Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 June	6 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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2014. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eggman[edit]

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

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

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

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

This individual doesn't appear to meet notability criteria independent of his congressional candidacy. I am nominating for deletion per my understanding of WP:POLITICIAN Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I originally nominated this article for deletion. I'd like to amend and clarify that by stating that I believe the article should instead be redirected to the U.S. congressional elections in California page. Champaign Supernova (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2014 per usual practice. Based on a search and on the references provided in the article, he does not seem to have notability aside from his current electoral campaign. If he should win or otherwise become notable in the future, the redirect can be re-expanded to a full article. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eggman falls under #2 of the guidelines for notable politicians, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." He is a major political figure in the CA Central Valley who has secured a spot in the General Election, raised a significant amount of money, has the endorsement and backing of the local, state and national Democratic party, been included on the DCCC's Red to Blue list of top competitive races and has the DCCC backing him with a $1.1 million early ad buy. He and his candidacy have been covered by every major paper in the Central Valley as well as national news organizations including CNN, The Washington Post, Roll Call and Politico. There are only a couple of dozen competitive races in the country that will determine the make up of the U.S. House of Representatives and Eggman is a part of one of those. He is, without question, "part of the enduring historical record." --Davidchasejr (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — Davidchasejr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Going off of what David said above, there may actually be enough notability here to keep, especially since the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee just has released a list of persons which he is included on. Outside of that, he appears in enough material to meet number two in the list. Granted, most of the press coverage is from last week's primary in which he won, but there is enough variation in the recent coverage to show notability in my opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Kevin, David Chase is Eggman's Finance Director. That doesn't necessarily make him wrong, though. --mike barkley, [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.111.204 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIf Michael Eggman is not famous enough yet, he soon will be. (I came in 3rd in that election). --mike barkley, [email protected] 10 June 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.111.204 (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC) — 67.181.111.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Based on the comments from David and Kevin, I vote to keep this page. According to ballotpedia the district is likely to be a battleground district in the 2014 elections and Eggman just won the primary. He has a good amount of press coverage already and his notability will only increase. 92.40.54.141 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC) — 95.40.54.141 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia does not keep articles about unelected candidates just because they might win the election. We do not deal in the realm of election predictions — either they've won election to a notable office or they haven't, and their prospects of winning a future election have no bearing on anything. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Brief review of sources suggests subject meets WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2014. The subject is not a local elected official with significant press coverage. The subject's notability is related only to his campaign, and while the campaign is certainly notable (and will generate more coverage), a political campaign falls under WP:BLP1E. That is, the subject is not notable outside of the event (in this case a campaign). The usual outcome for unelected candidates for federal office is a redirect, and if the subject is elected, a stand-alone page can be created at that point. Otherwise, any relevant information can be added to the election page. Enos733 (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: IMO, this page is in the same boat as candidate Stewart Mills of Minnesota. Just a candidate, never held elected office, getting a lot of coverage now, but *only* for his candidacy. Mills' previous page (last edition is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewart_Mills_III&oldid=608651997) was redirected to the main election page. Champaign Supernova (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Champaign Supernova: Are you changing your above delete vote? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize there was a distinction between deletion and redirecting--sorry about that. I think we should be redirecting this page to the main elections page, since that seems to be the practice with other candidates of a similar nature. Champaign Supernova (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, as I wasn't sure what you wanted to do since you voted for delete above. You may want to strike that vote since that is not what you are supporting now, but I'll leave it up to you. Thanks for the clarification! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2014. If and when he wins, then of course a dedicated biography should be created, but Wikipedia is not a place to engage in political campaigning, which I believe is what this article is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to the election per almost everybody. Per WP:POLITICIAN, a candidate does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate — he'll qualify for an article if he wins the election, certainly, but is not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Mob America[edit]

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

I do not believe this organization meets WP:ORG. The 8 sources that exist on the article are largely basic coverage of events with no seemingly or lasting effects, and in fact almost none of the sources actually discuss the organizations itself. Mkdw ^talk 23:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It sounds like this production company is getting some big gigs and therefore may in the future meet notability requirements. I have no problem with this article being recreated if more sources become available. However, even though they did these events, only a couple of these sources even gives a vague mention to Flash Mob America. There are many companies that provide all kinds of services for many notable television shows or concerts that are not notable themselves. I say wait until there is more news coverage for this organization. Bali88 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Flash mobs are notable; this particular company is not. I could not find the required significant coverage by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 7 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 Arsenal. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armory (military)[edit]

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

Not a dictionary. A somewhat more historically perceptive presentation is at Arsenal. The definitions are identical on the two pages. Other wikis do have the two, I can't see why. trespassers william (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. At most this is a discussion of a proposed merge, not a deletion. It appears to me that there's relevant material in both articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Arsenal, then - something that should have been boldy done instead of sent to AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the votes. I almost did, but it never make sense that one kind of complete removal takes a clear consensus and the other can be done solo. Anyway, if you walk the walk, what points do you think should be merged? trespassers william (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Arsenal. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Arsenal. It's the same thing, no need for two separate articles. — dain omite 15:48, 6 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 03:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPC Shopping Centre[edit]

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

NN 39,018 sq meter mall. Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the notability of this mall. Bali88 (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable mall with no reliable sources found. As I commented here, I don't think size should be a factor im mall discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 04:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No usable references in the article, and a search failed to find any reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 7 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 03:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Flag[edit]

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

This is basically someone's vanity project. Composed entirely of original research, and with no recorded notice in any notable publication I could find, it is kind of embarrassing it has lasted so long. Shii (tock) 21:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neither the flag nor the organisation seem to have attracted any attention.TheLongTone (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly written article with no evidence of notability (no independent sources available). --Jakob (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of term world flag in media, after looking at about six pages of SERP pages using "World Flag" "Paul Carroll" in the search box.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:18, 9 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) 00:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akagami no Shirayukihime[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:BOOK or WP:NOTE. To coverage by reliable, third-party sources could be found. See prod for main article, Akagami no Shirayukihime. Prod was disputed by an IP who simply added references to the publisher's or retail websites. —Farix (t | c) 20:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually found reviews from manga-news and animeland. I'll vote for keep if the major contributor is interested in fixing the article up quickly with my overview; or an experienced editor is interested in taking this up. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, generally, a manga series with 11 volumes published as books is almost guaranteed to be notable and verifiable. There are Japanese-language publications that review pretty much every professionally-released manga, so sources almost certainly exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doing my best to clean up the page (I'm the creator)...someone did some pretty awful editing in addition to moving the references I had used previously to external links...fixing that now. As far as the reliability of the (former) references, since this manga has yet to be licensed in English, it's slightly more difficult to find reliable sources, which is why I used AnimeNewsNetwork as one, after seeing it referenced in various other manga pages. After I finish up, would appreciate feedback on whether or not the references are fine--actually, for manga that has no anime nor an English license, what kind of references are appropriate? AnSPage (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been found covering it. And Starblind has a great point also. Dream Focus 05:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone forgot to add this:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dream Focus 05:30, 7 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 Akagami no Shirayukihime. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Akagami no Shirayukihime characters[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:BOOK or WP:NOTE. To coverage by reliable, third-party sources could be found. See prod for main article, Akagami no Shirayukihime. Prod was disputed by an IP who simply added references to the publisher's website. —Farix (t | c) 20:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - At the very least this does not deserve to be in a seperate article. Bensci54 (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AFD should have been bundled with the AFD for the article (here) as there's no sense in handling them separately, and this has no basis for existing if the parent article is deleted as nonnotable. postdlf (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - A lot of the content really isn't that important (extremely minor characters). The main character summaries were removed from the main page regardless; now back to the way it was. Added summary content has inconsistent romanization, various grammatical & spelling errors.AnSPage (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Character list articles are usually considered acceptable for notable fictional series. No strong opinion regarding the possibility of trimming and merging back to the main article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. Speedily closed under WP:SK ground #1.—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Honolulu Fire Department[edit]

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

nothing to show that this fire department is particularly notable. all fire departments get some news coverage; none is shown here and I found none that showed anything other than what you would expect from a fire department. I would also oppsoe merging this info into the city's article as it would be quite WP:UNDUE for that article. Fire departments have no inherent notability and there is nothing here to show any GNG type coverage at all, and none was found on a quick search to show anything other than normal coverage. This is more appropriate to fire fan site. John from Idegon (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - I think it is probably safe to say that the police departments and fire departments of major metropolitan centers — of which Honolulu is one — are more or less inevitably encyclopedic and the object of multiple pieces of substantial published coverage. A simple Google for Honolulu Fire Department History generates such things as THIS PIECE on the establishment of the department from www.hawaiihistory.org/ and THIS SCHOLARLY ARTICLE on "December 7, 1941—The Day the Honolulu Fire Department Went to War." Not to mention evidence of a publication by H.A. Smith History of the Honolulu Fire Department. Easy pass of GNG with the most simple of searches. The attention of the nominator is called to WP:BEFORE. Carrite (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw yes, I should have looked further. the WWII angle is large. however, the out of print book is self published. John from Idegon (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein is for the articles to be retained. Discussion about how to improve them can always continue on their respective talk pages. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Internet connection speed[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, ~~this article is also incomplete as it does not fully reflect all the countries in the world. That can be misleading.~~
There is not enough information for it to be a standalone article.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason.
List of countries by 4G LTE penetration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries by smartphone penetration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries by mobile banking usage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any of those lists violating any points you raised through Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You're not being specific at all here. Much of the data presented is self-explanatory or explained in the article itself. The lists illustrate highly relevant and emerging new technologies that is highly valuable to Wikipedia researchers, neglected for too long in my view. For example, we have lists of countries by telephone lines or mobile phones but no smartphones. You will find plenty of lists like these at Wikipedia and none of them have been nominated for deletion. Being incomplete is certainly no reason for a deletion. Look at list of countries at Wikipedia and you will find many of them are incomplete. Claiming them to be "misleading" based on this sounds like WP:OR. None of them have been nominated for deletion for that reason. Besides, List of countries by Internet connection speed is as comprehensive as you would get with the data that Akamai published - All the countries with data have been listed. The other three lists you nominated are fully listed and complete, so your second point would be invalid in this case. I suggest you do some research into these lists first before nominating them for deletion. YJAX (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not that great of a argument either. Let me rephrase my point, having a list like the 4G LTE article that lists 10 countries does not provide enough information to have a standalone article. Now the Internet Connection speed, for statistical purposes (the irony), has about 70 countries listed, out of the 206 "official countries" that list provides only 1/3 of the total countries. I look at several other lists and they have 200+ countries, territories, whateveryouwannacallthem listed. If you could provide a better source that accurately reflects all or a majority of the countries in the world, I may change my view. However at the current time I don't think these articles provide much encyclopedic value. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also please look up what WP:OR means. It has nothing to do with my opinion on how these articles could be misleading to someone because these articles do not list all or most of the countries in the world. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that requires personal judgement is considered WP:OR. An encyclopedia should be free from personal judgement - In this case you're applying your personal judgement that these lists are "misleading" because they don't include every single country in the world. We would need a source on that for evidence. I don't think we have a Wiki policy saying a list needs to cover every single country in the world just to quality not being nominated for deletion. More on that later. It's a highly relevant argument to compare with other similar articles because look, other lists like List of countries by number of mobile phones in use or List of countries by number of telephone lines in use have been highly scrutinized and existed for nearly a decade. Nobody has ever nominated them for deletion. Smartphones, LTE, mobile banking and internet speed are the same thing, just newer technologies. You may not believe it but there are only 10 countries with any significant 4G LTE coverage. It's that simple. There are simply not any more countries to list in that case, so it is fully complete. If you're living in one of those countries, it should be treated as a privilege. The internet connection speed has more than enough listed to cover all major countries in the world. The whole reason why Akamai publishes data for those countries is simple - They only do it for the major countries. And this is what matters and where the value lies. Look at many list of countries articles and you will find it only lists a particular sub-group of countries like the OECD or EU. None of them have been nominated for deletion either. More often than not those micro island nations in the Pacific which are included in your "200+ countries" are insignificant to most Wikipedia readers. There is no need for another source because for the purpose of illustrating major countries' internet speeds which is exactly what the Akami intends to show to readers, it's complete. Besides, your concern has already been addressed by mentioning this very fact at the top of the rankings to prevent any misunderstandings. I can show you plenty of lists that only include the top 10, top 20 or top 30 countries and none of them have been nominated for deletion because that's what Wikipedia users are looking for. Wikipedia policies state we need to show what's relevant, not the whole thing, which could be cluttering and irrelevant, actually violating the very points you raised to us in the first place. If we follow your logic, we need to weed out any top 10 lists at Wikipedia. YJAX (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion discussion, in no way does WP:OR apply to my opinion. WP:OR applies to unsourced claims in ARTICLES. We do not need a source to verify MY OPINION! Where the hell are we gonna find a source that verifies that. All I am saying is that these articles may OR MAY NOT be misleading to somepeople! JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have argued as if it is a Wiki policy to include every single country, which is why I have brought up WP:OR. Either way, since you have striked out your view that the lists are incomplete, it seems you agree we don't need to cover every single country in the world. It now appears you have moved on to claiming that they're not significant enough to be standlone articles. Actually, I agree with you on that when it comes to 4G LTE or mobile banking, these could be nominated for deletion and be more valuable in their respective articles. However, I can't agree with you with the Internet connection speed and smartphones. For one, internet connection speed is an entirely different topic from any articles at Wikipedia and has sufficient explanatory notes and countries to be standalone. Same goes for smartphones except here, smartphones themselves are self-explanatory so the comprehensive list itself is sufficient. More importantly, both cover more than enough countries worldwide to include all major relevant countries. YJAX (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any of the nominators reasons as deletion worthy. As for not covering every single country...I doubt that is any policy, but if it was, that's a fixable problem, and one that should be discussed on the talk page. We don't delete articles over fixable problems. We could even just put a disclaimer that this is an incomplete list. Secondly, if the argument is that this is not enough information to be a stand alone article...that's probably better handled with a merge request. Personally, I think it's fine, but you could make an argument that the information would be better suited redirected to one of the articles that deal with internet speed. Either way, neither of those is a good argument to delete. Bali88 (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see JayJay's comment about being misleading is crossed out in the opening, so presumably it doesn't matter, but I thought I'd add that I think that sort of issue can be handled through the normal editing process, rather than deletion. In the case of List of countries by Internet connection speed, the source and limitations of the data seem to be explained within the article text quite clearly. Agyle (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as all are relevant, encyclopaedic and of interest to anyone, The articles should be sourced better tho. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again, for reasons above. There's no reason to delete any list just because it doesn't have every single country covered in the world. For the purpose of illustrating the data in the sources, they're fully complete. YJAX (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not seeing any way in which this article fails to fit within wikipedia guidelines. Also, and this isn't necessarily a reason to keep an article, but if you look at the page views, it seems to consistently get a very respectable number of views. More than any of the articles I've written. It's not exactly what I'd choose to spend my time reading, but other people seem interested in reading it. Bali88 (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE is not a good reason to keep. JayJay^{What did I do?}

Why wouldn't it be good reason? One of the most important Wiki policies is notability and pageviews are an important piece of evidence showing there is clearly inherent value in these articles to many Wikipedia readers. YJAX (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article has X number of views does not make it notable or non notable. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What User:Bali88 was saying is that it certainly shows interest from Wiki users, which is a substantial piece of evidence of value. This was also echoed by User:Davey2010. YJAX (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think it is the only criteria we should look at. If someone created a popular gossip page, certainly viewership should't override other wikipedia guidelines. But when notability is what is being discussed, I think it adds a valuable piece of information to the conversation that the article is of interest and use to a large number of wikipedia readers. I disagree with anyone who insists that it is irrelevant. Bali88 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the activity of copying some company's compiled data from a website and essentially republishing this on WP is a very dubious activity. Why do this? Is it noteworthy to record this data? Instead articles should refer to those documents as supporting references and or simply list such sites as external links. In case of the list of "Internet connection speeds", the article now reflects company jargon, that is misleading the readers into interpreting that this is the bandwidth of users Internet access and the editor who created the list, took no effort to explain the data in conventional terms and insists on reusing company jargon by reverting improvements. In case of any of these types of lists, I would argue it is not WP's or any encyclopedia's intent to replicate in essence proprietary but published data. Kbrose (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kbrose, by dubious, I assume you mean you think it's legal but inappropriate; if you do think there's a copyright problem, see WP:COPYRIGHT for how to proceed. Copyright law does provide protection for collections of data, but I don't think that applies here. I am not sure about the claim of the data being proprietary; certainly their report is copyrighted, but no restrictions on the use of the data are mentioned. Wikipedia is full of articles that cite facts and figures from published reports, such as the viewers of last Sunday's broadcast of Game of Thrones, the power of last year's Ford F-series V6 engines, and the average wing length of an Australian cockroach. Newspapers, encyclopedias, and other publications rely heavily on data from copyrighted works. Agyle (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that User:Kbrose is a highly involved user in the internet speed article, who has been blanking out sourced content, moving the page to a completely different one from the one stated in the source, violating WP:Verifiability. He invented his own title for the article, which violated WP:OR. His contribution to the article has been far from positive and I would take his opinion with a grain of salt as it is apparent he is not neutral in this matter. YJAX (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of countries by Internet connection speed (I'm not considering the other lists, as they are dissimilar enough that they should be individually considered). I don't agree with either of the nominator's suggested reasons. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK would seem to hinge in this case on issue #3 "excessive listings of statistics"; while entirely subjective, my subjective opinion is that the listings are not excessive. It's a short list of just 63 countries, listing only the average connection speed for each country. The "not enough information for it to be a standalone article" again is a subjective issue with which I disagree, but I wonder if perhaps the nominator was considering Wikipedia guidance for non-list articles; there is a separate page of guidelines on stand-alone lists at WP:STANDALONE, with broad guidance on appropriate topics described at WP:SALAT. Agyle (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons listed above. Excessive statistics are entirely relative, and wouldn't exactly apply here. It would be nice to include stats from other sources and to expand the list, but that is not grounds for deletion. Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are two issues here: (a) whether there are problems with the current content of the article and what needs to happen to improve it, and (b) whether "list of countries by internet connection speed" meets the various requirements for a page to exist on Wikipedia (notability and whatnot). Generally speaking, for the purposes of a deletion discussion the primary way these two questions have a direct bearing on each other is if the content of the page is so egregiously bad that it would have to be completely rewritten in order to comply with encyclopedic standards (as frequently is the case with overly promotional articles and such). There are huge problems with the page, but none that would require scrapping and starting over. So, focusing on (b), I would say it easily passes WP:GNG and WP:SALAT. There are a number of such lists out there that have been covered by every major news publication in the last few years. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK is about overrunning encyclopedia articles with statistics and isn't applicable when the encyclopedic subject is a meaningful kind of measurement. Otherwise we'd have to get rid of List of countries by population, List of countries by number of Internet users, and hundreds of others. So keep, but the article as it is needs some serious TLC. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darkcoin[edit]

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

Doesn't demonstrate notability, fails WP:GNG. Citation Needed | Talk 18:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in a multiple reliable sources establishes notability. I'm listing some recent stories from news.google.com; some sources are a bit sketchy, but most are solid. As an aside, if I knew how to nominate User:Citation Needed for deletion, I would; AfD discussions like these are spurious wastes of time. Nominators should go through the AfD guidelines' checklist at WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion, which require at least a cursory check for notability, which this nominator seems to routinely ignore.
- Greenberg, Andy (May 21, 2014). "Darkcoin, the Shadowy Cousin of Bitcoin, Is Booming". Wired.
- Eudes, Yves (May 28, 2014). "Monnaies électroniques, la mode du « Dark » [Translation: "Electronic currencies, the mode of 'dark'"". Le Monde (in French).
- Jing, Shi (May 23, 2014). "Darkcoin：私密性更高的虚拟货币 [Translation: "Darkcoin: privacy higher virtual currency"]". The Wall Street Journal Chinese edition (in Chinese).
- Deshev, Martin (May 22, 2014). "Криптовалутата Darkcoin се превръща в новия хит на дигиталните пари [Translation: "Kriptovalutata Darkcoin becoming the hit of digital money"]". Дневник [Dnevnik] (in Bulgarian).
- "Криптовалюта Darkcoin подорожала в 12 раз за месяц [Translation: "Kriptovalyuta Darkcoin risen 12 times in the past month"]". Хакер (in Russian). May 22, 2014.
- "Darkcoin, uma alternativa anónima ao Bitcoin, está «a bombar» [Translation: "Darkcoin, an anonymous alternative to Bitcoin, is 'pumping'"]". Diário Digital (in Portuguese). May 22, 2014.
- Hill, Kashmir (June 3, 2014). "The First 'Bitcoin 2.0' Crowd Sale Was A Wildly Successful $7 Million Disaster". Forbes.
- Feinauer, JJ (May 23, 2014). "Digital currency just won't go away". Desert News.
- Gola, Yashu (May 22, 2014). "Why Darkcoin Value is Surging Constantly?". ForexMinute.
- "Meet Darkcoin - Bitcoin's Shadowy Cousin". Sky News. May 22, 2014.
- Cuthbertson, Anthony (May 22, 2014). "What is Darkcoin? Bitcoin's Secretive Cousin Explained". International Business Times UK.
- Brenneis, Friedemann (May 27, 2014). "Die dunkle Seite des Coins [Translation: "The Dark Side of Coins"]". The Coinspondent (in German).
- Higgins, Stan (May 23, 2014). "How True Anonymity Made Darkcoin King of the Altcoins". CoinDesk.
- Higgins, Stan (May 28, 2014). "Darkcoin Price in Turmoil Following Emergency Fork, Network Issues". CoinDesk.
- Higgins, Stan (May 30, 2014). "All Things Alt: Darkcoin Duels XC and the Demise of McDogecoin". CoinDesk.

--Agyle (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some other sources to consider (cointelegraph.com and cryptocoinsnews.com are particularly iffy reliable sources):

Gola, Yashu (June 8, 2014). "Darkcoin Team Makes New Developments in Masternode Payments". ForexMinute.
"Keiser Report: Bitcoin's nefarious cousin Darkcoin (E606)" (YouTube video). Keiser Report. Russia Today. May 27, 2014.
Wilmoth, Josiah (June 9, 2014). "Darkcoin Price Falling". Cryptocoinsnews.com.
Scott, Allen (May 14, 2014). "Darkcoin Rising". Coin Telegraph.
Scharr, Jill (May 28, 2014). "What is Darkcoin? An FAQ". Tom's Guide.
Bautista, Christian Brazil (May 22, 2014). "Meet DarkCoin, the newest cryptocurrency for all your shady transactions". Digital Trends.
Londis, Dino (23 May 2014). "Bitcoin Friday – Welcome To The Darkcoin Side". Invests.com.
Sampson, Tim (May 21, 2014). "Darkcoin aims to be the anonymous cryptocurrency Bitcoin isn't". The Daily Dot.

--Agyle (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why hasn't this request for deletion been closed yet? The article is clearly well referenced. Darkcoin is now constantly in the top four crypto-currencies by market capitalization since mid-May. I request, Argyll, that you do basic research into the subject matter before flagging articles up for deletion that are obviously in the public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.53.32.133 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions generally remain open for at least seven days, to allow time for time for people to respond. I didn't nominate the article for deletion; my vote above was to keep it. Agyle (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agyle's good reference finds in reliable sources like Wired and WSJ demonstrate notability of the coin. --Mark viking (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bakersfield City Attorney[edit]

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

The office of city attorney is not an inherently notable position and there are no independent sources to show notability. Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - along with City Manager and City Clerk, a City Attorney is on the same level as for instance a Police or Fire Chief, either of which, I would say would qualify a person as notable enough for Wikipedia for a city this sized. If a single person qualifies as notable due to their office, then an article about the office (consisting of the set of all persons holding that office) should undoubtedly qualify.Greg Bard (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There has not been any consensus yet to delete articles about city attorneys of very large cities (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Angeles City Attorney Election, 2009 and Los Angeles City Attorney), but it depends in part on the actual job duties. For other cities' attorneys and equivalent officials, the consensus is to delete; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Meyer (Attorney) (assistant corporation counsel), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis W. Chiu (planning commissioner), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American public officials convicted of crimes (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassau County Comptroller's Office. I don't think that officials with this title make them notable attorneys (see User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability), so logically the office is not notable. Rarely we have kept Sheriff's offices that patrol large areas (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesee County, New York Sheriff's Office) or can't decide about other municipal agencies (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegheny County Medical Examiner and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnstown Redevelopment Authority). So the outcomes and precedents are not favorable; the burden of proof thus shifts to the creator to prove this is notable, and I don't see it yet. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If a city larger then Bakersfield(Omaha,NE) does not have a page on this, then it is idiotic to state that the Bakersfield City Attorney is a notable position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russianarmy13 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bakersfield, California#Government and politics. Not sufficiently notable for its own article (unless it has substantial coverage in non-local press) - but can be included in a wider discussion of Bakersfield government. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect There is no need for a redirect as the city is a more likely search term. Also, notability is not inherited, a position or job does not receive notability from the people who hold it. --Bejnar (talk) 00:45, 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The office of city attorney is not in itself notable, and there is no independent coverage to suggest that this particular office is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While City Attorney is a notable topic, the specific post of city attorney of a mid-sized California town is not. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Carrite.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:43, 9 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bakersfield City Clerk[edit]

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

The office of city clerk is not an inherently notable position and there are no independent sources to demonstrate that it meets WP:GNG. Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the city clerk of any particular city is responsible for the official documents of the municipality. One can reasonably expect that the city clerk's name appears on thousands of historical documents. In the course of doing historical research, one may find that the identity of the city clerk is key to finding, dating and making other connections with the information being researched. In this particular case, Bakersfield is a county seat, so we can reasonably multiply this effect significantly. Greg Bard (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bakersfield City Attorney. There is a Category:City and town clerks, but they are for large cities - Boston, London, Chicago, etc. - or have been otherwise notable in their own right. Ongoing consensus has been to keep mayors of medium-to-large-cities, but I don't think anyone has ever argued that city clerks or their offices are inherently notable. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The office of city clerk is not in itself notable, even in much larger cities, and there is no independent coverage to suggest that this particular office is notable. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - City clerk as a general topic is notable, the specific position for one mid-sized California town is not. This seems to be part of an ill-considered grouplet of Bakersfield bureaucratic trivia articles. Carrite (talk) 21:03, 5 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 into Weather Star and turn into a redirect. I will leave the actual merge to the article editors, but the consensus is clear that this isn't ready for its own topic at this time, yet the term will still be a valid redirect and the information will be useful in the parent article. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Star 4000[edit]

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

Previous discussion had no responses and was closed without prejudice against speedy re-nomination.

These articles have way too much trivial information and questionable use of YouTube videos as "sources". If there are notable details about the hardware that can be obtained from reliable sources, it could be covered in a much less in-depth fashion. (that FCC document on phasing out earlier models because they cannot produce aural alert tones would be a good place to start).

If this article is deleted/merged, I recommend deletion of all the other pages on WeatherStar units and the like as well. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. In Correct (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Correct, AfD decisions are supposed to consider the strength of the arguments, not the number of "votes". Could you elaborate?

Keep I agree the article could use an extensive reworking; however, it seems likely that the subject will meet basic notability standards. Sort of bizarrely, that's 'keep per nom'. GoldenRing (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenRing, why do you think it's "likely" to meet notability standards? Agyle (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note here that this is one of a series of similar articles about the various versions of the WeatherStar, all of which (especially the legacy/obsolete models) are roughly the same in terms of sourcing and trivia. Is there a reason that this particular version is being targeted for deletion while the others are not? Perhaps, if the amount of legitimate information in most of these articles is not enough to warrant separate articles, they could be integrated into the main WeatherStar article (as much of it is already there) and those articles can be redirected. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the other ones should be added to the nomination. I have no problem with that. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All these articles should be merged together, not deleted. In Correct (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User: Anonymous person 19:44 (CDT/UTC-5), 29 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.122.101 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 May 2014 — 75.53.122.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: I think that the Youtube links should be added back onto this article because they are evidence of how a Weatherstar 4000 have operated (and have been displayed onto an audience member) from 1990 onto it's end (end of life date). Suppose if a reader were to question the function of the unit (ex. displaying various kinds of graphics) and wanted to see how it works on Youtube without any intervention from search results on Google. Also, if this was voted to be merged, I would agree on that part. | 19:48 (CDT/UTC-5), 29 May 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.122.101 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 30 May 2014 — 75.53.122.101 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Unfortunately, we cannot do that. Firstly, they are effectively primary sources; our articles must depend on reliable, secondary sources. Secondly, we have rules against linking to copyrighted material. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly accurate. Notability must be established by reliable, independent sources, but there is no problem using primary sources for limited purposes such as establishing basic, uncontroversial facts. And linking to copyrighted material is fine; linking to copyright violations is the problem. It's not at all clear that the youtube videos are copyright violations. However, Wikipedia is not a manual and, from what I can make out, the videos are essentially tutorials. If someone's looking for a manual or a tutorial, Wikipedia is not the place to find it. GoldenRing (talk) 08:20, 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into WeatherStar (with all other related articles). I had suggested this a few days ago. Even as a Weather Channel fan myself the technology is not known outside of the fanbase to warrant a single article for each generation, especially since most references link to sites against Wikipedia's policy, such as message boards, blogs, and copyrighted videos. All of the "headend locations" need to be gone too. Wikipedia is not a cable directory. Also, the timelines need to be summarized into a few brief paragraphs at best. MikeM2011 (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea what's happened to the information given in this article over the five years I've watched it, but yeah it has gone rather trivial, even after the removal of the headend utilization list. If we can find official documents from TWC that could be used as encyclopedic information to keep the article up, then I'd say do that instead of just flat out delete an article on something that does actually exist. --Z L Media 23:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZLMedia, I found official TWC documents (links below), but these are not independent sources, so do not establish notability required for stand-alone articles on Wikipedia. Verifiable existence is insufficient; the essay Existence ≠ Notability discusses this. Agyle (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WeatherStar per MikeM2011. Once the trivia is removed there is no need for a separate article. --Bejnar (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero independent reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability of the subject. The references to amateur videoclips of WS4000 output do not constitute reliable sources, in my opinion, and even if they are, should not establish notability of the subject. Sources considered:

[Apparently self-published:] Alan Fields (1995). Partly Sunny: The Weather Junkie's Guide to Outsmarting the Weather. Ingram Publisher Services. ISBN 978-0-9626556-5-4.
[Recorded presentation, dubious reliability:] "The WeatherSTAR 4000 Emulator for Quasi-Operational Dissemination of Real-time Weather Data
[Brief mention:] "Low-cost "Weather Star"". Communications Engineering Digest. International Thomson Communications, Volume 19, Issues 7-13. 1993. p. 73. ... The new, low-cost model called the Weather Star Jr. will render forecasts in videotext (instead of the color graphics, animation, local weather radar and other visual effects available with the larger Weather Star 4000). As a result, the scaled-down model will be 'significantly less expensive' than the Weather Star 4000, company officials say.
[TWC's documentation:] "The Weather Channel Current Conditions". The Weather Channel. Archived from the original on 2002-11-02. (Contains links to installation guide, product guide, release notes, and FAQ.)

--Agyle (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into WeatherStar (with all other related articles). Nothingabout the 4000 warrants its own article but weather star does have sufficient coverage across all models. SPACKlick (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 02:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Beasley[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "Does not appear notable; only given claim to notability is an amateur competition." Sven Manguard Wha? 20:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Found a reference here, so may be more to be fleshed out. it must also be noted that "amateur" in the late 1800s does not carry the same connotations as today. I'd like to ping wikiproject horse racing and have the UK/Irish members there comment before a final decision is reached. Montanabw ^(talk) 03:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even in the 20th century, taking part in a sporting event as an amateur - playing for the love of the game - was considered to be more honourable than being paid to do it. For example, for many years it was the unwritten rule in cricket that the players of a team could be either amateur (W. G. Grace, one of the greatest cricketers ever, was always an amateur) or professional as they chose - but the captain of the team was traditionally an amateur. Indeed, some national sides like England (until 1952), or county sides like Yorkshire (until 1959), would refuse the captaincy to certain eminently suitable players simply because they would not give up professionalism. Cricket retained the distinction between amateurs and professionals right down to 1962. Another example: as recently as 1995, the sport of Rugby Union Football removed their erstwhile "Declaration of Amateurism" from the rule book, which read, in full, "The game is an amateur game. No one is allowed to seek or to receive payment or other material reward for taking part in the game." It had been the second rule in the book - coming only after "Object of the Game". --Redrose64 (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my earlier argument above. Montanabw ^(talk) 17:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Per Redrose[reply]
You can't vote twice... Sven Manguard Wha? 19:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been relisted, everyone tries again, including you. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: the closing admin considers the whole thread from the top, and so the original !votes stand following a relisting, therefore, nobody should !vote a second time. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - OK, if that's how it's handled, seems like other times it was just more of the same. BTW, aren't you going to vote, Redrose? You commented the last time... Montanabw ^(talk) 23:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. One line about a 1800s amateur jockey... there is a weak chance he was marginally notable, but zero evidence of it. IMHO not enough notability (and not even enough stuff to say about him) to justify a page on the mainspace. Cavarrone 22:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the Champion Irish Amateur William Beasley would have been among one of the most prominent jockeys of his generation. He competed against professionals when it was much more common to have amateur jockeys riding in major races. WP:ANYBIO states that any individual which wins a "well-known and significant award or honour "is presumed to be notable and being Irish Champion Amateur two years in succession certainly satisfy that criteria. Finnegas (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly doubt Champion Irish Amateur Jockey is/never was a well-known or significant award. Google Books has a single result (a trivial mention in Modern Irish lives), and Google provides just 19 results, none of them appearing minimally significant. Cavarrone 14:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being Champion Amateur Jockey in Ireland may not garner much internet coverage but it is one of the few noteworthy awards within the sport. Finnegas (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability looks likely but may be very difficult to prove without a comprehensive library of late 19th century newspapers. Lists of Grand National results seem to show him riding the second-placed horse in 1888. When he died in a riding accident in Ireland in 1892 a New Zealand paper mentioned it. And while this substantial obituary in an Australian newspaper is of one of his brothers, it specifically refers back to the newspaper's obituary of him. PWilkinson (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and as was pointed out above, the "substantial coverage" of the late 1800s is not the same as today's Twitterverse. He'd qualify as notable today based on his wins alone. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:29, 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, Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable jockey, No evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For pete's sake, a second relisting to draw random deletionists? if there is no consensus, then just keep. @Finnegas:, how about adding material to the article (that you created) so it demonstrates notability?? Montanabw^(talk) 01:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone's a fucking deletionist and that includes me too!, ~~Instead of throwing a pathetic tantrum~~ why don't you userfy it or Improve it yourself?.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to snark, but cool it with the "pathetic:" insult. Talk to me after the 2014 Belmont Stakes, I'm sort of booked with my wiki-time at the moment. I also have a few other projects. The point is that people who AfD stuff that could be improved are not helping the project by starting these wastes of bandwidth. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's not much on the internets, to be sure, but given the strength of the sourced claim, I think that giving this a nod and a wink is fine. One would have to be a specialist in the history of Irish racing with access to old newspapers to source this out. I don't doubt for a second that such sources are out there. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have added some more information there. Found evidence of him riding at least on one occassion in the Grand National, arguably the best known National Hunt race in the world. Meanwhile the search continues. Finnegas (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - thousands of jockeys have taken part in races and failed to win.--PatrickGuinness (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate verification of notability. The "keepers" are guessing see Carrite and Montanabw above. --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: AFG Bejnar, you are also guessing that there is no evidence. Montanabw ^(talk) 00:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said that there is inadequate verification. I might guess that no further evidence will be found, but that is not what I said. --Bejnar (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mention in his brother's obituary does not prove notability--nor does anything else in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.212.162.5 (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, I feel that sources almost certainly would exist for a jockey who rode in the Grand National. The fact that horseracing sources from the 19th century aren't easily located on a Google search doesn't surprise or overly concern me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Precisely. No reason to delete this article based on a 21st century bias toward electronic sources. That said, I did find this. Does that help? Montanabw ^(talk) 03:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For a modern subject, I would be inclined to say there are insufficient sources to pass WP:GNG, but for historical figure, sources are scarcer and harder to find, so the single item in The Sydney Mail, especially considering it's an Australian newspaper writing about an Irish rider, strikes me as sufficient. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE, hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout: Vault 713[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article that seems entirely based on rumors, in contravention of WP:SPECULATION. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 15:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously. Too bad there isn't a speedy delete category for video games, though it might qualify for A11. No relevant hits on a WP:VG/RS custom Google search. Absolutely no hits on bethsoft.com. This is a hoax or spurious rumor. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Under G3 hoax. Only link is to a reddit thread started by the person who created the article, and the replies there don't support it. Only Google hits are Wikipedia and Reddit. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Starblind (talk · contribs) deleted it under CSD G3. -- ferret (talk) 01:51, 6 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of law firms in Uganda[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. After removing the firms that didn't belong, we are left with only three firms, hardly enough for a category or a list. And one of the firms, DLA Piper, does not have an office in Uganda. It uses another firm for Ugandan issues (what Piper calls a relational office). Although it doesn't strictly relate to notability, the article was created by a sock who, along with other socks, created a bunch of articles of Ugandan law firms. Bbb23 (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a search of GBooks and found this: [1]. James500 (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:08, 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, postdlf (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of three or four firms is useless and falls afoul of WP:LIST. James's search shows that no sources exist. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and above. There are no other "List of law firms in Foo" articles, and Uganda does not seem to qualify for a "List of largest Foo law firms" article. --Bejnar (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was re-redirected by author to GNU Project#GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 16:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNU Free System Distribution Guidelines[edit]

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

While I declined to speedy delete this as G11, it does appear that this is not a workable subject for an article. I've run searches through both Google and some academic engines via the library, and come up entirely empty on third-party reliable source discussions of this subject. Accordingly, I believe that this topic is not notable, and the lack of reliable sources renders it unsustainable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahunt:@Seraphimblade: Several GNU/Linux distributions have adopted GNU FSDG including gNewSense, Parabola, Trisquel, Ututo, and a few others. See Comparison of Linux distributions#General for a full list of distros that have adopted the guidelines. --David Hedlund (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So what? Just because an organization adopts a policy doesn't mean that policy is notable for a Wikipedia article. It still has to meet WP:GNG. And, even if it were notable, the topic is too small for a stand alone article anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the topic is non-notable and the article has little scope for expansion beyond a stub. Actually while this AfD was being created (unbeknownst to me) I redirected the article to GNU Project and merged what little content there was of value out to there. I would be happy with outcomes of the article being deleted or left as a redirect. I should also note that the editor who created the article has a definite history of edits to promote the GNU Project and the FSF and as a consequence I have left him a warning for WP:COI. - Ahunt (talk) 15:43, 5 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

H. Smith Broadbent[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF criteria or WP:GNG, though he is clearly a successful academic. Boleyn (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 09:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 13 does not quite make it in average cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Normally, I'd agree with that - but have you allowed for the fact that most of the subject's papers seem to be from before 1970, even though there are a small number of far more recent ones? So far as I can see, the usual sources we use for counting citations are far better for the last 20 years than they are from before that, so a significant proportion of any citations from the years immediately after when he published those papers are going to have been missed. PWilkinson (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a source for this view? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Very week keep. He appears to meet the bare minimum of sourceability (two local references), academic impact (he appears to have been a top expert on rhenium compounds, especially taking into account the fact that such old papers tend not to gather so many citations), and BIO1E (munitions disposal as well as purer chemistry). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears not to meet the general notability guideline. There is a source here and he published an article in the Journal of Organic Chemistry and he was probably an authority on Rhenium. Still, not sure it adds up to notability, but I can change my mind if other sources are presented.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:47, 9 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 Narendra_Modi#Early_life_and_education. By and large, consensus is against outright keeping. Most of the deletion arguments seem to cite inherited-notability arguments, which is compatible with redirec/merge arguments along the same lines. As for redirect or merge (and/or which targets are most appropriate), consensus at the target is free to determine how much of the original content, if any, should be incorporated into the target; the target given here is just the one I saw raised most, so feel free to decide on a better target (e.g., via a plain old talk page discussion or via WP:RFD). slakr^\ talk / 01:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jashodaben[edit]

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

This article has been deleted twice as a result of a deletion discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jashodaben Modi (2nd nomination). When it first appeared I PROD'ed it as non notable (WP:NOTINHERITED), not realising that it had been AfD'd. PROD removed by page creator, & subsegently replaced & removed: I then substituted a speedy delete as a recreation, which an editor has removed thinking this should go to AfD yet a third time. What a waste of time.TheLongTone (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad.Eustachiusz (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bacause inherited or not the notability of hers is no different than Gursharan Kaur or many of the Spouses of Prime Ministers of India. - Jethwarp (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. This woman has no independant notability, unlike some of the others on the list. Others could well be subject to deletion on notabilty grounds.TheLongTone (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spouses of PM could be notable; not necessarily notable, when they are given the status of being the spouse. Subject's status in Modi's life is still questionable. While the 24-hour news channels have plenty time to gossip with her on her favourite dish and favourite colour, she isn't acknowledged as such as the spouse of PM of India. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per last discussion. I had also PRODed the article. The tag was removed by the creator. Comparison with Gursharan Kaur is erroneous. Gursharan Kaur had independent duties as the wife of the PM; while Modi's estranged wife has no independent notability. The couple has never even met each other in 40 years; Modi has not acknowledged her presence except in an affidavit to the Election Commission. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article was deleted once, how can someone create it again? Apart from finding a mention in the affidavit of the current prime minister of India she has no independant notability. -sarvajna (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was called something slightly different.Eustachiusz (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I care little if article gets deleted but what about news that Jashodaben is also likely to get a special security cover meant for the family members of the Prime Minister of India - that means she is officially spouse of Prime Minister of India ? Jethwarp (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The key word in that statement is "likely". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article now says Jashodaben has been granted a 24 hour special security by Special Protection Group, which provides security cover for members of their immediate families of the Prime Minister of India. Jethwarp (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modi's mother is also granted a 24 hour special security[2]; that doesn't make her noteworthy. Also, Jashodaben is not invited to his swearing-in or the President's dinner etc; she has not been given official duties or honour that say a Gursharan Kaur, spouse of the outgoing PM, enjoyed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article has now been moved to Jashodaben Chimanlal. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she has been catapulted into national limelight, plenty of press coverage, and thus notable. --Soman (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which entirely ignores the fact that this attention is solely down to her marriage. This is a classic case of WP:NOTINHERITED.TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is now sufficient material that primarily covers her. There is no doubt that it is the marriage that catapulted her into fame, but WP:NOTINHERITED is not saying that all people who are related to famous people would be automatically non-notable (a correct way to invoke a WP:NOTINHERITED would be to strike down on an argument saying "Modi is very famous, thus his wife is famous"). Here is some of the mainstream press coverage; http://www.thehindu.com/elections/loksabha2014/west/jashodaben-votes-prays-for-bjp-landslide/article5962500.ece , http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/679107-narendra-modi-wife-name-and-photo-who-is-secretive-jashodaben-chimanlal-modi/ , http://indianexpress.com/article/india/politics/pm-narendra-modis-wife-jashodaben-given-police-protection/ , http://www.ndtv.com/elections/article/election-2014/100-kms-away-from-him-modi-s-wife-jashodaben-cast-her-vote-today-516231 , http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/willing-to-go-with-modi-if-he-calls-her-back-jashodaben-s-brother-114051500735_1.html , http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/i-am-happy-narendra-modi-accepted-me-as-his-wife-says-jashodaben/article1-1222319.aspx , http://www.eni.network24.co/india/modi-accepting-me-as-his-wife-gives-me-utmost-satisfaction-jashodaben-9513_2 , http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/others/Jashodaben-sparks-peak-season-at-Anjanadri-Hill/articleshow/35906048.cms , http://www.bangaloremirror.com/bangalore/others/Jashodaben-sparks-peak-season-at-Anjanadri-Hill/articleshow/35906048.cms , http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/i-am-narendra-modi-s-wife , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2616206/No-Modi-welcome-main-gate-poll-win.html --Soman (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit of WP:NOTINHERITED don't you understand? All this coverage is because of her association with Modi.TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to actually read WP:NOTINHERITED. At no point have I argued that the relationship in itself as criteria for notability. The criteria for notability here is the coverage in mainstream national (and some international) press. --Soman (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article was deleted in a previous AfD. There are 2 things to note here: 1) The volume of press coverage on Jashodaben increased exponentially after Modi's recognition of the marriage. Notability has thus increased compared to the last AfD in 2011. 2) In the last AfD (held prior to Modi's acknowledgement of the marriage), there were arguments like 'probably touted by opponents. No proof exists.'. Now the verifiability issued ought to have been settled. --Soman (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going through your references, 1 "I am happy Narendra Modi accepted me as his wife, says Jashodaben". 2 "Narendra Modi Wife Name, Photo: Who is the Secretive Jashodaben Chimanlal Modi?" 3 "PM Narendra Modi’s wife Jashodaben given police protection" 4 "100 kms away from him, Modi's wife, Jashodaben, cast her vote today" 5 "Willing to go with Modi if he calls her back: Jashodaben's brother" 6 "I am happy Narendra Modi accepted me as his wife, says Jashodaben" 7 "Modi ji accepting me as his wife gives me utmost satisfaction: Jashodaben" 8 Is ant article about an increase in tourism wher she lives... because she is Modi's wife 9 "I am Narendra Modi’s Wife" 10 is an article about Modi which mentions her as his wife. Again do you understandWP:NOTINHERITED Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. ?? She has no independant notability whatsoever.TheLongTone (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The key wording here is "notable in their own right". Since national media follows her where she votes, reports on her whereabouts, acts like paparazzis, she has gained notability in her own right. This notability might be reluctant and coincidental, but still notability. --Soman (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soman, CORRECTION: second Afd was post the grand disclosure of the wife. "There is no "Significant coverage" of the person apart from her been named as Narendra Modi's wife in his election affidavit."Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And she is gaining all this attention because she is Modi's wife.TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which is irrelevant. The reason behind fame is not relevant, the fame itself is the relevance for notability. WP:NOTINHERITED says that notability isn't automatically inherited. However, it doesn't ban coverage on relatives of notable people. --Soman (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just how is it irrelevant that she is only gaining attention because she is Modi's wife?? You seem to be under the impression that sheer volume of coverage is an argument for notability rather than the reason for the coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reported by Rohit Bhan (with inputs from Reuters) | Updated: April 30, 2014 15:27 IST

Delete because notability is not inherited. She is also 1EVENT, her marriage. --Bejnar (talk) 02:17, 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per last discussion.Jyoti (talk) 07:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Soman, I feel that she is notable on her own, primarily due to the paparazzi-like coverage of her by the Indian media. The media itself has made her notable, and now she is a person who is known to generally everyone in India. I don't see a very engaging reason why the article must be deleted. Also there is no policy or logic that compels an article to be deleted if it is the nth deletion nomination. If the situation has significantly changed since the previous nominations, it must be evaluated again. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 08:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so she is being papped. This is hardly likely to continue.TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the 2nd statement. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I had no strong feeling initially about this article, apart from a view that there was still more to say and that a 3rd AfD was required, but looking at the above discussion I agree entirely with User:Soman that she has now had sufficient coverage to be notable in her own right (and that the reason for the coverage is indeed irrelevant). I further agree with Soman's interpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED (BTW, on an anecdotal level, this is the only spouse of a head of state of India I have ever heard of). Eustachiusz (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her only notability is being the estranged wife of Modi, not enough for an article on her. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Modi's marriage could be a subject of an article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe... We will make a Narendra Modi's paraphernalia and dump all stuff there. Almost everything that happens these days is linked with him. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Jashodaben Modi to Narendra Modi#Early life and education
Redirect Jashodaben Chimanlal to Narendra Modi#Early life and education
Delete Jashodaben as that's a quite common first name amongst Gujarati people and Modi's wife "Jashodaben" is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of it. The topic is not notable as such per above comments by many editors. But WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirectseems a sensible solution.TheLongTone (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to merge, everything is already at Modi's article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the rationale for the first AfD (that I initiated) doesn't apply anymore, the rationale for the second one still holds good. Coverage of her is only in the context of her marriage to Narendra Modi and the relevant content is already included in that article. This is not a case of a notable spouse such as Feroze Gandhi, Maneka Gandhi, Dimple Yadav etc etc. I'm not opposed to a protected Redirect to Narendra Modi. —SpacemanSpiff 12:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Narendra_Modi#Early_life_and_education. Obviously, circumstances have changed, but her notability is still entirely inherited from her relation to Modi, and I am very uncomfortable at the idea of having a separate BLP article for a person who is not a public figure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge with Family of Narendra Modi: When Narendra Modi left home at the age of 16, he abandoned not only his wife, but also the rest of his family. With the exception of ceremonial visits to his mother, he really has maintained no contact with his family or his wife. His humble background and detachment from his family, make his family and his relationship with his family quite unique among India's political leaders. Malaiya (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That article should be deleted too, his family is not notable and consists of private individuals, and the article is primarily made up of anecdotes in the context of Modi. This isn't a family like the Gandhis or the Thackerays etc —SpacemanSpiff 03:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Narendra_Modi#Early_life_and_education. She isn't notable, the marriage is notable and the marriage is best dealt with on Modi's page.

Above is an unsigned from User:SPACKlick (from history).Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Narendra_Modi#Early_life_and_education. Current notability does not appear to be anything more than a WP:BLP1E .--Pink Bull 16:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest criminal organizations[edit]

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

The article relies solely on sources from Wikipedia. It is original research on its finest. In addition, it will be incredibly difficult to find how "large" criminal organizations are in terms of members. Having studied Mexican drug cartels for years, there is still not enough information to know how big they are. The same goes for most criminal organizations out there too. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 14:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[3]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.41.199 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the number of foot soldiers for the respective criminal organizations is unknown. Not to mention the fact that this is only an unofficial claim by an anonymous senior agent in the U.S. government. He provides no evidences for his claim (there isn't a serious study on this fact anyways), nor does his comments represent the view of the U.S. government. The comment was made on the same year when Mexico was supposedly facing "risk of rapid and sudden collapse" like Pakistan. Makes me wonder if it was just part of the usual War on Drugs rhetoric among officials. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 14:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.41.199 (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the article is still very poorly organized and like already said, there is no a serious study for this. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:58, 13 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lordy, what a mess. You have to go to the individual Wikipedia articles, where there are some actual reliable sources. However, even that's a problem. The Russian mafia source for the 3,000,000 members states that they're split up into "6,000 organized crime groups". Similarly, the Mexican drug cartels are considered one organization, which is laughable. And what is the Kosovo Liberation Army doing here? It committed crimes, no doubt, but it was primarily a paramilitary organization. There are issues about who would be considered "members" (does that include "associates"?), making it difficult, if not impossible, to order by size. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup or TNT. I have no problem with a list of largest-by-membership criminal organizations, and I have no problem with the numbers being drawn from other Wikipedia articles as long as those articles use verifiable sources to back up the numbers. I DO have a problem with this list being so long. A top-10 or maybe top-25 list would be useful, anything longer risks becoming another monster like this was until the following edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 00:56, June 9, 2014 (UTC-5)
Strong delete While there might be room for such a list on Wikipedia, this list is an unsalvageable mess. Safiel (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete very revealing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.41.199 (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I agree that there's no way to know the actual number of members and the article poorly sourced, but even going on the actual Wikipedia articles themselves is a problem. The article looks unstable. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dont deleteif you cant trust Wikipedia who can you trust — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigortopic (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You can't cite Wikipedia as a reference, you need to cite other reliable sources. The article is mostly citing other Wikipedia articles as a reference, which is considered original research in this case. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to administrator I smell the aroma of dirty socks in the vicinity, if you catch my drift. Safiel (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, first of all, I have gang connections and I can tell you for a fact that a lot of us are editing articles about our own groups and trying to frame our rivals and making our enemies look bad or worse. I have to say that you can't trust gang related articles on Wikipedia, especially since alot of us are promoting ourselves on these articles and degrading our rivals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.9.242 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Asian Boyz, for example, are listed here at 5000-12000, whereas the source in the article, an FBI report, actually pegs them at 1300-2000. I've fixed the article (which also had the inflated numbers), but not this list. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ive expanded this article greatly from its original author as i see it may be helpful benchmark to get the score about how big this groups is relative to each other its not 100 percent accurate but i feel it will be very helpful information on the underworld groups

The problem is that most of the information in the article is unreliable and unverifiable. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 14:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
its a work in progress you can put more accurate infos feel free to change the rankings as long as you have some references to back it up everyone is welcome to contribute and improve the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.52.129.95 (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 Torneo Argentino B[edit]

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

Contested PROD. WP:NSEASONS is clear that only top professional leagues require season articles. This is the fourth tier and is not Fully Professional. No indication that this season's competition has garnered anywhere near the level of significant, reliable coverage beyond routine match reporting in order to satisfy WP:GNG. Additional major WP:NOTSTATS issues here as there is essentially no sourced prose. The fact thatthe majority of clubs competing in this iteration of the league suggests further there is little need for this article at this time. Fenix down (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi @Fenix down:, im the autor of the article, i agree with you that the fourth tier is not fully professional, but i think that this article will be consulted by a lot of people, please do not delete it , i put a lot of time and effort, thank you
Delete - non-notable season, fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable season. Author's fault for not reading. Kante4 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Grujičić[edit]

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

Contested PROD, no consensus that Serbian First league is fully pro. Original rationale: Player does not seem to have played in a fully professional league nor senior international football and so fails WP:NFOOTY. no indication of any additional achievements that have garnered sufficient significant, reliable coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Both sources listed in the article confirm he made four appearances in the fully pro Serbian SuperLiga for BSK Borča, meaning the article meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Sir Sputnik: I don't see the Serbian league on WP:FPL. Am I being totally blind or has it been removed in error? Happy to withdraw if it has been removed. Fenix down (talk)

@Sir Sputnik: @Fenix down:, I removed the Serbian SuperLiga from FPL here, it was not referenced to a RS. Giant Snowman 18:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that. The league probably is fully pro but without sources to confirm, we can't use that as a source of notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps @FkpCascais: can help find a source? Giant Snowman 18:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some time, but I have never dealt really with that issue of league professionality, all I know is that the top league of Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro/Serbia is professional since the 1970s. FkpCascais (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, the league was fully-professionalised in 1967 (source: "Moving with the Ball" by Pierre Lanfranchi and Matthew Taylor, pag. 119) and I beleave ever since that was not changed. But I´ll try to get a source for current state of the league. Any help is also welcomed. FkpCascais (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the document every player of SuperLiga needs to have, it is called "Professional contract" and within it includes the "point 2" where it has a place for including the players wage. (here is the Professional contract). Is this OK? FkpCascais (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Serbian/English version (here) however it doesn´t include a spot for adding players salary as the "only Serbian" version, which I posted above, does, but here it clearly says "Professional players contract" and every player needs to have one. FkpCascais (talk) 02:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, but unless I'm missing something the source doesn't actually say that all players are required to have such a contract. If you can source that we're all set. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, I see. That document is under a section (in the left column) which translated means "Contracts and documents regarding registration", and I already read that all players need to be registered (only registered players can play). I´ll try to find where I read that, it was somewhere in the documents regarding league regulations. Another question is that seems that same applies for the Serbian First League (second tier) as well. There are 2 contracts: the professional and another one for scholarship (which I am certain that is for players under 17, but I´ll try to bring where it says that). In the only Serbian version of the scholarship contract (here) under Члaн 2. the first empty space is for adding the players salary. FkpCascais (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have always considered Serbian Superleague fully professional. It looks as though someone deleted this from WP:FPL without any discussion whatsoever in Talk. Looking at the league regulations it's quite clear that all the players must be licenced, with various quotas. Nfitz (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: - I removed the Serbian SuperLiga from FPL as I have already said. There was a discussion that the only source present was not reliable, some leagues were then removed but others (including Serbuia) were missed. They have all since been removed. Giant Snowman 08:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nfitz.--Yacatisma (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Serbian SuperLiga appears to be a WP:FPL from the sources present here, so the player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Happy to withdraw the nomination based on the sourcing above. Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Given that the last contribution to this discussion was 8 days ago, it doesn't seem likely that more discussion will be forthcoming. The arguments in favor of keeping the article seem to confuse "important" or "deserving" with "notable". Randykitty (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Elsayed Amr[edit]

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

Not sure about notability - sounds like he is only famous for one event - and surely there are others who have been imprisoned. Gbawden (talk) 07:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability as an individual/event having no enduring historical significance. He was one of 132 people involved so arguably run of the mill given the circumstances. Article appears heavily weighted against the Eqyptian government contrary to Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Google search returns no reliable sources confirming notability, although this may be due to Ibrahim Elsayed Amr being a common Arabic name. References (including one citing Facebook) are all in Arabic but do not look like sites providing a reliable basis for notabiity claims. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources show individual notability. Wikipedia is not a place to start or aid an activism campaign; you have to first gain notability on the wider Internet/media, then we can cover it - not the other way around. At best, redirect to Egyptian Crisis (2011–present). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The hash-tag #الدكتور_ابراهيم was one of the top ranking hash-tags on twitter in Egypt. The hash-tag was mentioned in more than one news article:
- http://youm7.com/News.asp?NewsID=1683983#.U4MnnPmSySr
- https://www.elwatannews.com/news/details/488366

Wikipedia:BLP1E#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event These secondary sources make Ibrahim notable. He was sentenced to 10 years of prison without proof and relying on biased witnesses. Which makes him a victim wrongly accused of a crime. There's the issue of lack of reliable sources to cover the issue. Wolfstarr (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. One of many to be arrested, but also one of the most notable. Twitter was one of the driving forces of the revolution and the amount of attention he was given in the midst of that gives him notability, I believe. Adamh4 (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Philg88 ^♦talk 16:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Twitter is a reliable source, but think that the fact he had such a large presence on a driving forces of one of the largest revolutions the region has ever seen makes him notable enough to have his own individual page. I believe we can say his popularity on Egyptian twitter makes him a well known figure in Egypt. Adamh4 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can "say" whatever we like, but the question is whether we can we back that up with significant independent coverage in reliable sources. In this case, no we can't, so Ibrahim isn't notable for Wikipedia purposes. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 5 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 17:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Envy of the State[edit]

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

WP:GARAGEBAND No reliable references, couldn't find any info on "red label", seemingly non-notable Benboy00 (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This band would pass WP:Music #2 Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart (including genre-specific chart) if the chart positions stated could be proven for 2 songs at #3 and at #5 on UK Rock Chart. But I am having trouble finding any proof of that. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that the youtube video (I assume this is the official one, but even if not this is the one with the highest number of views) has less than 10k hits would suggest that this may not be true, although I'm not really that familiar with the UK rock chart. Comparitively, this video, the song for which is currently number 10 on the chart, has 500k hits. Searching this database gives no results for this band, which means that, without any other evidence, these claims are incorrect. Benboy00 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I have removed chart positions until this can be proved. Also added ref regarding red label records and iTunes link. (talk) --Noisyboyuk (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the chart positions could not be shown, this artist now does not appear to meet any of the notability guidelines listed in WP:MUSIC. Benboy00 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find coverage to establish that this group meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 00:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Gongshow, lacks adequate evidence from reliable sources. There may be more out there, but I couldn't find it through the junk. --Bejnar (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the bit about headlining international tours was true, then they'd meet WP:MUSIC #4. However, the reference provided doesn't support the claim, and I have not been able to find anything online whatsoever to indicate they've played outside of the UK, which leads me to believe the claim is bollocks. I think there may be some puffery, exaggeration, and outright lies going into this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Holloway[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as he AVN win is excluded as it is merely for a scene award.As far as I can make out she failed to win either of the two XBIZ awards she was nominated for this year.No sources to indictae she could pass WP:GNG. Contains merely one line of text and a table with nominations. Finnegas (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Not finding non-trivial RS coverage for passing GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable porn star, I'm afraid Fails GNG •86.15.162.137 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even by porn standards this is a crappy article. BLPs require much better sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Fails PORNBIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very Strong Delete~~ I think it's shit article and not notable at all, not enough evidence of meeting. 86.15.162.137 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted above. —Davey2010→ ✉ - 14:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Finnegas, 86.5.162.137 (talk)You only get one vote thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks references, does not meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of short story competitions[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:LINKFARM. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 12:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it stands, this is a directory of short story competitions aimed at would-be writers, rather than a list of Wikipedia articles or a summary article aimed at the general reader who want information on prizes and their winners, and therefore it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is scope for an article - there are a few possibly notable short story competitions, such as

Costa Short Story Award [5][6] (part of Costa Book Awards)
BBC National Short Story Award [7]
Commonwealth Short Story Prize [8][9]
Chris Evans children's short story writing competition[10][11][12]

But the article would need a major change to focus on the notable examples. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Colapeninsula. Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The short story competitions themselves don't need to be notable. Notability is not a requirement for content, editors have discretion what to include in an article so long as it's reliably sourced. The question for AfD is if, in general, a list of competitions is notable. Other lists like this exist outside Wikipedia. For example: [13][14][15] Calling it a "link farm" doesn't make sense since the links are part of the reason for the list. Nor does NOTDIR make sense since this is not an indiscriminate list, there are limited entries and clear delineation. -- GreenC 04:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I could scrounge up $350, self publish an anthology and add my contest to the list? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or better yet, announce a contest with no prizes mentioned (or much in the way of other details) and add a now dead link, just like "The Self-Publishing Review Writer's Awards"? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are specific content issues. Talk page discussions. AfD is topic-level. -- GreenC 05:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not when not a single one of these contests has a source. Then it's TNT time. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are sourced to WP:PRIMARY sources which is permissible for determining existence. I agree it needs more secondaries but that's not reason to delete just to {{refimprove}}. -- GreenC 15:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Green Cardamom: - Notability is a requirement for list items in the vast majority of cases, though. The sourcing is what provides evidence for that (i.e. beyond existence and fit for the subject of the article). As this is not the kind of list that can possibly be exhaustive and is not the kind of list with items that inherently fail notability criteria. It's just a list of stuff that's generally not notable. Just like you can't add your non-notable band to List of metalcore bands just because it can be proven to exist, you can't just add an event to a list without showing it's notable. If external links are a major reason for the list then it specifically runs afoul of WP:LINKFARM, doesn't it? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, though. From my perspective, it doesn't matter how many sources list short story competitions -- if no short story competition is notable, then those sources would just go towards an article for short story competition and not a list of specific examples. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with the assessment that it's a link farm with no viable entries. As with my comments above, I don't think the notability of this subject matters if it won't be populated by any notable examples. A subject can be notable without meriting a stand-alone article. Sources on lists of short story competitions should be used for short story competition. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. The list also lacks a proper WP:LEAD and statement of selection criteria. Lists are better if the topic of the list has been the subject of discussion in reliable secondary sources, such as List of actresses who portrayed Bond girls, now at Bond girls. Absence of such discussion usually indicates that a list is not notable. --Bejnar (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Utah State Aggies football seasons[edit]

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

Unsourced list lacking any context or assertion of notability. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:RAWDATA. - Mr X 12:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Stand-alone list articles like this one exist to keep from over burdening and cluttering up the main Utah State Aggies football article. Sources can easily be found. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While unsourced, the subject of the list is notable. Like Ejgreen77 says, sourced can be found. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep lack of sources in the article is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Sources certainly exist.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:04, 6 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) 00:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Green Party of the United States[edit]

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

party promo The Banner talk 11:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legitimate spin-out of lengthy parent article Green Party of the United States. It may not be quite as illustrious as History of the United States Republican Party, and it could do with more third-party sources and fewer quotes, but there's nothing that can't be fixed by editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject doesn't have enough history to require two articles. The history of the party can easily be folded into the article about the party. Moreover, as it stands, this article reads like a brochure touting the Green Party. I don't have much hope that someone could write an objective history of this party. The article should go therefore. Chisme (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article is extremely bloated and needs paring down, but the factual details here (including first candidates, victories, results in national elections, etc.) is legitimate content that would probably overwhelm the main article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is obviously a spin-out article of a section of Green Party of the United States intended to keep the main article from becoming unreadably long. No valid reason for deletion given by nominator in any event. Carrite (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is valid as a subtopic that could, and should, be salvaged. Thincat (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean up per the above. A legitimate fork meant to prevent a massive bloating in the main article. That being said, this article needs some clean-up. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous comments, a legitimate spin-off article with relevant content. Also agree w/ others that cleanup is needed.--JayJasper (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely needs clean-up and updating, but a legitimate article nominated without legitimate rationale.--TM 11:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)`[reply]
- Advertising / promotion is a valid rationale, if you like it or not The Banner talk 15:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but drastically remove poorly sourced and unsourced content. It is a notable topic but the article's current form, with numerous primary sources and many violations of the manual of style, is an embarrassment to Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:58, 9 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Hansen[edit]

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

malformed disambiguation page, blocking article creation The Banner talk 10:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: nothing malformed about it: two people who each merit a redirect or a dab page entry. But if you want to create an article about one of them, I'd suggest over-writing the dab page and giving a hatnote to point to the appropriate article for the other one. If you want to write an article about someone else, create it with a disambiguation and then do a Request Move to move it to the base name and the dab page to "... (disambiguation)". PamD 23:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep User:The Banner, have you read MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION? Valid dab page, 2 valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Banner, can you please respond to the above question, and also look at the page again (substantial changes from originally shorter although still-valid dab) and consider withdrawing nomination? There is no point in this dragging on. Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't take people too serious that think that everybody has read every policy and essay under the sun. Especially, when those people are constantly waving with those policies and essays. The Banner talk 17:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Banner, I take that as a no to being vaguely familiar with guidelines before deciding a page should be deleted, and no to withdrawing nomination? Not checking guidelines before declaring a page invalid is wrong, but certainly something I've done - it happens. The most important issue is once it's been pointed out to you, not wasting everyone's time dragging this out. As it stands, other editors will waste their time looking over this discussion, when you could read the guidelines or look at the page as it is - doing either would take less than a minute - withdraw nomination and save people time. I've certainly withdrawn nominations and made mistakes myself - the important thing is trying to resolve them quickly. Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This pretty much comes down to the delete side arguing, "it's badly written", and the keep side arguing, "we agree it's badly written, but it's a good topic". My gut tells me the strength of the Keep arguments are sufficient to justify a clean Keep consensus, but I'm going to wimp out and call this No Consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diseases and epidemics of the 19th century[edit]

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

Notability concerns. I take the view that being an unsourced medical article is an A7able offense. Laun chba ller 09:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It has lots of fringe material. That's why I had PRODED it first. Still no improvement. OccultZone (Talk) 09:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of history-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 09:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete of possible redirect to History of emerging infectious diseases, where the topic is covered.TheLongTone (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced, as it is written this article strikes me as WP:OR ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 10:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not even referenced. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It owuld help if people stuck to valid arguments at deletion. "Unsourced medical article" is hardly valid for a historical overview, "lots of fringe material" is not a deletion reason, and "unsourced" or "unreferenced" aren't deletion reasons either. WP:OR and "better covered elsewhere" are perfectly acceptable deletion (or redirect) reasons though :-) Fram (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Terribly written currently, but~~ the title is pure gold, and should not suffer the indignity of deletion. ~~Purely a matter of whether or not you believe in WP:TNT or not. I do not. It is not policy. Current state of the article does not reflect its potential.~~
- The article is focused on the occurrence in the 19th C, of diseases which have plagued humankind for time immemorial. History of emerging infectious diseases defined its emerging diseases as only recently being recognized; it is obviously not a congruent focus and therefore not an appropriate merge target. Cholera is the only disease the two articles have in common, out of ten diseases.
- OR in the title? Is it OR to say there were epidemics in the 19th Century? Seriously. Some things are empirically observable. OR in the article is a matter for the Talk page or an RFC. Anarchangel (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is all very sad. The topic is potentially very worthwhile (and how could anyone dream that it is not notable?). However, the content is weak, very weak. Significant parts are not OR but they are unreferenced. Even the content that, if referenced, would be worth keeping is not well written and it would (for me at any rate) be easier to start again. A redirect would generally be a good solution to this but I simply can't find an appropriate target. I think what would be for the best would be to delete with a comment that a new article on this topic would be very welcome. We would then be more or less back to where we were yesterday morning. If the user requested userify, I think we could agree to this. Thincat (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The correct term is 'delete without prejudice'. I would prefer it be AfCd rather than userspaced because then the 'time limit' of WP:G13 may help spur the article creator on to 'hurry up' (if that makes any sense) and then it could be guaranteed that it enters articlespace in an acceptable state.--Laun chba ller 21:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amateurish ("Cholera was the biggest epidemic of the 19th century"?) and totally unsourced. I suppose List of 19th century epidemics could be constructed with actual, specific outbreaks, but there's nothing worth salvaging here. WP:BLOWITUP. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Anarchangel (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe too much caffeine. And I was very pleased with myself, obviously. What I meant to say is, I have improved the article considerably. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Massively notable topic with lots of reliable sources. All other problems can be clearly dealt with editing, and thus, per our deletion policy, we need to fix by editing, not deletion. Sources can be added, work can be done to improve its state. Destroying stuff is easy, but it is not a solution endorsed by our policies.--cyclopia ^speak! 13:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This article is an WP:ESSAY, randomly selecting 4 diseases, prevalent in the 19th century. It might be acceptable as part of a series, but the diseases also existed in the 17th and 18th centuies, though may have been less prevalent in some cases. Some have subsequently been eliminated in the West. This does not have the feel of an encyclopaedic article. If there were useful content not found eleswhere in WP, I would have voted to merge the sections into the main article on the disease, but I doubt there is anyting worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not present the four as unique to the 19th century. Five of the seven cholera epidemics occurred in the 19th C, but the article specifically states that two happened in the 20th C. I am not an expert, but I would be willing to bet that these are the four biggest killers in the 19th century, so they are hardly "random". Any suggestions as to other strongly sourceable disease epidemics that should be added, would be welcome. No diseases had been eradicated in the nineteenth century, germ theory being in its infancy. Whereas being eradicated in the West in modern times is almost tautological for epidemic diseases. What is your point? The same goes for your last point: "feel" of an article is not even much of a helpful hint on the Talk page, and we should not have to be addressing it at AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Notable, encyclopedic topic that cannot be contained by any single parent topic, necessitating its very existence. Summary style sections indicate that the majority of the article is already sourced elsewhere. I can see no valid objection to the existence of this article, and frankly, the opposes have me questioning the integrity of the AfD process itself. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Viriditas and Cyclopia. This is a worthy topic, and poorly written is not a reason for deleting.--LT910001 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cleanup is not a reason for deletion. This is a no-brainer - it is notable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:HEY, topic notable via GNG and Cyclopia's sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pakdam Pakdai[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Laun chba ller 09:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No notability concerns. Enough sources are available in English, more sources are probably available in Hindi. Fram (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fram has changed the look of this page. I would like to remove the list of those actors, but I will do that later. If there are sources, I will probably add. OccultZone (Talk) 12:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 12:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one day old article had evidence it clearly met the WP:GNG at the time it was nominated for deletion. I look at those sources, I don't see how it could be in doubt. Dream Focus 13:31, 5 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 23:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugurol Barlas[edit]

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

Not notable. Although Barlas has published a substantial number of texts, I can't find independent reliable sources attesting to notability, also not in Turkish. On the article's talk page the existing of a corresponding page on the Turkish Wikipedia is given as an argument against deletion, but that page has been deleted as not being suitably encyclopedic material. --Lambiam 09:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same findings as the nomination. -- GreenC 19:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barlas is fairly well cited in Turkish publications (sometimes as H. Ugurol Barlas) and I found a few citations to his work in French publications, but I could find nothing about him. --Bejnar (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Symphonic techno[edit]

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

I cannot find any sources - even minor ones - that mention something about this genre. Λeternus ^(talk) 08:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Semitransgenic _talk. 23:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced original research. --DAJF (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found only one passing reference in a reputable source, but no significant coverage. Clearly fails WP:NOTE.--SabreBD (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Samek[edit]

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

Not notable IMO, fails WP:SOLDIER. We can't have articles for every soldier or airman killed Gbawden (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous AFD nominated this for deletion as Wikipedia is not a memorial and the strongest case for this articles inclusion is a passing reference by Congress naming soldiers killed in action. As much as it breaks my heart to say so, this fails WP:SOLDIER per nom. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior airman who died in a crash. Not notable. Having a temporary camp named after him does not meet the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial notability and fails WP:Soldier and WP:NotMemorial. — dain omite 15:55, 6 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 03:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Watson (Texas musician)[edit]

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

Unsourced fanpage, promotional in tone, no evidence of notability. He doesn't acquire notability from those he has "the pleasure of sharing the stage with". Twice nominated for speedy, but contested by a third party. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same reason as Solarra gave, fails WP:NMUSIC. DJAMP4444 08:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Probably WP:TOOSOON. The complete lack of any sourcing is a threshhold problem; this article is potentially deletable under WP:BLPPROD. Assuming we're talking about the Chris Watson whose band has the website http://www.chriswatsonband.com/, the website's press page offers a few things that might qualify, if marginally, including Rock Over America, Blues Underground Network, a concert review at DFW.com, and a couple of others that look more like blogs, but I'm not sure. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The best coverage, in my view, appears to be two local write-ups; I'm not convinced that's enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 07:53, 6 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 23:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Humza Bin Masood[edit]

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

User removed PROD template. Simply said, no indication of importance nor notability. BiH (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:N, specifically WP:NACADEMIC nothing in the article even attempts to establish why this individual is notable in his field. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Gene93k. BLP - Twenty-three years old and a devoted social worker. --Bejnar (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Harts[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Prod was contested by article creator. --Finngall ^talk 03:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The guy's got a regular role in a moderately significant TV show and has taken serious roles on Broadway. The deletion was originally proposed by an editor who has a history of being trigger-happy in his proposed deletions. I do agree that there are problems with the article as it stands, the main one being that it appears to have been started by an editor with a possible conflict of interest, at least if his name is anything to go by, but we should be able to tidy this up over time. It was easy for me to find independent references to this actor, and his current role suggests that he's notable enough (we have plenty of other articles about actors with regular roles in TV shows), so this strikes me as an easy "keep". RomanSpa (talk) 04:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Comment~~ Currently fails actor notability criteria. Of the five references, three are to IMDB and therefore non-reliable while the other two do not mention Harts. There are a number of results returned by Google Search but these are mainly passing mentions of his appearance in 'A Raisin in the Sun'. Article would need complete new references before it can be considered for retention. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Changing comment to keep based on Solarra's new sourcing. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theater-related deletion discussions. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the sources listed in the article are unreliable, sources do exist establishing his notability in some relatively decent roles. The article may need work, but the subject appears to me to meet WP:NACTOR. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 08:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing NACTOR and WP:GNG. Solarra, those aren't even close to unbiased reliable sources: passing mentions in the book Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon: The Complete Guide to the Movie Trivia Game? a bio by the law firm who has him as a client? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He really is on the borderline of notability I agree, but personally I feel there is just enough to warrant inclusion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interested editors may find it useful to read this conversation on the page creator's talk page. In short the editor is an authorized agent/manager of Frank Harts, but is not familiar with our way of doing things. I'd already mentioned that there was a possible COI above, but I feel that so long as the editor in question is simply providing the article with additional references on which we can base our decision here we don't need to be too worried. In any case the independent work of Solarra in providing additional references has already added additional weight to the article. RomanSpa (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hart's notability is indeed borderline but he is found in multiple independent sources and thereby, IMHO, warrants inclusion. COI aside, the more references that can be found the better. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Solarra, this last batch of "references" is no better than the first. A list of his credits and a passing mention in a book obviously don't qualify. As for the interview, I'm not overly impressed since it was conducted in a public library. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Laredo, Texas UFO crash[edit]

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

Article built on unreliable fringe sources like UFO Evidence, Kevin Randle, Leonard Stringfield, etc. with no credibility. The one and only WP:FRIND independent source [16] is a brief mention that characterizes it as "gossip circulated" ---has been badly misrepresented in the article text. No independent objective sources that discuss the topic in depth available. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Although this article is definitely on the fringe, other similar incidents are just as well sourced. As for this incident in particular, several sources exist in just page one of a simple search. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 09:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those sources are serious enough to pass the bar set by WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have no prejudice against UFO articles, but the sources here are beyond redemption: "self-published", "UFO Photo Archives", "ufoevidence.org". Wikipedia does not exist to make testimonies reliable. Shii (tock) 21:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mainstream reliable sources have not given this significant coverage. I'm not actively opposed to all UFO articles. I just want to see something besides fringe sources used to validate fringe claims. UFO books themselves aren't necessarily fringe sources by default. But these are. Here's an example of mainstream coverage of a reputed UFO crash in Texas. I found this while searching for Laredo sources. These things do get mainstream coverage sometimes, and it's not too high of a bar to set. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:FRIND sources appear to be forthcoming for this particular subject. jps (talk) 23:44, 10 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 Anaal Nathrakh. Without prejudice to merging verifiable content into the target j⚛e decker ^talk 14:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fukpig[edit]

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

This article has no reliable sources for its history, discography, members, genre or origin. The band itself has received little to no coverage from reliable sources and I don't see a reason to why this is such a high-priority band, the members aren't that big of a deal, they have no legacy, and their record label is nothing particularly special either, so I'm confused to as why this is such a high priority article. For these reasons I believe this article should be deleted. SilentDan297 talk 00:45, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music bands). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Anaal Nathrakh. This appears to be a side project (all of the members of Fukpig are either members or ex-members of that band). I couldn't find much in the way of sources, but I did find interviews in Clandestine Metal Zine from Chile [17] and The Midlands Rocks from the UK [18]. Not sure what the nominator means by "high priority article", though...it hasn't been featured on the main page or nominated for GA status AFAICT. — Gwalla | Talk 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the articles talk page it is rated as 'High-importance' on the importance scale for WikiProject West Midlands. SilentDan297 talk 18:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Looks like a couple of IPs added importance ratings to the project templates (including the WikiProject Metal template, which doesn't have an importance parameter!). The same IP that added it to the West Midlands template also added the article to the to-do list for that project, but that was removed by a project member as "vandalism". So I'm pretty sure it's actually meaningless and neither project considers it high priority. — Gwalla | Talk 19:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here, refs aren't anything. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 5 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 23:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebound (2009 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no secondary coverage BOVINEBOY2008 00:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. It exists. It can be watched. But no sources have taken note. I'd be okay with a redirect to the film's director so readers might at least learn of his other works. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding any media notice. Possibly redirect to The Rebound, released the same year? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice thought, but a redirect to a similarly-named but completely-unrelated film with a different plot and cast will simply confuse readers looking for information on this gay-themed project. At least by sending readers to the notable director's article, they will not be confused by finding a unrelated film and might at least learn of the filmmaker. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-deletion (G4). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Hebron[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was deleted twice in 2007 and and recreated in 2008. The article still does not provide any sources that indicate that the person is notable, nor can I find any. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The earlier article was contributed by the WP:SPA account Wikiart0010 and deleted at AfD in November 2007; in January 2008 along comes the WP:SPA account Nyarts123456 whose sole contribution to Wikipedia is to create another article on the subject, one to which the same AfD discussion points would be applicable. AllyD (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly as CSD G4: Multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) are not turning up evidence that the subject is of biographical notability. I can't see the earlier deleted article but the previous AfD makes it sound similar if not identical, so I am also going to place a G4 tag. AllyD (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This one has already gone red, somebody can close it. Carrite (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Visibility[edit]

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

I don't see sources which meet our corporate notability guideline, in particular in view of WP:CORPDEPTH. I see passing mentions, a few of the articles don't mention the article at all, and so on. Additional sources welcomed, as always. Was likely originally an AfC draft as Draft:Higher Visibility. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After review this page offers no real sign of notability, and upon a search of the net I see no other way to support it. 201.140.183.21 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable as a company or website thereof. Sounds like an advertisement. 154.122.136.222 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article passes WP:CORPDEPTH, as its received coverage in around 8-10 independent sources, including the Huffington Post and also Business 2 Community. 209.236.85.134 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The HuffPo piece doesn't even mention the subject at all, and all the other links are PR puffery and articles written by Higher Visibility personnel. There's simply nothing there on which to base an encyclopedia article that meets WP's standards. --Finngall ^talk 17:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. IP who voted keep, citing the spurious HuffPo source, has 0 other edits (but of course could be dynip). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IRulu[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Only pages I could find are some unreliable reviews (ironically claiming that the tablets are defective) or to listings of Android tablets. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - probably. I'll wait until the discussion is well underway to finalize my vote. The item, in terms of it exists and seems to be a product people use a decent amount, should be notable, but you're right, I'm not finding a ton of sources. This has no bearing on my stance on this AFD, but it irks me a great deal when articles are created and then are completely unsourced. If anyone can find sources, please add them.Bali88 (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:24, 5 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.

Delete lack of independent reliable sources. --Bejnar (talk) 02:14, 14 June 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Jankowski[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST Zeus^u|c 18:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unremarkable, fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Limited press coverage apart from being on a reality tv show. Cowlibob (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks sufficient references; does not meet GNG, although there is a mention of him here in the Washington Post.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with all the above. What about this other tattoo artist? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like that is notable musician and it talks about his personal life as a tattoo artist, as opposed to asserting notability on the grounds of his tattoo work. Zeus ^t^{| u | c} 16:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Life (album)[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the MUSICBIO requirements and does not pass GNG. HotHat (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know this has been reviewed once by Cross Rhythms, but one review with nothing else does not satisfy GNG.
Delete I could only find one reasonable source and it was a track listing (if it contained a staff review it would have been a reliable source). Fails WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above an album with no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:33, 5 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) 07:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia Merdeka Calendar[edit]

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

Seems to be an invented calendar, was not able to find any sources at all about it. The article itself admits it was created by an individual in 1967 and then refined this year. Zeus^u|c 06:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, i searched on google and google books, tried different spellings, could not find anything apart from Indonesian wikipedia http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalender_Indonesia_Merdeka --Soman (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to be widely used. If someone here is a contributor to the Indonesian Wikipedia someone should nominate it for deletion there too. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:12, 7 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 04:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bentzen Ball[edit]

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

Non-notable festival (2 editions, 6k Google hits) with a smell of promotion. The Banner talk 16:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice source coverage, and lots of notable and famous participants. — Cirt (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of Mubahala[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As stated in the first AfD, Mubahala itself is notable but this hadith is not, and the article is primarily a result of original research. All search results and academic/scholarly mentions are for Mubahala or Eid al-Mubahila, not the hadith of mubahala. Literally nobody participated in the last AfD other than me, so it was closed as no consensus. I'm renominating it speedily per WP:NPASR. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This has been through AfD twice, and held over twice each time, with nobody offering an opinion. This is miles outside of my field, but here it goes: this is essentially unsourced and I am not immediately finding anything on the topic in English that would count to GNG, but there does seem to be a web footprint for the phrase that indicates (to me at least) that sources are out there if one knew where to look, and in what language. I believe WP is better off with this article than without it and that deletion would not serve any positive benefit. Keep under WP:IAR. Carrite (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carrite, you are the man simply for responding. There is life on Earth, apparently! Anyway, are you sure the non-English sources you're finding are actually for Hadith of Mubahala (hadith = oral report), and not the actual Mubahala itself? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of anything, I'm completely out of my element. Are you for your part really sure this needs to be deleted? Carrite (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Carrite. I will go on record saying that I really am sure the content on this article (as copy paste of primary religious texts) needs to be deleted, and that the subject is not notable in and of itself. Now, should the whole article be deleted or simple redirected to Mubahala? I lean toward the former but I won't deny that a decent case for the latter could be made. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Mubahala was a quality article and this one really sucked, I could see that outcome. But this one is at least coherent; they both have big sourcing problems. I wish a few people who work with Christian themes would chime in with OTHERSTUFF arguments one way or the other to provide guidance. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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