be generally notable enough to be able to meet WP:GNG. It shouldn't be hard to find independent coverage by the local media, such as this. Mjroots2 (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I wouldn't claim that every 71/4" gauge miniature railway is going to be notable. However this one has evidently lasted 50 years and seems to have a footprint across the local tourism web sites. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete --Another alternative would be to merge with Wroxham, where it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could go with a merge and redirect to Wroxham, if they're geographically close enough for that to make sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to locality. While there are a couple of sources, they are really quite trivial. It's notability is very borderline. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For something that has been there 50 years I would say it should stay. After all the Southwold Railway only existed for 50 yearsDavidvaughanwells (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above. Difficultly north (talk) Simply south alt. 16:25, 26 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 16:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jay B.Douglas[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP for a very obscure musician. His record "Singin' and Yodelling" gets one Google hit, [australianrecordlabels.com/wp.../2013/.../INDIE-LABELS-1955-1980.pdf], looking for his name in combination with Tamworth Country gives the same. So he had a record or records and won an award, but neither seem to be notable, and I couldn't locate any significant attention in reliable sources for him. Fram (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any decent coverage. Fails WP:MUSBIO. Doctorhawkes (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bio for a living person containing no reliable sources. Conflict of Interest issues arise as article creator, User:Geoff Colli, is similar to possible birth name of subject: see User:Jay B. Douglas/Jay B. Douglas where we have content that parallels this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced biography of a living person. I haven't been able to find anything of value that might remedy that status, or provide evidence of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 25 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 Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases. Deor (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Platinum and Diamond Editions[edit]

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

Article appears to be an aggregator for data from Amazon, since almost every source is a product listing from there. The rest are first-party promotional releases from Disney itself or mentions of the special features on the releases. No discussion of why this particular branding is notable and thus deserves an encyclopedia article. Recommend deletion per WP:NOTCATALOG and failure to establish general notability. McDoob AU93 13:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I find the article's referencing of Amazon.com very excessive, I'm not sure if the topic should be considered non-notable. There are secondary sources that talk about the Platinum Collection, such as Variety here, The Hollywood Reporter here, and Los Angeles Times here. An alternative approach may be to greatly simplify this article to just list the films and their release dates, and focus the content on what the secondary sources report, not back covers and interior booklets. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Things I'd be looking for that would save this article, in my opinion, are: What makes a film worthy of this designation (for example, Criterion Collection)? What was the purpose? Why did they switch from Platinum to Diamond, and what's next, rhodium? Admittedly the last one is rhetorical, but it gets to my point ... the purpose of an encyclopedia article for a marketing name. I looked at all three sources and the only mention is the inclusion of the name; no critical commentary, no history, etc. Just that it was the marketing flourish added to the package. --McDoob AU93 15:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this line could be considered not worth having its own article. Reviewing it, I saw that this existed: List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases, with "Platinum Editions" and "Diamond Editions" sections having simple lists. While that list article may have its own issues, it would be worth just redirecting this article there and have a consensus to add any relevant detail (like what I linked above) in the relevant section, preempting the corresponding list of films. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases, as stated by others below, as a more straightforward list without the mostly promotional content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases. It's a simpler title for all Disney video releases. Let's take a trip to the Pearl Editions (or whatever the next editions after the Diamond Editions are.) What should we do when the first Pearl Edition is out?? With this article, you'd have to re-title it Walt Disney Platinum, Diamond, and Pearl Editions. With the list page, no move is needed. (Note that Pearl Edition is just the name I chose to use as an example when it comes to understanding this statement.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases. The secondary sources discovered by Erik could be covered by one short paragraph in the main list article. Basically, anything that stops this article from being a form of original research (taken from Amazon listings) is going to be supported by me. Binksternet (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support re-direct as an option to deletion. --McDoob AU93 13:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The point of difference with this article is that it allows a conversation on the Disney vault to take place, and also allows us to clearly explain the types of special/bonus features Disney provides with each new iteration. Rather than a mere list, it explains why such sets keep on being released, and how they have been received. (for example i know some reviewers don't like the "remastered version" of films as they wash out the colours of the original). It would have to have Gold and Pearl added as well, but I can see an article on this topic existing.--Coin945 (talk) 08:02, 24 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Gamson Danks[edit]

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

references do not show notability, beyond her having written one book Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — All the sources are self-published, blog, or Amazon, except for the professional award; and being one of 37 awards handed out annually, in a relatively obscure (or at least unique & narrowly focused) field, hardly seems to, in and of itself, demonstrate notability. — Who R you? Talk 05:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - A greater array of more dependable sources has since been added, including educational journals and the Chicago Tribune. 19:04, 11 June 2014‎ User:Jourdan Sayers User talk:Jourdan Sayers
Comment Creator has added 2 new references, from http://clearingmagazine.org/, and http://www.innovativelearningconference.org/. this is not a lot, but its enough for me to recognize that the person MIGHT be seen as meeting notability criteria. I will not withdraw my nomination, as I dont think she does meet it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Initial and subsequent versions of article did not show sufficient sources, because article did not conform to Wikipedia's standards, but the revamped version has enough references, including reliable publications talking about her work in depth. In addition, she won an ASLA award. Notable person, meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on work by User:Tomwsulcer. -- GreenC 01:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep per sources provided, If I'm honest the cite titles should be trimmed down as it takes up a huge amount of the article, Also I've gone with "Borderline Keep" because I myself don't believe she's entirely notable as such but yeah sources have been provided so all's good. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:GNG and WP:HEY. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:11, 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 no consensus. This is a classic debate of people on one side saying, "there's enough references to establish notability", and people on the other side saying, "no there's not". -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth C. Bucchi[edit]

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

Is this person really notable? He has written 2 books but I don't feel he meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:SOLDIER Gbawden (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 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 02:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I restored the Washington Post source previously deleted without explanation, and added refs that were found in previous AfDs but never made it into the article. -- GreenC 19:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still not enough here to establish that this person is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage does not appear to be substantial enough to warrant an article.--Pink Bull 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep lots of coverage in reliable sources. Antrocent (♫♬) 20:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Washington Post [13] says he has been interviews on CNN, Greta Van Susteren's talk show, and that months before Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly interviewed him. So he meets the WP:GNG clearly from that. Dream Focus 22:38, 18 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, Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided here and to the article. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the sources and it seems this fellow is an imposter who was found out early on when he started selling a book. He appears to have lost all credibility at that point. Since then, he's not been covered. If anything it seems that makes him known for WP:one event. He's not even notable as an imposter. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. And this isn't a single event, he was interviewed months apart. Dream Focus 22:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat reluctant keep. Three authored books, some with serious reviews, a news article and a statement by the US Government make this guy notable. The WP article relies too heavily on the OC Weekly piece by Coker and would benefit from more research into the other sources. Whether Bucchi is an impostor or not does not matter; Wikipedia has plenty of articles on impostors. This looks like another case of "AFD is not cleanup". (None of this speaks to the reliability of this guy's claims of experience.) - tucoxn\^talk 22:33, 28 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 08:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Muller[edit]

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

No evidence of him having actually played with either of the top level teams (HC Moscow Dynamo or Winnipeg Jets) mentioned. As a matter of fact, www.NHL.com specifically lists 0 games played for him. Since he is 40+ years old now, I doubt any of this will ever change. John from Idegon (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He definitely did not play for the Jets (was only drafted by them), but Muller did play with Moscow Dynamo: [14]. See also this discussion at WT:HOCKEY. Hopefully Ravenswing can find a source or two to help this article out. Resolute 15:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I found at least one article here. Rlendog (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - playing for Dynamo Moscow [15] meets criterion 1 of WP:NHOCKEY. Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. Subject played 18 years of professional hockey, including play in the “Russia - International Hockey League (1992–96)”, to specifically meet criteria #1 of WP:NHOCKEY. External links now added to the article provide required verification. This article needs to be expanded, not deleted.Dolovis (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per others --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 15:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I agree wholeheartedly with Dolovis -- it doesn't seem as if the most cursory of checks was attempted before this nomination was made. We have this article as well [16], and I'm sure I can find more the moment I hit the town library; Muller played a season in Springfield when I was a season ticket holder there, and there was some press regarding the fact that he was one of the first (or the first) North American players to play for the Russian league. I expect that German-language news sources could turn up as well for Muller's time in the Bundesliga. Ravenswing 18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above meets NHOCKEY. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Now that a reference has been found showing him actually playing for the Dynamo (which yes I searched but did not find. Found several mentions of him being "on" their roster, but that is not the same as playing.), I am more than happy to withdraw this. John from Idegon (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a straight-up WP:NHOCKEY pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:34, 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 16:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Turkey UFO sightings[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 (in The Daily Telegraph as such a story) or slow news day reporting to establish notability of an event of dubious provenance. Tabloid journalism is right out (using The Sun as a reliable source as is done in this article is pretty embarrassing). In this case, a cursory investigation led to the conclusion that this brouhaha was over a hoax perpetuated by a single individual. 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) 12:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator arguments that I share. (Also I was there at the time and did not see anything. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, no notability, few poor quality sources, one hoax by one person with no significant coverage. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:28, 26 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 16:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cydney Mar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable person. A former skater (whose career was ended by injury before she reached any level of notability) and present fashion designer (of little note except for her self-promotion on QVC). Sources are scant and of local interest and none recent enough to be available online. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement. I've found some offline writeups of her (such as The Globe and Mail 15 Feb 1983: F.2.). It might be she qualifies for an article per WP:GNG, but somebody neutral would need to take the time to put the sources in a new article (with proper citations, including page numbers), and make an entirely new article, using nothing of the current version, keeping to only what reliable sources say. As currently written, it could almost be speedied as blatant advertising, and keeping it would be rewarding spam. --Rob (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, the fact that the sources aren't online isn't relevant to whether she's notable enough for Wikipedia or not — we are allowed to reference stuff to offline print sources. As long as we provide sufficient citation detail that somebody can locate the relevant sources if needed, we do not require instantaneous and universal access to those sources to be available via Google. What is more determinative here, however, is that the article is fundamentally written as an advertisement rather than as a properly neutral encyclopedia article — I can't prove this outright, but the writing tone and the heavy emphasis on entirely unsourced biographical detail are quite strongly pinging my conflict of interest radar. No prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write a good version which properly and neutrally demonstrates her notability, but this version is definitely a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:20, 22 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 02:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CMS Station Brokerage[edit]

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

Not notable. CMS Station Brokerage lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. This article is bombarded with sources but most do not cover this company. The article is currently a coatrack talking about a minor news event, a sale of a radio station. Current sourcing includes:

1 - no mention

3 - no mention

4 - passing mention. no coverage about CMS

5 - passing mentions. no coverage about CMS

6 - no mention

The only source of any substance is #2, a local interest puff piece about their CEO. This falls short of WP:AUD. A search found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:Company. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response
This firm has played a significant role in the transfer of scores of radio stations across the United States and now in Canada. While there may not be many news sources which cover the 'supporting role' that a brokerage plays, it doesn't mean that the organization is not notable.

The firm's role in the sale of WDUQ was critical, and the citations that are included maybe focus on DUQ's importance, as a way of underscoring what an important sale that was, particularly in the Pittsburgh region. :5 is relevant because it shows the FCC recognized the firm as the broker for the sale.

2 is not a puff piece as Duffbeerforme claims. While regional in scope, The Pittsburgh_Business_Times is a credible news source.

Especially because radio stations serve a public interest, the agent who helps to transfer ownership of stations from one entity to another is certainly relevant. This article should not be deleted. Coffeepants (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "While there may not be many news sources that cover ... it doesn't mean that the organization is not notable." Oh yes it does. In Wikipedia, that is precisely what "notable" means. Maproom (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. I would reiterate that the organization is notable. The page was originally submitted for review and approved June 5. The sources quoted are legitimate. Since the proposed delete notice on June 19, additional information with citations was added. Coffeepants (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The new references supplied (the first three in the article) are all the same type of thing. Brief announcements of sales in a trade magazine with no coverage about CMS Station Brokerage. All just have a passing mention, "Broker: CMS Station Brokerage." Still falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable local company; the original author ~~and s.p.a.~~ fails to understand the concept of notability as used here. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 13:17, 26 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 University of Edinburgh#Student activism. delete &redirect Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh University Conservative and Unionist Association[edit]

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

Student organization is not notable on its own. Propose delete and redirect to University of Edinburgh#Student activism. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University of Edinburgh#Student activism per nom. —Davey2010→ ✉ 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is notable on it's own, the details of previous years will be added shortly but the forthcoming year holds the Referendum debate with politicians from BetterTogether & YesScotland. Peter Hitchens is speaking at the Association, it's actively involved in the University & the page is required to inform people of the Society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughesejs (talk • contribs) 09:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My understanding is that virtually every university in the UK has a Conservative Association. Whilst OUCA is undoubtedly significant, and CUCA not much less so, these two gain their notability not from their existence but from their peculiar importance in the formation of the careers of future ministers, and their contributions to political debate within the Conservative Party generally. It's not immediately obvious that this is the case here. At present this article appears to describe just one of a great many student societies, and certainly doesn't present any particular reason why this organisation is notable. Attracting minor journalists to speak is no great claim to notability, and Wikipedia is not the place for club or society announcements, or lists of club officers. I feel this article needs substantial improvement if it is to be taken seriously. Edinburgh University has produced many great political figures, so there may be scope for improvement. Let's give this a few days to see what they can come up with before making a recommendation. RomanSpa (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Association is the second oldest conservative Association in the UK, OUCA & CUCA were formed over 50 years after EUCUA. EUCUA forms part of the Scottish Conservatives - and their policy creation is separate from English Conservatives. EUCUA's Port & Policy events' outcomes are put back into the Scottish Conservatives so they do have an input. I wouldn't say Peter Hitchens is a minor journalist myself, but there have been many events with MSPs &c., but I haven't got access to the records at present so can't put in a full list of notable alumni - although I've added a few. I'll keep adding but it's going to take a few days for it to be full. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.172.113 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably confusing him with his more significant brother. Notable former members will help a bit, but what we also need is evidence that EUCUA is notable in and of itself - references to the organisation itself in newspapers, journals, magazines and books, where EUCUA is mentioned as significant in its own right. Good luck! RomanSpa (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that even negative references will help. Remember that hatchet-job the BBC did on OUCA and CUCA a few years ago? Has anyone ever done anything similar on EUCUA? I vaguely recall that the ill-fated FCS was strongly influenced by students from Scotland: perhaps some useful stuff can be found in press coverage from that time. RomanSpa (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know of his brother as well but Peter Hitchens is well known as well. There are several negative references in the media about them alone so I'll add them later today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.172.113 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need references to either Hitchens brother, as those would go towards proving their notability, but would say nothing about EUCUA. Negative references to EUCUA, however, will be fine. If you can find half a dozen nasty remarks from the New Statesman, The Morning Star and the Manchester Guardian about EUCUA, complaining that you have excess influence on Conservative Party policy formation, that would be excellent! RomanSpa (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant there are several negative references about EUCUA so will add them, not references about the Hitchens duo. Apologies for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.172.113 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 June 2014

I've added the appearances of EUCUA in the main press that I know of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.10 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bot got at your additions, but I've recovered those that were useful and appropriate. Unfortunately, having a badly-behaved club officer mentioned in a newspaper contributes nothing to the club's notability, only to his own. The McCain-Palin endorsement is good, though. RomanSpa (talk) 03:57, 15 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to University of Edinburgh#Student activism. Ahecht. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done more than enough to prove the worth of this page, it is more notable than other pages on this site. It clearly deserves to remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.204.98 (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to University of Edinburgh#Student activism as failing WP:ORG lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This is a routine university society with nothing about its activities that are notable. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. I'm a little surprised and disappointed to find myself recommending this course, but, although we've given the article plenty of time to improve its case for notability, this has not been done. Most of what has been described is routine stuff for any political society. Debates, meetings with politicians, the occasional outrageous statement, and assorted drunken antics (now deleted) are pretty much par for the course, and certainly don't create notability. Certainly the society has produced its share of members who have gone on to be MPs, but that's not notable: what would be notable would be if it could be shown that the society yields a disproportionate number of future MPs. This can clearly be shown for OUCA, but doesn't seem to be the case here. The club's achievements seem to be exactly in line with what you'd expect for a student society. There's a certain amount of "scraping the bottom of the barrel", if one of the society's claims to fame is that it once wrote a letter to Queen Victoria wishing her a happy birthday: I suspect such loyal wishes were regularly sent to the then-Queen by a great many clubs and societies. If at some future date a better case can be made for this group's notability, it will be possible to re-create this article, but for now I think it has to go. RomanSpa (talk) 03:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(The one entertaining thing I have learnt from all this is that young Conservatives north of the border seem to enjoy referring to themselves as members of the "Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party", gently glossing over the fact that the "Unionist" component of the party's name had nothing to do with Scotland.) RomanSpa (talk) 03:45, 22 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 16:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ERNIEandJESSE[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable podcast. The only available sources are a few minor blogs. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 11:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomnination. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 20:42, 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 delete. If anyone wants to create a redirect at this title, be my guest. Deor (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-printed books[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a content fork of List of best-selling books - even its lead misrepresents the contents as there are no book series in the content. Few readers are going to realise there are two articles and I'd lost track of that fact myself. It's out of date for that reason. If there is a desire to have a list of books for these four religious books and the words of Chairman Mao, set up such a list as that seems to be the only thing distinguishing the two. The last AfD didn't fix the problem. Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons stated by Dougweller. This list was set up as a way to include religious and political books, which are excluded for a number of reasons from the List of best-selling books. While that list is regularly maintained and expanded(although all help is welcome!), the list of most-printed books is only used as a battle-ground between different religions (and a few people trying to maintain NPOV like Dougweller), with the result that the last 100 edits, going back six months, contain nothing but edits to Bible and Qu'ran to change numbers, authors, ... [17]. Since the end of the previous AfD and today, nearly two years later, only two books were added[18], one of them another religious book with discussion about the author, and one uncontroversial addition. No figures were changed for any book. Meanwhile (in a shorter period, since December 2012), these are the changes to the original list; this means that the list of most-printed books is now not just a POV fork, but an outdated POV fork, where no one is interested in maintaining the list but some people are using it as the battleground to edit war over religious truth and precedence. Fram (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : I got here from Fram's talk page. These figures don't seem to be reliable. Mao's figure is incorrect too. There is hardly any scope because this list doesn't cover all books, editors may have cherry picked the listings. There are no actual estimates of Qur'an and Bible. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion makes me uncomfortable because of the idea that we should delete the page because it's only used for edit-warring. The trouble is that if we ever start to delete pages because people edit-war, then we're creating an incentive for people to edit-war when they want a page deleted. User conduct issues should never be a factor in deciding whether to delete a page.
However, OccultZone makes a decisive point in favour of deletion. Print run figures for the various holy books are not available and will never be available, so the figures given for the top books on the page fail WP:V. That's a failure of a core policy which it's impossible to fix: the entries have to be removed. And once you remove the unverifiable entries, all you've got left is a duplicate of the List of best-selling books. We should delete and then redirect to the List of best-selling books. But I think we should be clear that this isn't because of user conduct issues, it's because the page can never be policy compliant.—S Marshall T/C 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:FORK. I reviewed the edit history. This seems like a WP:COATRACK on which to hang a WP:BATTLE. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea that we should have a list of the most numerous books which excludes the leading candidates such as the Bible is absurd. If this is a content-fork of the list of best-selling books then, per WP:CFORK, the remedy is "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." Merger is not deletion and so this a matter of ordinary editing. As for the facts of the matter, I don't see why the print runs of religious works or the thoughts of Chairman Mao should be any less well-documented than the works of authors like Charles Dickens, which were pirated in the USA and are long out of copyright. Sales and printing are both grounded in particular technologies and modes of business. What about library loans? What about digital downloads? We have many lists of books and it seems clear that the total size of the print run is a notable way of doing this. The list should therefore be kept in some form per WP:LISTN. Andrew (talk) 18:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Andrew, are you actually calling for a merge? If so, would you change your !vote to that because if we keep the article then merging is often objected to by those who !voted keep. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My preference would be a list of popular books. This would be a sortable list with several columns for a variety of relevant statistics including: print run, editions, translations, unit sales, revenue, &c. These are all common measures of success for a book and so it makes sense to combine them rather than bicker about the use of a particular one. Doing this would be a matter of ordinary editing in which we would preserve the existing content per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would make more sense to have a separate short list for the religious and political books (or two separate ones). The list we are discussing here though is just for 99% an old copy of the best-selling list, so that a few books could be included and be edit-warred about (indicating just how hard it is to get some acceptable numbers and information on these crammed into such a list). Remove the 99% abandoned copy, rename the list to "List of religious books", and let those interested in it edit war until the end of time (which, according to some of them, is near anyway ;-) ). Fram (talk) 06:45, 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. The article as nominated appears to have garnered sufficient "keep" policy-based discussion. Attempts to fix any issues brought it even more "keep", and attempts by the nominator to remove positive additions has been disruptive overall. Clear policy-based "keep" the panda ₯’ 22:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Jews in Nepal[edit]

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

The article is purported to be about history, but the article describes no history, with the earliest date referred to being 1986, with absolutely no historical context or relevance. The article does not meet the notability criteria. Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 08:52, 19 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 19. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That may be an argument for renaming the article, but certainly not for deletion. RolandR (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with Israel-Nepal relations. That is essentially what this article is about. L'Aquotique (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC) -Check User Confirmed WP:SOCKPUPPET [19][reply]

That sounds like the most appropriate option.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 10:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad option if the article is expanded following my suggestion below. Pity it came from someone like that--it typically poisons the well. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would err on the side of assuming notability, as this article comes from a link in the almost-entirely-filled-out {{Asia in topic|History of the Jews in}} template. The topic seems pretty notable, and if the article could do with some (or a lot of) expansion, that's not a matter for AfD. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 02:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no' history to speak of whatsoever in the article. It is not an article bout history. Accordingly, not only is notable as history, and the article should be merged as per L'Aquotique, because it is not an article about anything else, properly speaking.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 03:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a number of reasons. Firstly, the current content of the article is mostly about the work of Chabad who are a Hasidic Orthodox religious Jewish outreach group that has nothing to do with the secular Jewish state of Israel as such, they are based out of Brooklyn, New York, USA, and it would not make sense to make that part of Nepal-USA relations either! Secondly, Jewish history spans 3,000+ years, while the modern state of Israel was founded only in 1948! "Jewish history" and "Israel" are not the same thing, if anything Israel as a topic is a sub-group of Jewish history. Nepal's history is also divided into different eras stretching back millennia and there is still lots of ongoing scholarship. Thirdly, Nepal is a unique country that straddles the Himalayas. Nepal is landlocked to the south by India on three sides and by China to the north. Thus Nepal's history is tied in with the history of (a) the Himalayas, (b) northern India, and (c) southern China -- and that is how one can find references that have a direct bearing on the "History of the Jews in Nepal"! Finally, therefore, see for example South Asian ethnic groups: "Indo-Aryans form the predominant ethno-linguistic group in Northern India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives...Syrian Malabar Nasranis are descendents of both Hindu and Jewish converts to Christianity" and Googling "Jews + Himalayas", "Jews + northern India", "Jews + southern China" reveals a connection between Jews and Nepal and an intersection in Jewish history with the history of Nepal, see Origins and Migrations in the Extended Eastern Himalayas: ("...A second nation included the Jews and Arabs, the Assyrians..."); The Bnei Menashe of Northeastern India: ("The Bnei Menashe trace their journey from northern Israel to Assyria— modern-day Iraq—to Afghanistan, and through the Himalayas to Mongolia."); In the Himalayas and on the Indian Plains: (..."Syrian Jews (the tradesmen of 1,900 years ago)"...); Jews Have Been in China A Long, Long Time: ("...a 9th century Arab traveler wrote about his experiences, which included a report of a massacre of Christians, Moslems and Jews in southern China."); India Virtual Jewish History Tour: ("Migrations in the 16th and 17th centuries created important settlements of Jews from Persia, Afghanistan and Characin (Central Asia) in northern India and Kashmir."), and more like this, so please be more careful and do not jump to conclusions. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - First, WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM.

You mention some fringish sources to produce WP:OR in order to support you ivot!, which is inadmissible.

Bnei Menashe has absolutely no connection to Jews before

the Israeli Rabbi Eliyahu Avichail founded Amishav (Hebrew for "My People Return"), an organisation dedicated to locating the lost tribes of Israel and assisting aliyah. He learned of the group in northeastern India in 1983

Note one source or statement you make in that WP:WOT would confer a grain of notability on the article at issue.

Furthermore, now that you point out the connection of Chabad, the article seems like nothing more than a puff piece aimed at promoting the activities of that organization under false pretense.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ubikwit: Thank you for your attempt at a constructive response. However, the more you carry on the more confused and incoherent your responses become. First you want to connect this topic with "Israel" that has nothing to do with Chabad, then you all of a sudden realize (after I point it out yet) that this topic should be connected with "Chabad" and not so much with Israel. This reflects serious confusion that should have been thought through a lot better before you jump to nominate complex topics for anything. Sorry to say it but your entire argument just seems to come off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:LIKE which is not good enough here. In any case, the sum of all the sub-topics in this article, i.e. Jews in Nepal, Nepal's relationship with Israel, Chabad's work in Nepal etc all come under the rubric of History of the Jews in Nepal regardless of their numbers, their origins, when they showed up or what they do there, it is all WP:V and based on WP:RS and has much room for growth, see WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and WP:CHANCE. As for your critique of my post, you owe me an apology, because as I pointed out, the correct way to start researching this topic is by looking at the history of the region that Nepal lies in which is in the Himalayas and its geographic surroundings that has been in existence way before the formation of "Nepal" as it is known today and as my citations above show in the course of time various types of Jews have been crisscrossing it for millennia. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, none of what you have described falls under the rubric of History of anything.

Why do you continue to make baseless assertions, such as that about "'Nepal' as it is known today'"? Do you think you know some WP:TRUTH that is not represented in reliable sources? Wikipedia requires RS verification, Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

And then there is the assertion regarding the geography of the Himalayas, which claims that "various types of Jews have been crisscrossing it for millennia", which is yet another fanatsy that would have nothing to due with Nepal, as the area is known today, at any rate. Moreover, you can't produce a single reliable source that supports that fanciful view of history.

The sole constructive contribution you have made is to point out that the article is as much about Chabad as Israel. Nothing in your WP:SOAPBOXING supports WP:NOTABILITY regarding the stub at issue.

To ask me for an apology based on my rational and policy-based refutation of your unsourced POV-pushing assertions verges on being trollish.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 02:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and link to WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article in no way establishes notability for this article in terms of history.

The only thing odd about it is that it was able to be created in the first place on Wikipedia with no relevant content related to the title.

The relevant content seems to belong under two separate articles, according to a couple of the posts above. Some of it belongs in Israel-Nepal relations, and other in Chabad. There has not been a single reliably published statement verifying any historical connection between Nepal and Jews, and according to the first line of the stub, even today

The permanent Jewish community in Nepal is very small and consists largely of diplomatic officials and Chabad staff.

. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 17:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearian and numerous references. One comment, I think the article is not only about the history of Jews in Nepal, but more about relations between the two countries, as well as about Israelis/Jews in Nepal.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another unsupported !vote to keep without establishing notability. There has still not been a single reliably sourced statement that mentions the "history of Jews in Nepal".

In fact, the sole hit returned by a Google search of "history of Jews in Nepal", is to the Wikipedia article.

This is becoming a farcical discussion, with me being the sole vote to Delete/Merge, and only one other editor suggesting a Merge.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 02:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)12:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I just noticed your changes to the article, and reverted them, as per the edit summary. The attempt you made is illustrative of the problem for the purpose of this discussion though, so I note it here.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 02:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, Ubikwit, please remember to act in good faith. You want this article to be deleted. I added references. You removed them. The additions are all relevant to the topic of Jews in Nepal, what they do, their interactions with Nepali, and so forth, that is, their history. Perhaps the article could be better named but this is not a reason to revert references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what history is? There is no "their" history of Jews in Nepal since the 1990s. That is to near in the recent past to encompass a period during which something called a history could be established.

Don't say that the article could be renamed, on the one hand, and then make no suggestions to that end while attempting to substantiate the present article by adding references and material that do not relate to history.

The article is not called "Jews in Nepal"", incidentally, but if that is a suggestion, then that raises the question as to whether an article with that title would meet the notability criteria is another question. I imagine that it wouldn't.

If all it takes is to establish an embassy and have a religious organization active in a given country, then Wikipedia would have an History of the ^~^ article for every country that has an embassy in Nepal, and by extension, an article for each respective country that has an embassy in any country fr every country in which a given country has an embassy, which is not notable in and of itself other than perhaps for inclusion on a List article. So the suggestion by L'Aquotique has merit, but probably wouldn't encompass the material on Chabad.

There is no rationale in your arguments that is supported by policy. Furthermore, I have referenced relevant policies to which you have not responded, but instead attempted a rhetorical redefinition of history as "their history". Wikipedia is not a blog about "Jews in Nepal".--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History is what happened in the past. It can span thousands of years; or centuries; or decades. Like it or not, the topic History of Jews in Nepal encompasses what Jewish people, who are inside Nepal, do, say, think, act, etc. When I revamped the article by adding many references to make a better article here, you reverted it; in my view, this seems like an underhanded last-ditch attempt to sway the final decision regarding this deletion discussion. While perhaps there could be a better article title, it does not make sense to merge this article into Israel-Nepal relations, since the latter article is about government-to-government relations, while this article is about cultural ties among non-official people, particularly, Jewish people in Nepal. So when a Jewish artist brings Dead Sea rocks to Nepal, it is part of the history of Jews in Nepal. Or, a Jewish climber rescues a Turkish climber, in Nepal, it belongs in the article. That it did not happen in the 1700s is irrelevant; that it happened in the past, is.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has notability criteria, for which the present article does not qualify being called an article on the history of anything. You have wikilinked to the history article, but apparently you don't understand the meaning of history.

There simply doesn't seem to be a significant enough presence of Jews in Nepal for there to be any other type of article that might meet the notability criteria, either.

Your mentioning of culture, for example, with respect to what i gather was a hypothetical example of an artist bringing Dead Seあ rocks to Nepal would not merit an independent article, even if the artist were notable. As I said Wikipedia is not a blog about Jews in Nepal.

Accusing me of being underhanded for reverting material that does not describe history is making a false accusation about conduct to try and win a content dispute. Please do not do that again.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 12:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose an article is up for deletion. Another contributor adds references, improves the article. These are reverted. So an article on the chopping block, without references, gets references added, but is then again sliced up to have no references. Sure seems like a severe violation of Wiki-etiquette. See, if I find another source suggesting strong historical ties between Jews and Nepalis, such as here, suggesting 52 years of exchanges (ten, count 'em 10, decades, plus two years to boot), if I try to add it, it will get reverted. So, what can be done?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the subject of recentism is often misunderstood. It does not give any contributor the right to delete or revert any recent information willy nilly, like if it happened in the past two years or ten years. Rather, it is about balance, with the idea being to not overly-tip an article towards only recent events, to the detriment of the overall subject. If an article is about a 50-year history of Jews in Nepal, then deleting information because it happened within the past decade does not make sense. Recentism should be applied as a test of the whole article, not any particular piece of information, otherwise Wikipedia would not carry any information about stuff that happened in the past year or so.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article already mentions that diplomatic relations were established in the 1960s, that a lot of Israelis backpack there, and that Chabad has a presence there (running lodging houses for backpackers, apparently). The only new point in the source you presented is a commemorative stamp, which is basically trivial, and is relates to diplomatic relations between two states. It is an exaggeration to characterize that source as "suggesting strong historical ties between Jews and Nepalis".

After diplomatic relations were established there is no mention of anything until when? Oh, 1986, in relation to a Jewish religious ceremony for Jewish travelers, not Nepalis. The next mention is 1999, in relation to the same ceremony, taken over by Chabad from the Israeli embassy. Let's paraphrase that. The entire history of Jews in Nepal is covered by the establishment of diplomatic relations, and the conducting of a Jewish religious ceremony for Jewish travelers.

A notable article on history that content does not make.

You are free to add anything of relevance to the article that is about the topic of the article. The only thing misunderstood here is apparently the concept of history. If the above source is the best you can find, the article simply doesn't meet the notability criteria.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:35, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's let the closing admin decide.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course.

I just noticed that my google search above omitted the "the" from the title, so I retried it. Every result on the first page returned from a google search of the article title either is the Wikipedia article, or points to it. (The last result on the page is a miss because it is a search engine that removed the quotes [20])

If there are no other sources out there, which seems likely considering thethere is probably no need to prolong this process any further.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 08:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move otherwise Delete It seems to me that the accurate naming of this article is pretty difficult. The best that I can manage is something on the lines of "Jewish presence in Nepal". I fully agree that there is no history, at least in my understanding of history. There can, however, be a lot of presence. The Israeli army can be a tough experience and there has now become a fairly established tradition for young Israelis to get away from Israel upon release and, it seems, get high. (edit: My strongest positive memory of Israeli Jews in Nepal was of an Israeli friend smoking a splif at someething like 5km altitude somewhere to the north of Dingboche and en route to the southern Everest Base Camp). The two main destinations for typically young Israelis are South America and the Himalayas and I have signs in Hebrew in non Jewish owned shops in both Kathmandu and Pokhara. The vast majority of Jews in Nepal are Israelis with the possible exception of Chabadists who are only there for other Jews. (Edit: I have no personal bad experiences with Chabadists but have born witness to comments to indicate that some religious Jews can have opinions as follows (end edit) Other people can sometimes be regarded as barely that). The diplomatic relations mentioned would probably have been something along the lines of a letter with little great substance being sent each way. Its hardly history. However there is definitely a justification for the writing of some form of article about the very lively presence of Jews in Nepal. (edit: an article entitled history would have a lessened chance of encapsulating a wider experience of Jews in Nepal) They've held some great parties (edit: although the best ones were in India in popular Israeli destinations Manali, Himachal Pradesh and Kasol. I also object to the comments by IZAK: "attempt at a constructive response" and "the more you carry on the more confused and incoherent your responses become." I don't know if you are Israeli but this seems synonymous with darker side of Israeli Rudeness). Gregkaye (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes Gregkaye, let's revise history and just call everything that happens in history -- "presence" instead, like instead of History of the Jews in Germany lets rename it to Presence of the Jews in Germany etc etc etc and all the other dozens of articles in Category:Jewish history by country will be "Presence of the Jews in ____" even if the Jews are no longer present, or what amount of time will then qualify as valid "presence" according to this new notion of yours? Goodbye history, hello presence. And no I do not have a "darker side", just a hard-working editor, and it seems that both you and the nominator haven't heard of WP:NPA when the flow of the argument goes against you (he labels me as "troll"-like while you label me as a sorta "Darth Vader" from the "dark side" or is that just another way of getting at an editor you perceive to be "too Jewish" for your liking?) To repeat, Chabad has nothing to do with Israel-Nepal relations it is a Brooklyn, USA based movement, while Israel-Nepal relations is definitely a part of the modern history of the Jews in Nepal. The other refs I cite about the need to look into Jews and the Himalayas is also relevant. Sorry to say it, but your !Vote also makes no sense, as if to say if historical facts do not meet the little narrow box you create for it, then it must be deleted does not help to build and grow Wikipedia as an all-inclusive encyclopedia. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 07:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes IZAK, you make weak comparisons … and this is even when you use a potential trump card: when facing any form of opposition, whether its justified or not, mention the holocaust. Of course there is no argument that there is a genuine and tragic history of minority groups in Germany having a total of 13 million lives of Jews, gypsies, blacks etc. being lost. But that is not a question that has relevance here. The question regards a potential title for this article. I have indicated the fact that there is a regular presence of largely Israeli Jews in Himilayan regions such as Nepal and the locality. The wider story relates to present travel habits of Jewish people without which there would be no presence of organisations such as Chabad in Nepal. I'd interpret that it is the causative factor that is the important one in a picture and that reactions concerning comparatively minimal numbers of people are a secondary concern. Who said anything about saying goodbye to objective and fair studies of history. Again, the ONLY discussion is on the most appropriate title for the article.

I also have to now deal with some superfluous issues to the actual discussion. You mention WP:NPA so can I remind you that your very first words in this discussion were: “Hi Ubikwit: Thank you for your attempt at a constructive response. However, the more you carry on the more confused and incoherent your responses become." Good God man! I responded to those comments for two reasons: 1) Chabad representatives constitute a tiny proportion of Jews in Nepal and 2). The person you attacked wasn't even the one that first suggested an Israel Nepal association. L'Aquotique had suggested Merge with Israel-Nepal relations and in this context and at that point Ubikwit interpreted. That sounds like the most appropriate option. Since that time he commented that Some of it belongs in Israel-Nepal relations, and other in Chabad. Ubikwit has shown signs that he can change his views when presented with correct information and, as far as I have seen, he has not justified the accusation that the “more you carry on the more confused and incoherent your responses become." I commented that these were rude and I put this perceived rudeness in a relevant context. When travelling in the region of the subcontinent of India I had many conversations on the topic of rudeness. In this article I made a link regarding a frequently discussed topic of Israeli rudeness but within the search list the first item mentioned concerned a perceived rudeness of Israeli shopkeepers. In reference to this I interpreted your rude comments as being paralleled by a dark side of the mentioned rudeness. We can also note that many things have dark sides including fantasy creations like the force in Star Wars, real things like any physical object in sunlight and various works of art such as Pink Floyd's moon. You also mentioned “two Jewish” for my liking and it seems that I must also make defence against accusations that have no justification. I mentioned “My strongest positive memory of Israeli Jews in Nepal was of an Israeli friend smoking a splif at someething like 5km altitude”. He was a hilarious and great companion. I mentioned that “ I have no personal bad experiences with Chabadists”, additionally mentioned “great parties” and encourage an effort for “encapsulating a wider experience of Jews in Nepal”. I have no problem regarding people being “Too Jewish” just comments that are "Too rude".

You further assert “Sorry to say it, but your !Vote also makes no sense” and I take that sorry in the same context as your earlier “Thank you for your attempt at” comment. I made clear, unconfused and coherent arguments. I could go on to mention the implied connotations of a “no sense” comment but I'm sure you can work them out yourself. Gregkaye (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye: I am focused on the logic and content of the arguments while you want to smear me with "rudeness" and the "dark side" that is obviously just a red herring. If you can't take the heat then get out of the kitchen. This is serious discussion. You have had your say, and you claim that Jews (Israelis, Chabad people, rabbis, Jewish religious events, Jewish travelers etc) in Nepal over the last few decades does "not" amount to Jewish history but it is rather a "presence" in a far off land and I am disagreeing with both your perspective and assessment, that seems to bother you enough to write me long megilas. There is no rule anywhere that says that what has transpired over recent decades (Israelis, Chabad people, rabbis, Jewish religious events, Jewish travelers etc in Nepal) is somehow "not" history. There is also no rule that says that because Jews anywhere (Germany or Nepal or where have you) are few in number (in relation to the general populations around them, Jews are always VERY few in number) but that is no reason to disregard them and relegate them to other articles just because WP:IDONTLIKE Jews in Nepal as being part of overall Jewish history. You are the one to mention the Holocaust and you wish to attribute your allusions and innuendos as coming from "the dark side" just as I was accused of being like a "troll" and then backing off when I call you on it. There are better ways to make your argument besides wanting that this article, albeit basically only a stub at this point, should be wiped off the map or merged into oblivion some place else. I find it funny to be compared to "Darth Vader" from the Dark Side, what shall I say to you then? "Gregkaye! I am your 'father'!"? Vader's most famous quote. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wouldn't run to quote User L'Aquotique (talk · contribs) who is now blocked [21] for being a WP:CHECKUSER confirmed WP:SOCKPUPPET. Which "dark side" is at work here now? Hmmm, IZAK (talk) 11:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are two Chabad houses in Nepal—one in Pokhara and one in Kathmandu. Chabad is a Jewish outreach group. The reason Chabad maintains a presence in Nepal is to serve the Jews of Nepal. These may be young Jewish backpackers. They don't have to be permanent residents of Nepal. Bus stop (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator also had a clear focus on the clear argument that The article is purported to be about history, but the article describes no history. I made a number of clear concise comments in my late opener and in a marked edit I made one accusation regarding rudeness. What is said is said and all that I will add is that when many people face a clearly justified accusation of rudeness they often do well to retract or even apologise. You are also free to to state any opinion as to why you think the comments were not rude … but you know that.

Your comment also insinuates that I am not focussed on the logic and content of the arguments, that I want to smear you ( I don't know you at least not to a personal extent) and that I cant take the heat and that I compare your unjustifiable rudeness in this article to the actions of a fictional destroyer of planets. I also find the comparison to have a level of humour about it. Perhaps now we can return to the subject.

There was a recent successful AfD submission on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chabad_Houses_in_Israel with no registered Keeps. it was commented that “ Very few Chabad houses are individually notable” and, getting to the discussion late (perhaps its a habit), I commented that the Chabad house article contains a link to a Worldwide directory of Chabad Houses which now appears at the top of external links. Indeed Ihad placed the link there so as to give it more prominence.

I would venture to say that there is no-one with an acquaintance with Jewish society that would in anyway be surprised that there are Chabad houses in places in which Jewish people travel. This is a no-brainer and is in no way notable.

There is nothing of historical note in the article. Gregkaye (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Jewish history and recent Nepalese history could just as well show no Jewish presence in Nepal. But that is not the case. I think that this article has as its purpose the capturing of Jewish/Nepalese history. Is that history too sparse or too recent to justify an article of this scope? There is nothing in the article that is not reliably sourced and it is a brief article in keeping with the availability of well-sourced information. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes. The whole situation would be better served if there were just five History of the Jews articles for Asia. There could be articles for: Western Asia, Russia, Central Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia. In cases in which a country has a Jewish history that is notable to the extent of justifying an individual article then the typical convention of the use of a main article tag could be used. This would also enable the comparison of information across national boundaries which often have little to do with cultural difference and would potentially save a lot of repetition. Gregkaye (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregkaye has put it aptly in that there is nothing of historical note in the article.

The qualification of history with "recent" is also not factual, because there is nothing of historical note in the article, recent or otherwise.

I don't know where the material in the article might fit on Wikipedia, but most definitely not in an article of the present title. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 13:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just like to remind people that (what I consider to be) an improved version of this article, with many references, can be found here in my sandbox where it can not be reverted.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Did you find a suitable name for it that meets Wikipedia's notability criteria?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article, and the slightly longer, more documented version in Tomwsulcer's sandbox, is about Israeli tourism in Nepal. While it is true that Chabad is not strictly an Israeli organization (it has headquarters in Brooklyn as well as in Israel), the Chabad houses in Nepal serve Israelis almost exclusively. And, while these particular versions of the article seem awfully cooked-up - what I think policy-savvy wikipedians would call WP:SYNTH - I think there well be a story here, especially if it is combined with Israeli tourism in India. Because Israeli backpacking to India and Nepal is something of a phenomenon, one that has been written about not only in newspapapers but also academically. There is a section on this in India-Israel relations which is a good start for such an article.

The article is definitely not about the History of Jews in Nepal, and if that is the way it remains, it should certainly be deleted. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no there there. I looked at this version and all its sources, and what we have are reports from sources of widely varying reliability on one particular recent event, on tourism, and Israli/Jewish travelers. No evidence of anything we could call a "history" of Jews in Nepal at all. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, If we were to look for a related article that is clearly notable we would just need to look south of the Nepali border and consider the History of the Jews in India. There is a substantial content that does not rely on recent news items for inclusion. In comparison the Nepali article goes into great WP:SOAPBOXING length in presenting uncited information on the five times mentioned Chabad. The word appears once in the Indian article with no uncited and repeated mention is made of a non notable Rabbi. Also, when I was in Nepal, none of the Chebad staff seemed that permanent and I was under the impression that the Rabbis moved on as the tourist season came to a close. If we were to look for a related article that is clearly notable we would just need to look south of the Nepali border and consider the History of the Jews in India. There is a substantial content that does not rely on recent news items for inclusion. In comparison the Nepali article goes into great WP:SOAPBOXING length in presenting uncited information on the five times mentioned Chabad. The word appears once in the Indian article with no uncited and repeated mention is made of a non notable Rabbi. Also, when I was in Nepal, none of the Chebad staff seemed that permanent and I was under the impression that the Rabbis moved on as the tourist season came to a close. Genuine and heartwarming stories are now been packed around the Chebad references but its hardly history. Never-the-less, I would like to thank Tomwsulcer for a non confrontational tone. Gregkaye (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough material here, backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources, to meet the notability standard. I look forward to expansion, as mentioned and suggested by other participants here. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Alansohn, material for what? You write content, some of it passable (haha!), give me one example of one source that allows us to write something, anything, about "the history of the Jews in Nepal", realizing, of course, that one can't start "history" with a backpacking trip in 1986 or whatever. Seriously. I'm looking at this AfD, and I've looked at those sources, and I'm just flabbergasted that we're even having this discussion with such low-quality material with such inappropriate content. "Jewish tourism in Nepal", that's something that even Colonel Warden could do, but "History of the Jews"?? Without a single source from a book, a peer-reviewed article from a journal on history, without anything more than some tourism sites, a newspaper here and there, a promotional website? Drmies (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, to put it another way, is there a "Jews in Nepal"? (not the same as a couple of people celebrating passover and a backpacker, or someone meeting a few Jews there while traveling in 2002) Drmies (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tomwsulcer and WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. As Tom correctly pointed out, history is anything that happened in the past. This includes the presence of Jews in Nepal since the 1990s. You may wish to ignore this presence, Ubikwit, but it is there and it is just another stage in the Jewish diaspora. Calling it a "presence" and not a "history", Gregkaye, is pedantic. The largest Passover Seder in the world is held there every year; the history is ongoing. As IZAK points out, further research will likely uncover Jews in the region many hundreds (thousands?) of years ago; there are even opinions that certain tribes in the region descend from the Ten Lost Tribes. One of the purposes of AfD is to bring articles to other editors' attention for the purpose of expansion. This article is a solid start and only needs more research. Yoninah (talk) 22:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update from the library--I just got done plowing through all the JSTOR hits I could muster. There is nothing. In other words, there is no "Jews of Nepal", let alone a history of them, and arguing "well a couple of parties in the 1990s, that's history" is hogwash, no matter how much matze was consumed. I mean, that we're basing "History of the Jews in Nepal" on an event to celebrate passover, that's prima facie ridiculous. I mean, absolutely ridiculous.
There is, however a "Jews of Nepal" in quite a different way, where "Jews" stands for "marginalized group." And you could, of course, base a history on this article--I'd like to see someone bring that into the article; perhaps that's the kind of thing that's up Yoninah's alley. But reliable sources (books, peer-reviewed articles), nothing. And no one here has presented any.
Now, there is a special relationship between Nepal and Israel, and it starts in 1960--and it may be big enough to write something about, in a dedicated article which is NOT called what this is called. The relevant article is this, Richard J. Kozicki, . "Nepal and Israel: Uniqueness in Asian Relations". Asian Survey (1969) 9.5: 331-42. It's quite interesting. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ubikwit and Drmies. First, before you can have a "history of x" article you need to have a "x" article. There isn't an article about Jews in Nepal. Second, there aren't any Jews in Nepal to speak of. There are consular officials and some Chabad officials. Unlike History of the Jews in India that has an actual history of Jewish communities, this has no documented history just contemporary accounts. The equivalent would be writing about the fact that the Italians have a chapel on the grounds of their embassy in Kabul where they have Mass, and call the article "History of Catholicism in Afghanistan." Chris Troutman (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Chris Troutman: You obviously didn't do what I did and look at it from the perspective of the Himalayas, Southern China and Northern India that are historically connected and the same as the area of modern-day Nepal. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies and Chris troutman. However, Drmies, I disagree very much with your use of the word "stunt" to describe an annual Passover Seder that regularly brings over 1000 people together. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that Cullen. I tweaked, silently, but you'll see it. "Stunt" was in part based on what appeared to be, well, sources that were rather promotional, or not neutral. Thanks, and I am properly chided, Drmies (talk) 02:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One interesting thing about this article is that it opens the possibility for a whole new spate of articles about places where there are no Jews, but where there is a Chabad house. History of Jews of Cayman Islands, History of Jews of Cancun, History of Jews of Barranquilla, History of Jews of Kinshasa. You get the idea. --Ravpapa (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ravpapa, no need to mock, if enough Jews flock around Chabad in any country or location and it thereby gains enough notability then it meets WP requirements regardless whether you do or don't like Chabad. If tens of thousands of Mormons from Utah descended on Nepal it would be notable, and I am sure you would not mock another religious group like this. However, this is about a country not just about Chabad and about a country that has relations with Israel. See the scope of all the countries covered in Category:Jewish history by country that includes small countries as well as large ones, obscure and well-known ones. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note of serious concern: While it is perfectly okay to have vigorous debates in AfDs and ask opposing editors to defend their positions, it is most certainly not appropriate to lace comments with mocking, derogatory and pejorative comments and snide remarks about Jews, the Chabad movement, Passover, what makes Jews notable, that articles about Jews in countries or places are "not valid" because Jews are small in number and "marginal" and a host of other unsavory cracks and sarcasm that begins to reek of anti-Jewish comments (even if those comments come from Jews if directed at other Jews it is a no-no) that then makes it difficult to respond to since no one wants to start a discussion about antisemitism that always becomes a rancorous and self-defeating undertaking. So please those editors who wish to !Vote to delete this article, it is your right, feel free to make your arguments, but you have no right to veer into a mockery of Jews, Jewish Passover rituals, the Chabad people, or other editors who disagree with your own POVs as part of your arguments. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also surprised by the tone of this discussion. In all my years at Wikipedia, notability as proven by reliable sources has always been the gold standard for articles. This article is based on solid sources and only needs to be expanded, not demolished. (I have put it on my watchlist and will add more sources when I have time next week.) It is totally uncalled-for, for one editor to begin adding more sources during a deletion discussion and for another editor to revert it because IDONTLIKEIT. It is also unconstructive and totally unencyclopedic for an editor to dismiss the largest Passover Seder in the world (that's in The Atlantic, for those of you who aren't clicking on my links) as "a couple of people celebrating passover". Let's look at the verifiability of the article with our eyes, not our hearts. Yoninah (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The events, even from the 1980's, constitute "history". You can call it "history in the making", or "recent history", but I believe it is certainly "history". A counterargument might characterize the article as being about Israeli tourism or something like that. But is its focus really that narrow? A Passover Seder is specifically Jewish. (A Passover Seder is not specifically Israeli.) The celebration is not of Israeli nationhood. Why aren't the participants celebrating the point at which Israel became a state? Clearly the matzoh and the other elements of the celebration, which are taking place in Nepal, are Jewish in origin. Bus stop (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using "history" here is simply incorrect. And if someone brings me some matzoh and we celebrate, my house has not thereby acquired a Jewish history. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies wrong analogy, and stop with silly red herrings since you are most definitely not a "country" and no one would come to your house with matza or anything else because you are just an unknown editor on WP with a "user" name, so cut out the stupid jokes please and stick to making good arguments. You can do better, I know! You obviously have never heard of modern history and you obviously do not understand that if a country has Jews living in it for decades, many Jews and some rabbis visiting it for a long time, and established diplomatic relations with the Jewish state of Israel, as well as other older historical connections, then that amounts to the basis of that country's Jewish history. One does not have to wait for major catastrophes, or have gazillions of Jews to be there, to "make history" on the level of "Nixon in Red China"! WP records all manner of history down to the smallest details certainly if as in this case there are minimally sufficient WP:V WP:RS. This is not the place for your POV WP:OR (if it can even be called that, since you insist on making dumb jokes in lieu or proper arguments) "deciding" on your own what does or does not constitute history or Jewish history. Seemingly only if the likes of a Napoloen rides through or rides roughshod over a country then that makes "history" for you but if thousands of Jews and Israelis converge on a country and celebrate one of its holiest holidays that is "not" history. Yaa, IZAK (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that I have added some information and sources to the article. Perhaps this will change the minds of some of the participants in this discussion. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Once again, Ubikwit removed content.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Would the closing admin please base their assessment on this improved version of History of the Jews in Nepal and not on the whittled down version by Ubikwit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the Buddha was a Jew from the Ten lost tribes, or so it has been speculated, according to your source. Right?

Please do not add any more fringe material related to the Ten lost tribes. I suggest you check that Wikipedia article if you have no knowledge on the topic.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 16:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored information from reliable sources that was removed by previous editors. If it is removed again, I will take this to Arbcom. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ArbCom would be impressed that you restored content that was already restored, so now it is duplicated, while rather blindly ignoring this deletion by Ubikwit.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomwsulcer: See WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 20:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomwsulcer is absolutely right, and I am absolutely wrong. The material was not removed, it was only moved and paraphrased. My apologies for being short fused. However, the paraphrased sentences appear in the section on diplomatic relations with Israel, and they have nothing to do with diplomatic relations with Israel. The place for this information is in the lead - well, actually, no, the place is where the entire article should be, in the delete bin. --Ravpapa (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Ubikwit's deletion, he is quite right that it is a fringe theory. But, more than that, it has nothing to do with Jews in Nepal. The cited article discusses the people of "Kashmir, west of Nepal". Kashmir is indeed west of Nepal - about 1,000 kilometers west of Nepal. It is completely irrelevant to this article. --Ravpapa (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.24wmf10/skins/common/images/button_bold.png

User:IZAK added the category "Jewish Neaplese History" to the article.

Then User:Tomwsulcer added this to the Jewish diaspora article, and also re-added fringe material.

Can we get an admin to evaluate this thread soon?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 12:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Content therein is reliably sourced and notable. Not opposed to a rename to something that would better reflect the content of the article.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedent set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland. The sources used in this article are all either parochial (Chabad work in Nepal does not establish a claim that there is a history that has been seriously studied), or admitted to be non-existent (an article that basically says, "there is no history" is not a encyclopedic inclusion). jps (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Almost nothing here is really historical, and I see no solid historical sources. However, it's a good discussion of Judaism in Nepal (despite deletion-worthy irrelevancies like the tourist with the starving child), and the tiny historical section works much better as a backdrop/historical background bit for an article about current conditions. Something like Judaism in Nepal would work much better for this article, and if we get a pile of historical information, it can always be split out later. Nyttend (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Move/Rename - Has notable content even if there are no native Jews in Nepal. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Break, and maybe some new thinking[edit]

The article, after additions by Tomwsulcer, is actually beginning to look like something that could be viable. However, it is less and less an article about the history of Jews in Nepal (though it never was such from the beginning). It could be merged into Israel-Nepal Relations. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To what material are your referring, specifically? Birnbaum is fringe, it does not belong in any article on history, and probably not even in the article on the Ten lost tribes, as there are scholarly sources that treat the topic in depth.

A merge sounds like a reasonable idea, but I don't see how the fringe material on the Ten lost tribes could be included.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 13:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are being unfair to Birnbaum. He is a serious writer. His reference to the lost tribes theory is a reference, by no means an endorsement (as it is presented here). I personally don't see inclusion of this stuff, as long as it is clear that this is a myth, not a serious scientific theory. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have emailed a prominent Jewish history scholar, Isaiah Gafni, who has responded that he will try to help this discussion. In addition, Ubikwit again reverted my contribution, arguing "fringe", when the source -- Birnbaum -- has already been accepted without challenge by contributors on both sides of this debate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source has never been accepted or even discussed at the article Talk page, so the assertion that it has been "accepted without challenge" is patently false.

Meanwhile, I referred you to the Wikipedia article on the Ten lost tribes, but you seem not to have read it, and instead have inserted quasi-religious fringe material from a source in Hebrew published by a rabbi. Is that correct?

Your reinsertion of assertions regarding speculation that Nepalese are descended from the Ten lost tribes is fringe. Period, full stop. It is speculation based on a pseudohistorical account that has been thoroughly refuted by the preeminent scholars in the field.

I'm going to request that you self-revert the addition.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 13:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thread opened here Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Fringe_related_to_Ten_lost_tribes.2C_Jewish_origins_of_Nepalese.2C_etc..--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 13:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about this source? This was not added by myself but by a user arguing for deletion, namely Ravpapa. After this source was added to the article, along with points it made, the addition was not challenged by yourself or anybody else. The claims it makes are reasonable: that the permanent Jewish community in Nepal is very small; there is a sizeable annual tourist population (20,000 Jews/year); that historically Jewish influence affected the region, by descendants of ancient Jews living there and so forth. This is not fringe material. When there is information which is speculation, it is clearly identified as speculation. When I used this source, which was already there, added by another contributor, an accepted source, to try to improve the article, you reverted it because I added it, that's all; when Ravpapa added it, you didn't revert; when I added it, you do. Is your purpose here to improve the encyclopedia or simply to edit war?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That source is not reliable for the "speculative" statement about Nepalese being the descendants of Jewish concubines, particularly in an article purporting to be on history. Is that not readily apparent? I haven't examined why Ravpapa introduced the source, but the statement you have added in another attempt to establish some "ancient history" connection is fringe and I dare say likely to be found offensive by some Nepalese, ad that the statement about the origin of the word Brahmin would be highly offensive to people of the Hindu religion. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not with the reliability of the source, but with what the source says. Birnbaum never presents this hairbrained theory as a real possibility, but as a myth based on Jewish tradition. He never suggests that there is any truth in it. And I must admit, it is an interesting myth, worthy of mentioning as such. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)... See History_of_Hinduism.

Although I've already referred to WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED, a couple of other content points that demonstrate a lack of competence on the part of User:Tomwsulcer appear to be in order. Not only is the etymological pseudoscience statement from the fringe source potentially offensive to followers of Hinduism, it demonstrates a lack of linguistics knowledge on the part of the author of the book, let alone the editor that one insert the text. See Indo-European languages.

I'd like to remind Tomwsulcer of WP:NPPA, and ask him to focus on edits, not editors.

Lastly, I've just taken the trouble to check User:Ravpapa's use of the source, which was for uncontroversial simple statements of fact, not introduction of fringe speculation into an article on history.

@Ravpapa: I don't know how Birnbaum describes the myth or what might make it interesting, but I've read enough about the pseudohistorical accounts related to descent from the Ten lost tribes and the like not to put any credence in anything related. At any rate, I think we both agree that while the myth might be mentionable somewhere on Wikipedia--in the proper context--it does not belong in this article.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 16:03 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Note of serious concern": IZAK I completely agree with your stated advice that it is certainly "not appropriate to lace comments with mocking, derogatory and pejorative comments..." I am however a little dismayed that four comments later you used the words "silly" and "stupid" within your own arguments. You had earlier eluded to the issue of equality commenting that "If tens of thousands of Mormons from Utah descended on Nepal it would be notable". I guess that in certain conditions that might be true. If tens of thousands of Mormon men, perhaps dressed in white shirts and dark suits and with name badges showing, were to take the role of visitor to Nepal and then start door-knocking on the local inhabitants or some such then yes people might take note. In this case though I haven't heard any evidence of a local population of Israeli (Jewish) tourists reaching anything near the tens of thousands. Equality, though, is an issue that should clearly gain everyone's support. Everyone should be given equal recognition. Everyone, whether black or gypsy, Jew or Mormon or anything else. There is no difference here. We all bleed the same colour blood. OK. so just suppose that in this case it wasn't a Jewish situation that we were talking about here. Just suppose that it was a team of Christians or people from another religion that went over to Kathmandu and Pokhara. They have a leader. He is of an undisclosed qualification level. He is smartly dressed and yet the only stated thing that is of note about him is that he has gone to Nepal and that he has been awarded an in-house religious title. The group of people arrange occasionally large religious gatherings and these gatherings work within their own religious community. In this case I would not think that such a religious leader should be given their own Wikipedia page. I don't think that the name of the religious organisation should be repeated six times in an article that purporting to be about history. I do however think that it would be a gross misrepresentation to place that information under the heading "Cultural and religious ties". The only ties mentioned in the article seemed to me to be between the Israeli and or Jewish people and an apparently non Israeli facet of the Israeli and Jewish religion. People should be treated equally. I personally think that many representatives of Chabad can be good decent people but this is pretty much what you might expect from many religions. Noone should get special treatment. Gregkaye (talk) 19:19, 29 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) 01:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Casey (academic)[edit]

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

I created this article in 2009 when I was still fairly new to WP. In retrospect I am not convinced Professor Casey passes WP:PROF. I welcome opionions... Flaming Ferrari (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since the article creation he has been given a named chair at Dartmouth. That's enough for WP:PROF#C5 and for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Keep per David Eppstein. Reliable sources available to put in place to show notability . Fails notability. He's done nothing besides get an education and get a secure job for life. WP:PROF#C5 is meant to be used as one aspect, not the sole criteria. If he were known for writing a best-selling book, or winning a famous academic prize, that would be a reason to keep because he's distinguished himself in his field. But he's not. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an incorrect reading of WP:PROF. Passing *any one criterion* of WP:PROF is passing the whole thing. But since you brought up the subject: his Google scholar profile shows multiple publications with over 100 citations each, enough to pass criterion #C1 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Still not notable. Everybody in academia publishes. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not everyone's publications get much impact. That is why criterion #C1 is about the citations to the publications, not about how many publications there are. In this case, Google scholar is listing 2352 sources that are in some way about Casey's work (other academic papers that cite his), most of which will be reliably published and by people independent of Casey. Only a small fraction of them are likely to cover his work in significant detail, but a small fraction of 2352 can still be a nontrivial number of in-depth reliable sources. If you believe that WP:PROF #C1 and/or #C5 are the wrong criteria by which to measure academics, argue it on the talk page of that guideline, but in this case #C5 especially is very clear-cut and I think #C1 is almost as clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Question: I would like to understand the basis for the criterion set by David Eppstein, "multiple publications with over 100 citations each" (four in Casey's case). Is that policy, and if so set where? Just asking as there is a fair bit of ambiguity across AfD cases on this.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, especially given that there is nothing in the article that lets the casual reader know this person is distinguished for anything other than his education and job position. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict; SW3 5DL, when you see such a conflict, please don't remove the conflicting comments] It's a judgement call. Different fields have different citation patterns. There is no mechanical rule. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein, Sorry, I didn't see your comment there when I restored the comments you'd deleted, so it wasn't intentional. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- WP:PROF#C5 and C1. Michael Casey is one of the biggest stars of the world of computational musical analysis; he is extremely well known to anyone working on digital audio research, computer-based compositions, etc. SW3's notion that he hasn't distinguished himself in his field is laughable. Almost no one in music research is at the level of Casey; that's why he has an endowed chair at Dartmouth. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Michael Scott Cuthbert, this is a forum for discussing article deletion. Editors on this forum are asked to weigh whether or not an article should remain on WP. That means editors community wide. In looking at the article in the state it was in, which at the time was nothing more than his name and educational background, I felt there was nothing to warrant an article. If you'd bothered to actually read what I wrote in my delete comment, you'd see that I said if he'd distinguished himself in his academic field that would be a reason to keep. I do not have the esoteric knowledge you claim to have, nor apparently does the article, and I don't see anyone here who supports keeping the article, improving it to show that. The only laughable comment is yours. If you can't participate here without resorting to childish personal attacks to make your point, then perhaps you should find another project. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you prefer not to go by subject-specific knowledge (a reasonable preference) then you should go by the documented evidence of the respect given to the subject by his peers. In this case, the named chair is such evidence. Such things are given (especially at Ivy League schools) only to highly distinguished academics. He has been noted, by people who (MSCuthbert excepted) understand his accomplishments better than we do; therefore he is notable. That's why C5 is listed as one of the criteria in WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, thank you for your informative comment. I do happen to know what being given an academic chair means, especially what it means at Dartmouth as I graduated from there a while back. I can fully understand why the article was nominated for deletion. This is an encyclopedia. The reader shouldn't be required to have a priori knowledge of academic accolades to understand Michael Casey's BLP. WP isn't an online 'Who's Who in Academia' website. It is not unreasonable to ask that this fellow have some general notability beyond where he went to school and where he teaches now. The article in question doesn't convey anything that leads the reader to believe this person is anything more than a fellow who got a good education. His academic stardom is not stated in the article. His Google scholar profile means nothing to the average reader. Should that be included in article? "Michael Casey has a high Google scholar profile," (add citation). It will still not convey who this person is and what makes him stand out that he should have a WP article. I should think this is precisely why the article has been nominated for deletion. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it would be much of an improvement to state "he has a high Google scholar profile" or "is one of the biggest stars of the world of computational musical analysis" in the article. What would be more helpful would be to state the general areas of his research and what his most important accomplishments in those areas have been. But doing that right probably requires an editor with similar expertise. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're absolutely right, adding those bits wouldn't be an improvement, but adding what he does would be. That simply requires WP:RS, and so far there doesn't appear to be any of that. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the problem is that we have too many reliable sources (as I stated above, some 2352 of them) so we need an editor who is knowledgeable enough to sift through them and pick out the important parts. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, it will take that. I meant RS 'in the article,' at this time to show what he does, etc. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I see — I agree with that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As holder of a named chair he should be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A holder of a named chair is notable by WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 22 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. Signficant evidence presented suggesting WP:PROF#C1 is met. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Mills (academic)[edit]

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

I created this article in 2009 when I was still fairly new to WP. In retrospect I am not convinced Professor Mills passes WP:PROF. I welcome opionions... Flaming Ferrari (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:50, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep. Full professor at Berkeley is suggestive, and he has three publications with over 100 citations each on Google scholar in what may be a somewhat low-citation field ("Voracity, cannibalism and coccinellid predation", "Is the biological control of insects a natural phenomenon?", and "Modelling the biological control of insect pests: a review of host-parasitoid models"). But the evidence isn't very strong. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Based on Google Scholar results, seems to have an h-index of over 20 (note there's also a materials scientist called NJ Mills, who seems more highly cited in what's probably a field with more citations). Would help if someone can confirm this with an authoritative source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I get a GS h-index of 29 which is a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep (I think), but I would be happier if the article listed some of his publications, rather than the academic awards given him. The UK-related stub tag is inappropriate for an academic who has apparently been teaching in an Amnerican University, since he got his doctorate (or even since he graduated). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 22 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 16:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actionmint[edit]

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

Notability of this SaaS product is not established by citations to scondary reliable sources with no connection to article's subject. Searching on the web does not reveal other sources that could contribute to the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not seem to pass GNG/PRODUCT. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG/Product. Article reads like an advert. WP is not a free publicity site. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. The current refs are a developer's site, a blog, and crunchbase, none of which are significant RS coverage, and a search turned up no significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 09:45, 22 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 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currency in Dumas' Musketeer novels[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced original research with no citations in five years. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought this should have been deleted 5 years ago, like I said in the first AfD, and I see no reason to change my opinion. Currency is not an essential, crucial element of these novels, they are not a Dumas invention or an in-universe only thing, so I see no reason why it should have a separate article (we don't seem to have any comparable articles either, Currency in Harry Potter is a redirect). Fram (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced article about historic French currency and no reason why the currency in Dumas's novels is worth its own article.TheLongTone (talk) 09:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically an essay. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication as to why the currency used in the novels is a distinct and notable concept in its own right. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this were handed in as an essay, I'd give it an A-. However, sadly, as an article, we must delete it. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 23 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 16:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Petralia[edit]

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

Autobiography of someone who was in a tv show. No sign of the significant coverage required by WP:BIO. A web search turns up multiple people by this name; the only things I could find for this particular Joe Petralia are an IMDB bio (user-generated content, doesn't meet WP:RS) and this. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The one reference provided so far in the article merely identifies him, as is the case for the other articles that mention him in connection with the show. There's little substantive coverage, whether or not in connection with the TV program. I found one source for consideration, on a YouTube interview series. Especially if the series is renewed (I have no idea whether that's even envisioned), I can imagine coverage growing but right now there isn't enough. There's also the promotional aspect to it, as it's an autobiography and the user's name abbreviates the name of his business. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should be deleted per WP:BLPPROD as it is a biography of living person without reliable sources. The only source is some blog. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:52, 24 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. and SALT j⚛e decker ^talk 16:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nickki Praize[edit]

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

contains generally self-published sources and fails WP:GNG Stanleytux (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent source found and non-notable. Sources like 1 , 2 doesn't pass WP:GNG plus Wikipedia:Notability (music) in general because of no coverage of the songs produced by this young artist. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 07:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 07:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt, this article (possibly under slightly different titles) has been created and CsD deleted at least four times.TheLongTone (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails notability. Versace1608 (Talk) 14:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per LongTone. Fails WP:NMUSIC. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Written as promotion. Concerned about the activities of the article creator: Coal Press Nation. Cowlibob (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails GNG. No sign of notability whatsoever!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all the titles (if anyone can remember the others...). And links - I've just taken out a single entry 'disambiguation' to this. Very determined to get on here, but no evidence of notability. Peridon (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and sounds promotional. Only source is a blog that appears to belong to the editor who created the article. Cmr08 (talk) 22:13, 22 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 16:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cybernatural[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable Phenomena, no good coverage in the primary and secondary sources like in the news here and there about the subject. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 07:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only sources the article cites that actually use this term are cybernatural.org and a forum. Fails GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Something made up one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at this moment.--Staberinde (talk) 17:59, 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 Speedy Keep. Ekabhishek^talk 02:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Kumar Binny[edit]

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

Politician seems to be a relatively minor local politician from India. Fails WP:NPOL. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this politician meets WP:NPOL as an elected member of the sub-national Legislative Assembly of Delhi. --Flaming Ferrari (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN as a member of a sub-national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Necrothesp. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MLAs meet WP:POLITICIAN. Cowlibob (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:POLITICIAN, member of a sub-national legislature. --Soman (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above, Probably should be closed per SNOWKEEP. –Davey2010 • (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 16:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Lebanon[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a beauty pageant. There are few sources to establish that it even exists, and none that I could find to establish that the pageant is notable. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mabalu (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - HOWEVER, as an offshoot of Miss Earth, there is probably an argument for a procedural keep. The Miss Earth pageant is notable and there is precedent for articles on the participating countries. However, the link in Template:MissEarthCountries goes to Miss Lebanon rather than to this page. I see NO mention of Miss Earth, or of Roula Saad, in the Miss Lebanon article, other than an inclusion of the Miss Earth template. Delete vote still stands, but if this is indeed the deciding round for the Miss Earth pageant, rather than Miss Lebanon, then it is probably a valid subject for an article per the precedent set by the template/pageant to have an article for every country's deciding pageant. Mabalu (talk) 09:17, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:39, 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 08:58, 11 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are we going to relist this debate over and over again to perpetuity? Mabalu (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently there are no reliable sources available that establish that this is a notable topic. The only purpose this article would seem to have is purely promotional. Fails WP:GNG.- Mr X 12:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrX - Again no evidence of notability & Seems to fail GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MrX. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:16, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noomap[edit]

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

No reliable sources found on Google search, scholar, or Google News. Article apparently created by inventor or close affiliate: "Larky" (C. Larcombe?) is also the name of the creator of Noomap.com. Subject of article (Noomap) appears to be a work in progress, as evidenced by numerous donation pleas on-line (including the official website) --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. No reliable sources. Not mentioned in any third party review or article. Looks like the article was created to generate publicity. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent coverage by reliable sources with which to establish notability. "Holonic map" occurs in journal articles since at least 2003, predating the "concept of the holonic map" invented by Noomap's founder in 2011; these seem to be entirely distinct ideas. Looks like an interesting project, but it doesn't seem to have attracted mainstream notice at this point. Agyle (talk) 04:45, 21 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 16:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Christianson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the Subject does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. PROD was contested procedurally by me since the article had previously been deleted by PROD. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As PROD endorser, per the same criteria. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated it for both the speedy and the PROD. Clearly fails any form of notability. It should have never been recreated after the last PROD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my learn'd colleagues above. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Should not have been recreated after PROD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements. Fenix down (talk) 09:44, 24 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) 01:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tillicum Elementary School[edit]

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

~~This is a disambiguation page (albeit not conforming to MOS:DAB etc) that has no valid entries. DexDor (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)~~ AFD withdrawn by nominator following the conversion of the page to a valid dab page. DexDor (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Changed to keep'Delete none of the entries have articles or meet MOS:DABMENTION. References are also not allowed on disambiguation pages. Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MOS:DABMENTION. I must have wandered into the Twilight Zone or Bizarro World for Boleyn taking my normal position and vice versa. All three schools are mentioned, in Clover Park School District, School District 61 Greater Victoria and the template at the bottom of Vancouver School Board, respectively. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entries (as are) don't meet MOS:DABMENTION, but well done for finding those better links and I'll add them to article. Change vote to keep. User:DexDor, after looking at the improved version and MOS:DABMENTION, would you consider withdrawing your nomination? Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a respectable dab page now: thanks, Boleyn, for fixing it. (I'd seen it while on my mobile and found the necessary links but it was too much to do on a tiny screen so I left it, then forgot to come back and fix it!) PamD 14:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well done, Clarityfiend and Boleyn. Always like to keep a school article. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:16, 21 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Rhyner[edit]

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

No WP:RS coverage outside the Dallas area, just what you would expect from a local radio personality. Not notable. John from Idegon (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have added some sources to the article. Antrocent (♫♬) 00:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for adding more references. However, a passing mention in book not about him or even his field of work is not anywhere near enough coverage outside the immediate area of DFW to show notability. Local radio personalities are not notable unless you can show some disperse coverage of them. John from Idegon (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment Today I have removed all the puffery and unreferenced junk. Seriously, who cares what team he liked when he was a kid? The station's advertising slogan has no place here. Etc, etc, etc. There is virtually nothing left. John from Idegon (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reintroduced the content and beefed it up. I hope it now meets your standards. I feel like these details are relevant given that his public image is his sports personality Antrocent (♫♬) 21:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional passing mentions in books do nothing to vet his notability. A book about him would. A book with even a whole chapter about him would. I would like to see page numbers in the recently added references. That would show just how little the books cover him. The facts being referenced do not indicate the sources show any notability for the guy. John from Idegon (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott (2009) has a two whole chapters about him: Rhyner's Dream (pages 7-17) and "Mike Rhyner The Old Gray Wolf" (pages 193-201). Antrocent (♫♬) 19:01, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the publishers own website: "BenBella publishes a range of nonfiction (and the very occasional fiction title) in a wide variety of categories and particularly likes quality nonfiction aimed at a niche market. - See more at: http://www.benbellabooks.com/about/#sthash.HuQwYNuD.dpuf. In other words, this is not a book aimed at the masses...it is as I have said all along, just another example of local publicity for a local radio personality. If he truly had notability, so you think it would be such a struggle to find something worthy written on him? Do you think if he were truly notable you would have to stoop to such stellar copy as "He is divorced.[11] They had children.[2]"? John from Idegon (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are moving the goal posts. I cited Scott (2009) there to meet your challenge of "A book with even a whole chapter about him would [show notability]". And, I do not think that criticizing my writing (yes, I admit I am a bad writer) is relevant to the question of notability. Antrocent (♫♬) 23:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable to me, with ample inline citations.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 21:51, 17 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, Antrocent (♫♬) 03:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The ESPN thing and other coverage he has gotten, equals notability. Dream Focus 05:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG. Still active and still gets coverage. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blok Tempe[edit]

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

Evidence of encyclopedic notability seems lacking. There are a lot of buildings once known as a hangout for gangs and criminal elements that have been redeemed. I can't read the two cited sources but I think that we need a stronger claim than that presented in the article. A Google is pretty much useless given my language limitations, but if serious in depth coverage of this building from multiple reliable sources can be shown, I would be willing to reconsider the nomination. For now though, I am not seeing GNG and or GEOFEAT here. Evidence to the contrary is welcomed... Ad Orientem (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the same article at the Indonesian Wikipedia it appears to be an area (residential area rather than single residence) with a particular historical significance in association with crime. There are additional sources cited on that wiki that may help, though I'm only going by the Google Translated version so hardly feel qualified to use them. Regardless, it appears to satisfy notability requirements. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of an article on another Wiki is not evidence of notability since standards between the various Wikis can vary, often dramatically. I remain open to the possibility of notability if actual sources can be found that satisfy GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but nobody argued the existence of an article on another wiki is evidence of notability. The significance is (a) it provides clarification that the subject of the article is a named city neighborhood/area with cultural/historical significance -- usually notable topics (i.e. typically receive coverage in reliable sources), and (b) the other article provides several sources. I can't get a good idea of what sources exist because I don't speak the language, but the sources cited in addition to the clarification of what the subject of the article is make me confident that it satisfies notability guidelines (which require the existence of sources, in any language). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 02:57, 13 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) 03:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and definitelt based on the same article at the Indonesian Wikipedia it seems to have an historical significance.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:25, 21 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 02:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rousseau Metal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After deletion at the first AfD, a revised draft was presented at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 January#7 January 2014, where the view was that return to the mainspace could be permitted, but notability was marginal at best and it would probably not survive AfD. Suggestions for improvement were made. The author has made further revisions and asked my advice (Spartaz, the DRV closer, being inactive). As envisaged by the DRV, I have restored it to the mainspace, but considering notability still to be marginal I bring it here for the community's view. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Company. I searched the usual business sources but didn't find any articles about them. I found they are a supplier to Boeing (listed on a Boeing awards site), so apparently they are well enough known to get contracts with major companies. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:06, 22 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 School District 52 Prince Rupert. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Elementary School[edit]

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

NN elementary school. We don't generally retain stand-alone articles for such schools, absent unusual non-local RS coverage not present here. Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to WP:NSCHOOL, all schools must satisfy the guidelines listed on that page and/or the general notability guideline. Conrad Elementary School has not been substantially discussed by reliable sources independent of the school, its district, or those affiliated with it and thus would not be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. MJ94 (talk) 03:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District 52 Prince Rupert. Non-notable primary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 52 Prince Rupert per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to School District 52 Prince Rupert per precedent documented at SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 22 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, under the snowball principle. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yank Barry[edit]

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

I have been working on this article for a while after someone posted a request at BLP/N which I patrol, and today after reading it again in its current state I am not convinced about the compliance with the notability guidelines. The subject is not a notable musician, neither is a notable businessman (besides his imbroglio with the law), nor is he a notable philanthropist. If we put it all together, the subject may just squeak in as a notable individual to warrant an article, but I am not sure of it, so I am submitting this article to the AFD process for editor’s input and feedback. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the SNOW feedback. I see I got this wrong, and we have to keep the article. Vigilance is needed to ensure the article is representative of this person and not a puff piece. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close as a waste of time. The first three sources in the article show the subject meets WP:GNG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There is real press coverage here. Notability is not an issue. Reference 6, 9, and 12 also prove this.Christopher Lotito (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. This nomination does not meet any of the five specific criteria for a speedy keep, but quite obviously is not going to end as anything but keep and should not need to run the full week. VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snow keep. This person has been the primary subject of lengthy articles in lots of reliable sources. Just look at the article. There's Time, The Globe and Mail, Montreal Gazette, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, ARTnews, National Post, and The Victoria Advocate via the Associated Press. He's been interviewed on the air by Larry King and nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize by U.S Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. He created a charity (and claimed to be its sole funder) that is visibly promoted by Muhammad Ali, Evander Holyfield, and Manny Pacquiao. He has done time in prison for an extortion confidence scam, gone bankrupt, been convicted and then found not guilty of bribery, turned up with mysterious new statues by Edgar Degas, come up with a meat substitute served in Texas prisons and commented on by George W. Bush, claimed to have a product that can cleanse people of the effects of radiation exposure, and managed to perform as one of The Kingsmen with its management's blessing and later with some of the original band members. He can do a great rendition of "Louie Louie". What more do you want? —BarrelProof (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we would have to delete a lot of other entries if this one failed the notability test.G2003 (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything that has happened with this article in recent weeks has been a big stinking pile of "mess". If Wikipedia was printed on paper with ink, forests would have been clear cut to make the paper, and supertankers full of ink would be docking at ports near Wikimedia Headquarters in San Francisco to print the endless debates. Lucky for us and the health of the planet that only electrons are being wasted. We don't deal with blowhard controversies by deleting articles. No way. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that he is not a notable musician, though somehow he has been able to associate himself with a notable group and song, to the point where CNN gets it wrong. He would seem to have actively sought out self-promotion venues in order to boost his public profile, such as with the Gusi Peace Prize, and other self-nominated or -sponsored awards, including "The Global Leadership Awards 2011" discussed at Talk. Nonetheless, his activities (recent charity work in Bulgaria) and notoriety (e.g., extortion conviction/bankruptcy) are sufficiently covered to meet notability, so User:G2003 is right. On the other hand, vigilance is needed there in light of what has thus far come to light on the Talk page in relation to self-promotion, etc., and the improper use of primary sources, like the Global Village website, Canadian Museum of Music, etc., for information that otherwise fails WP:V. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 06:48, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Roach Brothers[edit]

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

Two of the three brothers were recently deleted after AfD on notability grounds. The only notable member of the family is Freddie and he already has a good article. The Fighting Roach Brothers article essentially duplicates the notable information and the family group itself is not notable. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. There's a lack of coverage of this term--fails GNG as a standalone topic. 109.201.154.178 (talk) 19:56, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like an attempt to circumvent the AfD results at the individual discussions. I found a lack of significant coverage on this particular subject (the brothers as a unit). Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the article was created long before the individual AfD discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right--I didn't check the article's history. However, that doesn't change my opinion on this article. Papaursa (talk) 05:09, 23 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 06:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunar (Soni)[edit]

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

I've no idea what this article is intended to be. We have an article for Sunar and a disambig for Soni and this seems to be attempting to conflate things as some other disambig. It serves no useful purpose and should be deleted as some sort of duplicate of those other two articles. Sitush (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be correct information and also is not a widely discussed topic. Ascii0054 (talk) 08:55, 18 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 02:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is completely unsourced, I can't see the notability here. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 06:03, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malika Haqq[edit]

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

No significant coverage, famous for being the friend of Kardashian. Not notable. Fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources seem to be mostly trivial mentions in the context of the Kardashians.- Mr X 22:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Being on the supporting cast of reality tv shows doesn't make you notable. Cowlibob (talk) 21:40, 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 delete. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 02:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central 822[edit]

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

Non-notable radio series. Tagged for notability since 2008. PaintedCarpet (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 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 17:23, 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 21:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable based on lack of available sources, probably due to the fact that there were only a total of five hours of programming. - Mr X 22:13, 11 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 02:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metroland Media Group[edit]

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

WP:NCORP, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SELFSOURCE — Articles primary editors are IPs, Flyerland (talk · contribs), Metroland Digital (talk · contribs), Jfuthey7 (talk · contribs), & Fionahaller (talk · contribs) — Per April 2013 tophat, this appears to be nothing more than a corporate self-promotion advertisement. — Who R you? Talk 00:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Canadian publisher of community newspapers. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User: Eastmain and the improvements to the article.--Pink Bull 19:13, 18 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 02:42, 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 Keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTI Health Summit[edit]

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

The article has had an unmet request for improved citations since May 2010. Current citations are mostly dead links, with no real evidence of notability. Few citations are still live (live citations are Eric Rofes blog, LGBT Health UK, LGBT Tobacco) and these sources lack notability or a common connection, simply being loosely related to LGBT health in two different countries. While an article on one or more of those sources might potentially be appropriate, it's my view that this article is not the correct vehicle for that. Trankuility (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the requirements for 'notability' are, but these events brought hundreds of LGBTI health activists together for influential discussions over the years. It may be true that some of the links are dead, but that is a reflection of the impermanent nature of internet presence of a diffuse, unfunded group of activists without a central organization, not the influence of that movement. Agreed that this article is not about LGBT Health or LGBT Tobacco, those are incidental links. The article is about the meetings themselves, which is what had an enduring impact on many health activists who attended them. Bill.jesdale (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bill.jesdale I think that removing the incidental UK and Tobacco links is desirable, based on your comment. However, that leaves unaddressed the very significant core issue: that the "enduring impact" you suggest must be verifiable through independent, reliable sources. This article appears to have never had such references. It's not clear that it should be in Wikipedia; it's still my view that it shouldn't be here. Trankuility (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bill.jesdale, the core requirement for "notability" on Wikipedia is evidence that the topic has been covered in reliable sources. That is, its notability would be demonstrated by referencing it to media coverage (magazines, newspapers, TV/radio, etc.) or books which talk about the event and the enduring impact and influence that you claim it has. This article, however, is sourced almost entirely to primary sources (the main websites of organizations and programs that were involved in it) that don't confer notability, because they aren't independent of the subject. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, notability is significant (long) coverage in reliable sources (big papers like New York Times are best, and on down to where sometimes blogs can be counted as reliable, but usually not) that are independent of the subject (so even ABC News coverage of an ABC program would not be independent). Manifestos and such can be cited by NGOs themselves, as they prove better than anyone that the text of the manifesto is accurate, but the rest of the article needs Reliable Sources RS. Anarchangel (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm seeing some nice source coverage at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:49, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage, fails WP:GNG, but consider merging/redirecting to List of LGBT-related organizations and conferences. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of LGBT medical organizations, where it is already mentioned. There is not enough independent sourcing to establish this conference as notable. The search links supplied by Cirt confirm that the conference exists, but no more than that. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 18 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 02:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assertion that the sources are not independent is mistaken, as shown by three testimonials on a blog and Vesper Graphics...? How could anyone even think that was a related organization? It is not until the third of the sources in the Google search that there is a participant in the summit. Anarchangel (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anarchangel, personally I thought your first comment, about reliable sources was more on the mark; of the sources you've just given, one is a blog and the other is a graphic design/software developer site. Neither tell us much about the event(s) other than tangential personal experiences or technical requirements. Neither confirms the WP:Notability of the event for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. As a side note, there have been no updates to the article itself that improve the referencing. Trankuility (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other voters did no more than assert that all the sources were primary, and I simply refuted that. I just chose the first two sources listed in Google and made no attempt to find the best sources available; there were too many. Furthermore, I do not agree with you about the indepth nature of even those random sources. Journalists are known for reporting their own experience; it is pretty much a job description. And technical requirements? What is inappropriate about that, anyway? Anarchangel (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the problem with the technical page is that it requires original research to extrapolate the notability of the event. Bearcat, MelanieN and me have all questioned the lack of independent verifiable sources - this is not simply an assertation about primary sources, but about the quality of third party sources. Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"requires original research to extrapolate the notability of the event" : Please explain. Anarchangel (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not possible to explain the notability of the event directly based on the technical reference. Trankuility (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of a source that I don't believe has been included in the discussions above, "Epstein, Steven. "Sexualizing Governance and Medicalizing Identities: The Emergence ofState-Centered'LGBT Health Politics in the United States." Sexualities 6.2 (2003): 131-171.", which was also adapted for the same authors piece in "The Health of Sexual Minorities", the PDF of the latter (and I suspect the coverage is identical, I"m not claiming these are truly "multiple sources") puts a number of sentences paragraphs into the summit, and it's history, enough to qualify as one half of WP:GNG, and I believe sources provided above make or more than make the rest of the hurdle. --j⚛e decker ^talk 02:35, 27 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. The discussion here is split between deletion and merging, and ultimately there's no consensus after two relistings. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karthik Naralasetty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously AfDed. Does not meet WP:BIO; the referenced award does not have any apparent notability itself. ToBk (talk) 04:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 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 01:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find a couple of sources: this from The Hindu in 2010 (which appears to have been considered in the previous AfD) and this PC Mag report in 2011, but neither these nor his place as one of several winners of an award provides evidence of encyclopaedic notability; the previous AfD decision should stand. AllyD (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the basic information to socialblood, as so far he's just another small-time internet entrepreneur, and get rid of the rest. And then we can have a separate debate about socialblood... RomanSpa (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to socialblood for now as per User: RomanSpa.--Pink Bull 19:22, 18 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 02:40, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge/redirect discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grantville Gazette II[edit]

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

No outside third-party source, in line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grantville Gazette VIII and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grantville Gazette IV from years ago. Suggest not userifying as the last ones stayed around and are now up at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkech/Grantville Gazette IV as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 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 02:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Grantville Gazettes and merge the reviews only. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 11 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 02:34, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). A merge/redirect discussion can continue on an article talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grantville Gazette III[edit]

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

No outside third-party source, in line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grantville Gazette VIII and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grantville Gazette IV from years ago. Suggest not userifying as the last ones stayed around and are now up at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tkech/Grantville Gazette IV as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Grantville Gazettes and merge the review only. Then shorten the awful section title "Reception of printed volumes that do not have their own page yet" to just "Reception". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:34, 11 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 02:33, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mygdonia A.C. (Badminton)[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced article about a badminton club. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 19:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 19:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In http://www.badminton.gr/ the club can be found a couple of times, and in http://badmintonmygdonias.webnode.gr/ something is written about the club. Probably helpful for finding some more data there. --Florentyna (talk) 17:06, 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 02:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a major rework with adding sources, titles and other successes: KEEP. Florentyna (talk) 04:54, 14 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 02:31, 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 Keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquin de la Vega[edit]

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

Poorly written, unsourced article about a non-notable place. United States Man (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like a real town to me. I've just reduced it to a stub and removed the bad translation from the Spanish WP article.--Oakshade (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Oakshade: If you can find and add sources I would consider withdrawing. United States Man (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verified settlements, cities, towns, etc., are generally considered inherently notable as it's impossible for them to exist without sources (see WP:OUTCOMES). This being an isolated village in a Spanish speaking nation in what many people would consider a "developing" region makes finding online sources for English speakers difficult. Whether on paper and/or in Spanish, they certainly exist.--Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: Well, I really don't see how we can keep an article with no sources, regardless of notability. United States Man (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:AFD states, barring serious BLP issues, if sources exist but are simply not in the article, that's not a proper basis for deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons outlined in the generally-accepted (not current) version of WP:NPLACE. Ansh666 11:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article has been moved to San Joaquín de la Vega; current title redirects there. Ansh666 11:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did that. This article could very possibly be saved; but, as a starter, it should be saved from the monopoly of Manolito, at least until 18:09 hours local time, to give them some time to develop their English. (I cannot write more openly, because I would not like to breach any policy or guideline. :-) --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't follow. Ansh666 17:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the article to the correct name of the place, that is all. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:28, 17 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 02:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a permanently populated town, so it should be presumed to be notable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such thing as "inherent notability", I assume you mean "presumed notable". Ansh666 10:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its a legitimate concept. I'm essentially arguing that towns with permanent populations automatically meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - [22] Ansh666 01:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine, I give. I've edited my comment, although this doesn't change my belief that towns with permanent populations are deserving of articles. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:34, 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 00:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Parker Band[edit]

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

Lack of notability and reliable sources Seeyoubyenow (talk) 11:34, 3 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 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 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 02:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:13, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umar's marriage to Umm Kulthum[edit]

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

The entire article is a combination of four web sources which fail WP:IRS big time and a whole lot of WP:OR. The four sources are al-shia, ahlelbayt and answering-ansar (polemical Shi'ite sites) and Lies of Answering Ansar (polemical Sunni site). All four of them lack any sort of professional oversight and are just pages put up by activists bent on their sectarianism till the cows come home.
The OR is worse, though. Clearly, an editor or editors has/have done a whole lot of research here, but it isn't research into secondary academic sources; all of it is original, primary source material for hadith and siyar research. If a scholar or professor wanted to know what different Muslim scholars thought, they would look into ancient, voluminous books such as Majma al-Fawaid, Tabaqat al Kubra and Tarikh Qom. If this isn't original research, then original research does not exist - it's the clearest example I've seen on Wikipedia in years. If I read Siyar A'lam al Nubala for example, then I get Dhahabi's opinion, but if I use that to cite a claim (as this article does) about what Muslims believe then I am now performing my own, original research. That isn't how Wikipedia works, and the editor(s) would be better off submitting this to a web magazine or some other non-encyclopedia willing to publish their research. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I know nothing of the subject matter, but am concerned at the scale of quotations from primary sources and the lack of citations of scholarly discussions. I wonder whether some of this might be merged into the bio-article of one or both spouses. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Peterkingiron, thanks for responding. Are you suggesting that merging is a possibility, or is most likely preferable to deletion? (Not trying to drag things out, just want to make sure there is a definite resolution - a lot of Islam-related AfDs have gone without any participation at all lately.) MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was hinting at a merger. HOwever, I know so little of the subject that I do not feel able to vote. Whether a marriage between two people of whom I had never heard happened and whether it was significant are not known to me. The allegation certainly appears to alter acceppted views (from what I read in the article). If so the subject should be covered in WP, but that does not necessarily require a separate article. It may be far more appropriate to add a short section to each relevant bio-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:05, 14 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 02:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MezzoMezzo. It's OR, not neutral, and of questionable notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:39, 23 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 06:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kasim Keto[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Only two references are to reliable sources (AllMusic entry for album with no review or charting) and HipHopDX which is completely trivial in their coverage of him. All other sources are low-level blogs. The subject clearly has yet to become notable. STATic message me! 06:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the main content is a WP:Close paraphrase of this site--S Philbrick (Talk) 21:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. I think I've fixed the copy-paste problem. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:40, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Budder[edit]

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

Not a notable product. Lacks substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. The only source I can find for this product is the (reliable?) source already cited in the article. SummerPhD (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not have enough reliable sources to establish notability. The product manufacturer has no article, thus removing the possibility of a merge or a redirect. ~ Anastasia (talk) 20:42, 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 08:23, 11 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 02:22, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DE-CIX New York[edit]

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

Copied and pasted to mainspace from a pending AfC submission, this article is sourced to two press releases and the organization itself, I don't see sources which meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and as a result, I don't believe this topic meets our notability criteria. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a paragraph and two additional sources regarding the peering problem in the US and the European Internet exchange model in comparison to the North American model. Please check.User talk:Frankfurt1995 11:20, 4 June 2014 (CEST)

I think the Capacity magazine addition was good (thank you!), the GigaOm article only mentions the topic in relationship to the fellow providing quotes. Which is certainly some connection, but not enough to serve as the primary reliable source from which the article should be written. It's not for me to decide, but I'm afraid I still think this is, so far, a little below our usual notability bar. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:51, 11 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 08:24, 11 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 02:21, 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 Jessie Malakouti. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Show Me Your Tan Lines[edit]

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

Article does not seem to meet the notability guidelines for music, is written as if it was a fansite, and has no sources either. IPadPerson (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jessie Malakouti. Plausible search term, but I'm unable to find coverage to establish sufficient notability for a standalone article (WP:GNG/WP:MUSIC). Gongshow talk 05:48, 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 08:24, 11 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 02:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Gongshow.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:33, 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 keep. More participation here would have been ideal. In a comment, the nominator stated, "If someone is able to translate and reference these sources then it would quite possibly be a suitable article", and a source was added to the article after the deletion nomination. Due to limited participation, this is a rather weak keep result. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial Universitaria[edit]

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

Article has been prodded twice already and has had no work done on either occssion to show its notability. Wider consideration needed as to how long it can be left without suitable evidence to show its noteable status. Unfortunatley as I am unable to translate the webpages that may provide this it may need to fall to someone who can to do so. Amortias (T)(C) 18:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Universitaria is a publishing house of long tradition in Chile. A single search in the Digital collections of the National Library of Chile shows over 1800 results for Editorial Universitaria, these contain books and newspaper articles on the university press. The article would definively do better with sources, but it also definitely should not be deleted. Diego Grez (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with the above statement. If someone is able to translate and reference these sources then it would quite possibly be a suitable article. I am unsure how long we want to leave it without this referencing but the sooner a start is made on referencing it the better. Amortias (T)(C) 19:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editorial Universitaria is one of the most important publishing house in Chile. Plenty of seminar works has been published by it. What the article needs is a no reference or ref-improve template. Note that is mentioned in Memoria Chilena here and here. Sietecolores (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (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 08:27, 11 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 02:20, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

House of Hardcore events[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Longwayround (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:SPLIT from House of Hardcore. Are you claiming the parent article subject isn't notable? If that's the case, you should have included it in this AFD as well. postdlf (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent references. RomanSpa (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That was my concern. The little I could find seemed to be self-published but I will freely own up to knowing nothing about wrestling since the days of Big Daddy. Longwayround (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this but Keep House of Hardcore article, as I was able to dig up plenty of sources for that one. We could probably source these events but I don't think House of Hardcore is notable enough to detail every show like this.LM2000 (talk) 02:53, 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 08:30, 11 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 02:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with LM2000. HOH isn't too notable to create an article with every show the promotion made.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge While it's not notable on it's own, It's parent is notable. They should have the oppurtunity to merge this material and properly source it with the parent article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not, however WP:INHERITED and I see scant evidence that each of these events is indeed notable. Longwayround (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it's not notable to have an article all to itself. But then that's why I suggested it be merged. Notability guidelines do not apply to content within the article.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:10, 26 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). Respondents are split between article retention and merging. More participation would have been ideal here, but ultimately there's no consensus to delete the article, to retain it, to merge it, nor consensus for a merge or redirect target. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure)NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reignfire[edit]

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

Unreferenced fictional character for which I am unable to find signficant out-of-universe coverage. I don't object to a redirect, but if we use one, I'd like to see a discussion of the appropriate target-, there are a couple options, and at least one seems to me to also have issues. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: R. BOZ (talk) 19:44, 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 08:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Sunspot. --Crazy runner (talk) 06:55, 13 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 02:19, 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 delete. Close as delete, will userfy. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kowakian monkey-lizard[edit]

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

Non-notable lizard species from Star Wars, probably extended universe. No external coverage in reliable sources. 123chess456 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Star_Wars_creatures#K. Sufficiently covered there. --EEMIV (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - An in-universe fictional character; not the subject of multiple instances of substantial independently published coverage, thus failing GNG. Carrite (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page. I am a student learning how to use Mediawiki so I can do some work in the future. This page is just a project for me to learn. I do not mind if it's deleted later on, when I'm done, but I just need it for a little while to show to my teacher. Thanks. Funnydan97 (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC) funnydan97[reply]

Comment - Striking deletion recommendation, please userfy to Funnydan97 per the above. Carrite (talk) 05:15, 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 08:51, 11 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 02:16, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noureddin, Son of Iran[edit]

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

Does not satisfy any of the criteria of WP:NBOOK. Web sources appear to be limited to a handful of passing references that do not constitute significant coverage. Neither are the author or the publisher encyclopaedically noteworthy. Super Mario Man ( talk ) 20:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Book and author notable in Iran. Won a Jalal Al-e Ahmad Literary Award, "Iran's most lucrative literary award", competed with 4000 entries (in all categories).[23][24] -- GreenC 14:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And a movie was adapted from the book per NBOOK. -- GreenC 12:56, 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 08:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Echoing sourced notability in Iran of author and book. Movie adaptation adds weight. Fylbecatulous talk 12:28, 15 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 02:11, 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 Userfy. Moved to user namespace at User:MKlein1228/Romeo is Bleeding (2015 film) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romeo is Bleeding (documentary)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, citations and sources purely cover funding, not about actual film project BOVINEBOY2008 19:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. It's WP:TOOSOON for an entry, but the prizes do give off the hope that coverage may come when the documentary releases- although of course we can't guarantee that it'll gain the coverage per WP:CRYSTAL, hence the userfy vote. Since we have at least half a year to a year before this happens, it's just a little premature to have this in the mainspace. AfC might not be a bad idea for this, but I'm willing to userfy this myself or at least watch over the userspace entry for the movie if it gets transferred back to the original editor's userspace. I don't really want this to get deleted if it sits in AfC long enough for it to get nominated as an abandoned entry, given that we've got a fairly long time to wait for coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked to see if there was enough to justify an article for the director, but I think it's a little early for him as well. He's known for Twenty Feet From Stardom and was part of a group that won an ACE Award for the movie. One of his local papers said he won an Oscar, but he wasn't part of the group as far as the official names on the ballot go. Most of the coverage for him is local and in passing, so I think it's slightly premature for him to have an entry- I do remain optimistic that he could merit one in the future, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: I am leaning toward a weak keep per as the project has received coverage making it a consideration under WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Points toward meeting that paragraph are A ) it receiving coverage, B ) it being only one of three to receive a San Francisco Film Society's 2014 Documentary Film Fund Award,[25] C ) filming being complete, and D ) it now in post-production . See WP:FFCLARIFY. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:51, 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 08:53, 11 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 02:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy This doesn't appear to be particularly notable in the present, but could easily become notable in the future. I'd prefer to keep this article in userspace so it won't have to be rewritten in the probable event it becomes notable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:48, 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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GLPI[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage in reliable sources, promotional tone and WP:MILL concerns. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A Google search of "GLPI" yelds more than 900.000 results, which is far more than the number of results we get for a "OCS Inventory" search, which is currently around 178,000. It is also available in many languages (45), which would be hard to reach if it was not notable enough. I do agree, however, that the article lacks several refs, but that can be improved. (I've already started making some changes.) Ekkt0r (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I actually see about 636,000 results when I use the link above, but the numbers drop if you remove the project's site from the results. Ultimately, that's immaterial. Please show "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). What I see is allusions to such but when I searched before nominating, I couldn't find any. I could have missed some good ones though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Good point. I should have excluded the site itself. However, we know that Google tunes the results depending on the country and/or location from which one does the searches. For instance, when I search "GLPI -site:glpi-project.org -site:wikipedia.org" I still get over 800,000 results. BTW, I've just found that GLPI is even distributed by Ubuntu on their "universe" repository (see archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/pool/universe/g/glpi/). At least one very famous university uses it. I guess the reason why there are not many third-party pages about GLPI is that most webadmins know that most people think the primary sources are OK for them, so that writing about GLPI would not bring many hits. I personaly don't use GLPI but I think it is popular enough to have an article on WP. If it was a commercial software then I wouldn't be supporting a "keep". But it is free and open source software. Besides, the "comparison of help desk issue tracking software" article points to this one, so I think WP is better with the GLPI article than without it. Don't you agree? Ekkt0r (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google hits don't help with notability. Usage by famous university and inclusion in Ubuntu repos also does not. You need to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Right now you have shown several primary sources (eg. FOSDEM talk) and HowTos (blog post and books), which don't really contribute to the notability of this software. You have also shown Linux Magazine article, which provides required coverage. You need to add at least one source that would actually review the software to make the article barely pass WP:GNG. And even then WP:MILL concerns would remain. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Or even list the sources here and they can be added to the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:54, 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 08:56, 11 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 02:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The project is developed primarily in French and is covered more widely in French than in English. The article's French version does list more independent sources in French than its English version lists in English. By virtue of the French-language sources, the project itself would appear to pass notability criteria. If it's notable in French, and if the official documentation and web site are both in French and in English, it seems fair to keep the English-language article.Thornrag (talk) 14:43, 23 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 04:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of Montserrat, London[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. this does not even have embassy or consulate status. And it is only an office within the building pictured not the whole building. Also nominating:

Representative of Saint Helena, London

LibStar (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a poor stub, but colonial governments have a representative in the mother country. They are now "overseas territories", not colonies, but their mission in the UK should notable. Since they are not independent, they will have no other diplomatic missions, as theri foreign affairs are dealt with by the UK Foreign Office. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this still fails WP:GNG. Diplomatic missions are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 7 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]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 07:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuniyuki Takahashi[edit]

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

does not meet notability for music Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First, I think the article on Koss should be added to this AfD since it is the same person (these should have been merged long ago). Second, it was not easy searching for articles on this fellow in Japanese because the kanji for his name were not initially clear. There are actually two musicians named Kuniyuki Takahashi active in Sapporo. But I don't think this article is referring to this fellow, who has a Japanese Wikipedia article: ja:高橋邦幸. It seems that it is referring to this guy. Even in Japanese, he uses the romaji "Kuniyuki" or occasionally "高橋クニユキ". Assuming it's the right person, there are some other articles on him: [26]. [27], [28]. Oricon has I think two entries on him, but shows charting in neither case: [29], [30]. Unless others can find more RS, this does not seem to pass WP:NMUSIC. Michitaro (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have replaced the Koss article with a redirect to Kuniyuki Takahashi, since the Koss article was much shorter. Bensci54 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. It's obvious this is the electronic music artist/DJ as per the official Discogs links underneath. He is well known to followers of the deep house and electronic/future jazz scenes, and has played not just across Japan, but also internationally, regularly. He's also got a pretty extensive release catalogue (as can be seen on Discogs) with releases and remixes on a great many Japanese, European, and US labels, and also was one of the main DJ's at the Sapporo club called Precious Hall, which many of the big NYC, London, et al. DJ's (AFAIR, NYC DJ François Kevorkian commented about how good it was, for example) considered to have the best sound-system in world. I don't think deletion is appropriate, as he is a notable act within his scene, though obviously not outside of the underground music scene – and we do not single out smaller artists with decent back catalogues for deletion under WP:NMUSIC guidelines. I can agree with merging the Koss article into this one though, given it's simply one of his pseudonyms that makes sense, but completely eradicating his article is a definite no. Jimthing (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved the Koss into this one, and done some quick mass edits to make the article more appealing. Though more could be done to flesh-out the page, I think it can now be left, and this AfD closed for the time being accordingly, after seven days are up. Jimthing (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article appears to be entirely sourced from the user-compiled Discogs site, and given the total absence of any reliable third-party sources or in-depth coverage, the basic notability criteria don't appear to be satisfied. --DAJF (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's very incorrect. To start with I added the artist's full discography from Discogs, where the info is verified across a number of users to maintain very high degree of accuracy, hence it's use on WP. Other sources are on the net so just need adding accordingly, but as said before, the article is stubbed so needs EXPANDING and not deleting – given the long discography, they are notable enough under WP guidelines. Just because you don't know their work does not mean many others do, hence are valid for inclusion here. Jimthing (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This guy is pretty well known in electronic music circles, but it's not easy to find any real evidence of him meeting WP:MUSICBIO. For starters, even though Mule Musiq is a reasonably big label, it's still a redlink here, which kind of points to it NOT being considered as "one of the more important indie labels." The best I could find for independent coverage in reliable sources was a review and a news article at Resident Advisor. Sadly, I don't think that's enough, but I'd love to be proven wrong. — sparklism ^hey! 15:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Premiere feature [31], RA & XLR8R reviews [32][33][34], Canadian mag textura [35], MTV Hive [36]. Various news stories like [37]. Lots on the label too, e.g. [38] & reviews in RS of their samplers & comps, often with Kuniyuki/KOSS mentions.78.19.84.172 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above comment. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - given the sources presented above, there's enough independent coverage in my view to support an article/meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 09:27, 24 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. Deor (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Salz[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. "Citations" are to the subject's own bio page (obviously WP:PRIMARY) at the company he works for that provides training in XML, the entire(!) mod.sources and comp.sources.unix newsgroups and to a mysterious downloads page. Googling, I found a few patents (but patents are also primary documents and do not contribute to notability, sorry), but nothing on the web that wasn't primary and nothing at all in either books or scholar. ~~Additionally, though not a reason to delete, the article appears to be promotional and to have the subject's involvement.~~ Msnicki (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. On reflection, I've decided that several of you have made compelling arguments for notability, which is all we consider at AfD, based on WP:CREATIVE, that "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work", namely INN. I'm also going to strike my criticism of the content, though the sourcing is still just awful. Since one editor did offer weak support, I don't believe I'm allowed to close this myself, per WP:WDAFD, but perhaps someone else will kindly do it. Thank you all. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar gives 227 hits, most of which are for the person discussed here. 317 hits for books - same comment. The existing topic is a stub, and given the sources available is factual (some specific comment supporting the "promotional" might be in order here - likewise the "involvement" part doesn't appear to necessarily be factual - only if you are relying on additional information not so far presented). TEDickey (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All the Google hits appear to be basically one-sentence mentions of his news server. Re: scholar, I shouldn't have said there was nothing. What I should have said is that I didn't find anything helpful. I didn't find anything that would appear to satisfy creative professionals. His top-cited paper only got 344 cites, which isn't a lot. An important scholarly paper gets over 1000 cites at least. Msnicki (talk)

I don't find your response constructive. TEDickey (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've provided several citations where "citation needed" occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.111.100.227 (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several of the Google hits ^[1] refer to scholarly papers presented by Rich Salz at conferences. There are also a couple of books on Amazon ^[2] that refer to his authorship of INN (over multiple editions). Its true that most of his papers don't have a lot of scholarly citations, his largest contributions were to Usenet and you can tell by his 25,000+ posts and references on usenet ^[3], that he was very active indeed there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwexler2 (talk contribs) 19:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=rich+salz+-dental+-drosophila&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
^ http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=rich+salz+inn&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Arich+salz+inn
^ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/rich$20salz

None of this is helpful in establishing notability. Setting aside that we don't cite searches, we cite individual sources, your first link is to a Google scholar search that turns up a few minor papers mention Rich Salz. But it's obvious by inspection that these aren't articles about Salz, they're articles about software topics (open source and news servers) that merely mention his name. The link to an Amazon search is even less helpful: We simply don't cite Amazon. Moreover, it's same two books over and over in different editions with the same one-sentence mention. The USENET search is also unhelpful, both because anything Salz posted is WP:PRIMARY and because posts by others to USENET are not a reliable source: It's all self-published and there's absolutely no editorial control. Msnicki (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. WP:Prof not well passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC);[reply]

Keep He is one if the initiators of the OpenSource movement and was active and well known already when very few people have heard about Stallman. He is also an important contributor from the early days of the Usenet. Schily (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any sources that discuss him in detail as required by WP:GNG? I don't think so. Msnicki (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who knows the Usenet since the early 1980s would confirm that Rich Salz is a very notable person and there should be plenty of material in the usenet archives. BTW: a few years ago, I was doing some research on his Usenet posts from that time and IIRC, I discovered posts that use the term OpenSource movement before the name Free Software movement appeared. It may be worth to search for this again. Schily (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but WP:FAME isn't a guidelines-based reason to keep. What the guidelines ask is not that a topic seem notable, but others have actually taken note and that they've done in reliable, independent, secondary sources. The guidelines also ask that these sources must address the subject in detail. Those sources don't exist. A lot is known and lot has been written about INN and other projects the subject has written or worked on, but not much about him personally that isn't WP:PRIMARY.

Further, notability is not inherited. It's just not that unusual for a creative professional's work to far more notable than the individual. A lot more has been written about the Golden Gate bridge than whoever (A, B and C, in case you're curious) designed it. Personally, I think that's as it should be, that your work should be better known than you are. Consider the alternative.

I agree the subject is well-known in the community in connection with some notable projects. And I wouldn't be surprised if we hear from a few more people making this argument, given this tweet. Mr. Salz also figured out (not hard) who I am in RL to ask via LinkedIn why the animus. Honestly, there is none. There's nothing personal. But LinkedIn is the place for your resume, not here, unless we can find enough coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to write the article.

Here's I what I suggest. Merge is always an option at AfD. At a minimum, sources clearly support ensuring that his authorship is identified in articles about things he's worked on or contributed to. If a target article (the obvious would be InterNetNews) could be agreed, perhaps some of this content could be merged there. But as it is, I don't believe sources exist to support a separate article. If the outcome is delete, perhaps someone might volunteer to WP:USERFY it while attempts are made to find better sources. Msnicki (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been badly written and sourced but I think his role in the history of Usenet is significant enough. I added two book sources that discuss it. Xxanthippe's point about WP:PROF is completely irrelevant: he's not an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is a creative professional, though, and these can be assessed by how many refer to their work. WP:Prof does not cover academics only. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep (agree; arguments are unconvincing) TEDickey (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added a reference where Salz was quoted in Computerworld recently, and one from a History of the Internet on INN. Lentower (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More secondary sources keep being found. Arguments for deletion unconvincing. Those for keeping are convincing. Article needs more work, but that isn't a reason to delete it. Lentower (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the Computerworld article, that's not actually a secondary source on Salz even though the publication itself is certainly independent (no connection to Salz), reliable and has reputation for editorial control.

To qualify as a WP:SECONDARY source, it must provide "an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The Computerworld article was reporting the news of the recent OpenSSL bug and an announcement by the CTO at Akami in company blog that Akamai would be reissuing all SSL certificates and keys. About halfway down, they report that Salz, who works at Akamai, has made two blogs posts with some additional technical information about what Akamai was doing.

Computerworld is simply reporting the news and identities of their sources. If they'd reported here's what Salz said, but here's what we think, editorial style, no question, that would have been secondary. But there's none of that analysis here. More to the point, it's not helpful for establishing notability because we require sources offering significant coverage, not just lots of trivial mentions. From WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail" and the Computerworld article doesn't do that. Msnicki (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Salz' work was a building block for how modern HTTP servers work today. (One reference added). The performance model he demonstrated has proven a valuable example.Pigdog234 (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source you added is a hypertext version of the USENET News How-to, but awkwardly via FTP. The same thing is available as a single page here. The subject's name is mentioned twice as the author of INN, 3 times as the author of a paper on INN, once for having had "issues" with C News, stated in his paper, and once because it's his email address. That is all it ever reveals about the subject. Never mind that this isn't a reliable source (one with editorial control), it doesn't address the subject himself in detail.

Last quarter, I overheard a couple students in our EE lab grousing that they'd been asked on a test who invented the transistor. (There are EEs who don't know those names? Or am I just old?) My point is that the world does seem to care more about how engineers change the world than to know or write much about us personally. It's reflected in the sources in this case as in many others: Lots of sources establishing the notability of INN and consistently acknowledging his authorship, but none offering any additional information about him, personally.

If the only article we can write about the subject based solely on reliable independent secondary sources is, "Rich Salz is the author of INN and has contributed to HTTP, SOAP, WSDL and several other protocol stacks", before having to turn to WP:PRIMARY sources and WP:OR to say anything more, then we just don't have enough here to justify the separate article. From WP:WHYN, "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Msnicki (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're complaining about a lack of secondary sources and notoriety from a time when the value of these contributions wasn't yet recognized. What purpose is this sort of strict deletionist attitude intended to serve? The guy's impact on our ability to communicate on the Internet was massive. He reduced dissemination time of community articles from minutes and hours to seconds. In that sense he made USENET a serious precursor to facebook. Did anyone write about that? Not in academic journals and newspapers, and also because facebook didn't exist. And yet we stand on the shoulders of those before us, and not on their backs.Pigdog234 (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind. On reflection, I've decided you and others have made a good argument for notability based on WP:CREATIVE. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find msniki's analysis troubling. What is your point? The history of science and tech isn't of broad interest, and so people in that history aren't notable? If so, may I direct your attention to articles on the various christian heresies of the fourth century? Or the various subcategories of mollusks? "Reader interest" is not "Notability".

Comment. You seem to have a powerful personal belief that it is better that creators be less visible than creations (e.g., your comments above about Kim Kardashian). But others are quite interested in the people and history behind things in their world. Your moral belief about the role of the creator vs. the created is not a principle of Wikipedia. It may motivate you to remove a spotlight on creators -- this seems to be a recurring theme of your AfD's -- but others are interested in documenting the history of technology and science. Being notable for the notable things you've done is still being notable. The person *thought* to have designed the largest pyramid has his own page because it's notable that he is *thought* to have done something notable. (And, to be fair, because of his statue, and Rich Salz has no statue afaik.) That page says less about him than Salz's article says about Salz. It seems strange to argue that Salz did notable things, wrote notable things, but that these are facts about a human being is not notable.Kcrca (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal and I wish you wouldn't make it so. Other kinds of arguments work better with me. See above. Msnicki (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that it was personal to you, your arguments seem personal in nature (what you heard, Kardashian vs. real creators). That was a primary point of my response, that as I read your arguments they were about a personal viewpoint that you were reflecting by AfD, rather than a neutral application of basic principles. I don't think you have a personal vendetta about Salz, if that's what you mean. (If by "personal", you mean that you feel your character or morality attacked, I would truly apologize since that is far from my thoughts.)Kcrca (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's personal when you talk about me rather my arguments. It's just not helpful, especially when I'm trying to concede the debate anyway. Have a little grace. (I was already composing my withdrawal before you posted and had an edit conflict with you, so your comments weren't a part of my decision.) Msnicki (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can have had no idea that you were conceding while I was writing. But I'd like to say I wasn't talking about you personally, but about how your arguments seemed to be about your personal judgements instead of WP principles. I might even agree with your principles, but they shouldn't drive the argument. I can see how saying this might be heard as "You have bad personal judgements", which would be about you personally, but it was about how the form of the argument -- which seemed unduly based on personal preferences about the world -- reflected upon the value of the proposal. If I wasn't clear (or am not clear here) about the distinction, I'm sorry.Kcrca (talk) 20:59, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean (board game)[edit]

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

Delete for lack of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Other than being indexed at at BoardGameGeek it seems to have no coverage in independent reliable sources. The game won no awards. On 16 May 2014 I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games#Caribbean (board game) my intention to put this article up for deletion and asked Is there any reason Caribbean (board game) should not be deleted? There was no response. --Bejnar (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep In general, if you find a link at BBG, it's worth checking to see if they link to reviews. I'm seeing about 20 reviews. None are in English and I can't easily judge how many of these are SPS and how many aren't, but looking at them quickly, a number look to be reliable. See BGG Caribbean links]. [39], [40] and many more. Hobit (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't count 20, I count a max of 7, all niche market, and the first one you cite isn't a review, its a blurb followed by forum comments. [BoardGameGeek]] lists it with Board Game Rank: 1736 and Family Game Rank: 513. Are you saying that there are 1,736 board games that are notable? The second review that you cite is a review that says no new groundbreaking game ideas. What is the game's claim to notability? --Bejnar (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You've raised a number of points, let me hit them one at a time:

I think you may have missed the fact there are 3 pages of links, not just one.
As far as the link goes--you are correct, I grabbed the wrong one somehow. There are however quite a few others [41] and [42] for example.
The ranking of the game at BBG has exactly zero to do with notability on Wikipedia. Candyland is ranked at around 5000 for example. And not because kids games don't get good reviews, but because it's a horrible (if well-known) game. But it's clearly notable. And yes, there are probably 1000s of notable boardgames. And tens of thousands of not notable ones. It's a $1 billion dollar market (or so) in the US. It has been huge in Europe (mostly Germany) for decades and the US has been catching up.
The claim to notability is coverage--meeting WP:N. The same as everything else here. On Wikipedia, notability is a Term of art which means coverage existed, not that the topic is innovative in some way. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what I hear @Hobit: saying is that there is no reason for this game to be in the Wikipedia, but that it does meet the notability requirements for inclusion. Is that a fair statement? Since notability is a term of art, you are not going to claim that meeting the coverage requirements is a reason, are you? --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a bit too meta of a question for an AfD. I mean, what reason would you say justifies any Wikipedia article? I generally go with "a well sourable (and ideally sourced) article that people might find useful". I think this is well above that bar. I'd personally prefer we cover everything we can source and make readable by the average person. And while your opinion or mine isn't hugely relevant (Wikipedia has reasonably clear inclusion guidelines that we are all supposed to follow), I am curious what bar you think is appropriate and how articles you edit pass that bar but this does not. Hobit (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context. quoting WP:NOT If an article has no reason there is no context. I have provided examples of reasons on Hobit's talk page as Hobit requested. --Bejnar (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Hobit, with instructions to add the reviews and references. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree with Bejnar's comments above. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - First of all, it's worth noting the game is called Karibik, Caribic, or Caribbean, and is published by multiple game publishers, depending on country. I looked through the first couple pages of gsearches for each and found a whole lot of reviews and such (of varying quality). The first good one I found was this longer piece on the game with interviews/photos of the designers. Others are below (in several languages). Some aren't great, but I'm seeing enough here just based on a few minutes of searching to justify keeping it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Spielmonster.de, gute-spiele-info.de, fairspielt.de, goblins.net, spellenclub13.be, gamepack.nl, anderspel.nl, spieleteufel.de, hall9000.de, michas-spielmitmir.de, pevans.co.uk, superfred.de, spieletest.at, spielfritte.de, thegamesjournal.com, rpg.net. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 01:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Everyone seems to agree that the topic satisfies WP:GNG, and that the article is no unsalvagable mess, so why are we still here? ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 00:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is still here because no one has articulated a reason it should be in the Wikipedia. What does it add? The question is not whether it meets WP:GNG, the question is what claim does it have to notability. --Bejnar (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand what you mean. WP:GNG is our sole inclusion criterion for topics here (barring perhaps some exceptional WP:BLP situations, I guess). An article topic doesn't have to meet any other criteria to be included. Since it's now been established that this article meets WP:GNG, this AfD should be closed and we can discuss any further issues with the article on its proper talk page. ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 12:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: So you're looking for subjective claims to notability? Otherwise, the GNG is the "general notability guideline," our consensus-driven quasi-objective measure of importance (i.e. notability) that you said this fails in your nomination. Was that inaccurate or is it now clear that it passes but so what? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline threshold has been met, now provide a reason, any reasonable reason why this article belongs in an encyclopedia, otherwise it breaches the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically 2.10 Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Policy trumps guidelines. Also, in this case, Wikipedia is not a directory of board games. How does having this article contribute? --Bejnar (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated an article for deletion on the basis of failing GNG. Now you're saying passing the GNG doesn't matter and do seem to want someone to provide some subjective reasons. So ok: it's a popular game, it's original, lots of people play it, it's translated into multiple languages and published by several significant board game publishers, and so on and so forth. But all of that has already been established by way of satisfying GNG. The notability criteria exist as an extension of the policies, derived by consensus over time such that something that passes GNG is specifically not "indiscriminate." The very act of determining notable from not notable is an act of discrimination, after all. So, no, your own interpretation of policy does not "trump" guidelines. Are there occasional exceptions? Of course! Are there sometimes topics that are notable but should be part of another article rather than forked? Yes! But this is not one of those, and you're not providing any arguments of the sort. You're just saying "ok now that you've shown it passes GNG, now show me more." --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was incorrect about WP:GNG, because the several reviews I looked at were not substantive, and no claim to notability was made in the article. There still is no such claim in the article. --Bejnar (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:GNG per sources found by Hobit. BOZ (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it does not meet policy, see above. As is says at WP:ATA#It.27s_valuable, you need to say why the article has value; this way other editors can judge its value in a certain context, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. --Bejnar (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at stake is the article's notability, and that's what gives it value. There is absolutely no requirement where one has to state why the article has value beyond that - what you linked to is an essay that simply states that if you wish to keep an article based on its value, you need to specify why it's valuable. In this case, the subject has value because it is notable. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then what you are missing is significant coverage, since none of the reviews mention anything significant about this game. So far no one has found anything significant about this game. --Bejnar (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting directly from WP:N to define the "significant coverage" part of the GNG: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Nowhere there does it say "includes assertions of importance to such a degree that Bejnar's standards are sufficiently satisfied." If there's consensus it passes the GNG, by definition that means the subject is significant enough to have a presence on Wikipedia. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "Bejnar's standards" it is Wikipedia policy. WP:INDISCRIMINATE Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. No significance, no context, no article. --Bejnar (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - enough coverage is sources to prove notability, both under alternative names and in foreign-language sources. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:10, 23 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) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 18:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Saint Lucia, London[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. This article merely confirms its existence with a bit of unverified trivia. There is also no bilateral article to merge to. ~~Also nominating;~~

~~High Commission of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, London~~

LibStar (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The building is the work of distinguished architects Ernest George and Harold Peto and so there is more to be done here per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew (talk) 07:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, if that's the case it would be good to have a source so we can "proclaim" it notable. LibStar, if that is indeed the case it might be worth splitting these joint nominations so that they can be dealt with separately. Stalwart111 11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

now separated. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good start. I'm inclined to think this one should be kept and the other deleted. The focus here, clearly, should be the building itself. Stalwart111 08:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We have lists of diplomatic missions by country. Unfortuantely, those for this country are under-develoiped in WP. Since St Lucia is part of the Commonwealth, it has a High Commission to the UK goverment, rahter than an embassy to the head of state. This is a bad stub, but it ought to exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you haven't given any reason how WP:ORG is met. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 20 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 09:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disco orchestration[edit]

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

a WP:OR effort to conflate orchestration with record production there are zero reliable sources on this "topic." At the very least this should be merged with disco, even then, sources will be required. Semitransgenic _talk. 07:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This could really be improved by the introduction of better references. From my point of view this seems to be a useful article. The comment above that the article is an attempt to conflate orchestration with record production is, I think, very wide off the mark. Certainly there are interactions between the two areas, but orchestration as a specific technique within disco and related dance musics strikes me as clearly notable. There are claims in the article that need careful discussion, particularly in relation to the Philly sound, but the whole problem of where the Philly sound fits into musical history has been argued about for four decades, and we're still nowhere near a definitive answer! I rather hope this stays, but as an article it needs some work. RomanSpa (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

but the entire article is original research, there are no references, that's the problem. I can find no reliable source that offers significant coverage of the topic entitled "disco orchestration". Without sources this article should not exist. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be something in Jeremy Beadle's work, of course (no, not that Jeremy Beadle, the other (important) one, who unaccountably doesn't have his own entry here!). The references to Ian Levine should be easy to find from Record Mirror archives and the relevant gay press. And of course there's the famous article in The Face where Levine sets out his musical philosophy - I've got a copy of that somewhere in storage, though can't find it right now. Incidentally, I'm almost certain that dating Evelyn Thomas' "My Head's in the Stars" to 1979 is wrong - I think it's closer to the middle of the decade than the end. Likewise, the Frank Farian stuff is just a matter of going through the German equivalents. And so on. My point is that pretty much everything that the article says is true, or easy to correct. If you need specific references to the concept of "disco orchestration" these should also be findable. I suspect the real problem is that the references are likely to be in printed rather than electronic form. I'm reluctant to express an opinion one way or another in this debate, because I can see your point, but I would regret losing this page. Has the page creator been informed of this debate? RomanSpa (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the creator has been notified.The biggest problem here is verifiability, even if the content is largely correct, without sources, it's useless as encyclopaedic content. The simplest solution is to redirect, take the prose over to disco and gut the rest. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that would be that we'd be adding a whole lot of unreferenced text to disco. If this discussion ends up as a "delete", perhaps the easiest thing would be to give the creator a copy of the whole page as a user subpage, and he can add references at leisure. If the creator doesn't indicate an interest in working further on this page and we end up at a "delete", I don't mind doing this myself, though it certainly won't be high up my priority list. RomanSpa (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

disco is already pretty poorly referenced, the content from here might survive there with a tag in place, but as an OR article unto itself I'm less comfortable. I agree that holding as a sub-page is an idea worth pursuing. Semitransgenic _talk. 09:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though this isn't just a problem for Wikipedia. The problem is that right from the beginning disco (and dance music generally) has been looked down on by some other musical genres; then there was the anti-disco backlash; and then there was AIDS. The first prevented disco from being written about seriously at the time, the second prevented it from being taken seriously in the years immediately after its zenith, and the last decimated the experts who knew most about it (e.g. the Jeremy Beadle mentioned earlier, and many of its composers and producers - Jacques Morali, Arthur Russell, etc.). The overall effect is that there are few references beyond magazines and specialist newspaper reviews. It's interesting how much our article on disco itself relies on books about dance music generally and magazine articles. There's scope for a good critical book on the subject. RomanSpa (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not just an issue with disco, popular music studies is a relatively new field (compared to musicology), so quality sources are few and far between for niche content such as that offered in this article, however, we can only draw upon published reliable sources, and if they don't exist, they don't exist, there are of course plenty of usable sources for disco so there is no excuse for the shortage of citations there, but as for "orchestration" techniques in disco production, we need someone who cares enough about this topic to dig for the references. Semitransgenic _talk. 11:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very fair point, though one thing that's very clear from here (England) is that the popular music press throughout the 70s was utterly dismissive of "pop" and "dance" music, and related genres. It's a problem that to some extent persists to this day. :-( RomanSpa (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, serious dance culture has always been introverted anyway, and more interested in dancing than writing about it. And we've always been a small circle of friends. But at least we learned to dance. RomanSpa (talk) 11:52, 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 09:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom, WP:OR, and not a single WP:RS, and WP:HOAX. Total BS. Certainly original BS, but still, BS. Any article on disco that doesn't mention these fellows must be. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't feel this article is a hoax, nor do I feel that it's generally "BS" or otherwise false. Broadly speaking, I think it contains quite a lot of useful and true stuff. The problem is simply that there aren't adequate references, and that without those references the article looks too much like original research. If this article is deleted, please feel free to move the contents to my "personal space" here on Wikipedia, and I'll see what I can do with it. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Closing Admin: This is definitely a WP:HOAX. A close reading will confirm how preposterous the claims being made are. The author claims there is such a thing as 'disco orchestration' created by various symphony orchestras around America. There is absolutely no RS anywhere to confirm such claims, but more importantly, there are no musical recordings by any of these orchestras that feature such tunes. There are no reviews of performances by these orchestras in the various arts and entertainment sections of the major newspapers as one would expect if their city's orchestra were involved in such an endeavor. Disco takes its name from the glass ball that hung over the dance floor and any orchestration came from the song writers like the Bee Gees and Donna Summer using the same 8 musical notes everybody else uses from R&B to heavy metal. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:09, 24 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 Elliott Smith. There is a clear consensus that a separate articles isn't warranted, but no consensus to remove the history of the page from public view. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Three[edit]

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

Unremarkable film, as evident by its being tagged for notability for 10 months. No references, fails WP:SIGCOV given that RSs that mention it do just that, but nothing more--i.e. they don't discuss it in very much detail. [43] [44] Jinkinson talk to me 12:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 12:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest deleting this article and leaving a note on Talk:Elliott Smith discography to merge the useful information into the Filmography section of that page. - Phorque (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect and partial merge of whatever is sourcable to the Elliott Smith article... as the short documentary IS sourcable and, even in lacking enough coverage to be an separate article, a redirect of a searchable title is reasonable and per policy. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:14, 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 09:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge as above; it doesn't seem to be independently notable as far as a Google search shows (a short doc like this is unlikely to get much in the way of reviews) and it's not won awards etc that might bring notability. But certainly sourced info should be included as part of coverage of Elliott Smith. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:19, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Durham[edit]

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

Unable to find the reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth, arm's length coverage of this producer and director which are necessary to show that the topic meets our general notability guideline. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of third party reliable sources. --Rob (talk) 03:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks any sources. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per past outcomes; producers rarely pass through AfD without being deleted. I don't see how this person is any different. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 23 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://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=rich+salz+-dental+-drosophila&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

[2] ttp://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=rich+salz+inn&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3Arich+salz+inn

[3] ttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/rich$20salz

[1]

[2]

[3]