Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 June 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 June	7 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. The history still exists if someone decides that any information should be merged at a later date, but the consensus is that there is none now. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpitor[edit]

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

Stub, unnecessary List_of_Dartmoor_tors_and_hills is avaliable. Page gives no real information. Ecallow (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this with fire! Because it's irrelevant! --AstronautAnt (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dartmoor tors and hills. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is plenty of mention of this on google. Szzuk (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references aren't about the stone age site, but about Overbeck's: there are multiple Sharpitors.--Colapeninsula (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:39, 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 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly redirect). We cannot have an article on every archaeological site in UK: there are far too many. I do not wholly understand the article, as a tor is natural rock outcropping at the top of a hill (usually on Dartmoor). Megalithic normally refers to an archaeological structure made of very large stones, soemthing differnet from a tor. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 23:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third relist — Usually we don't relist 3 times, and so far it looks like there's rough consensus against keeping; but, no clear policy-based arguments are being given, plus the direction of non-keepage is unclear. It seems like the primary policy-based argument is probably Wikipedia is not a directory, and it should be noted that stubs aren't inherently a violation of policy, nor is the relevance of the content; conversely, mentions on google aren't inherently reasons to keep. Please provide additional policy and guideline-based arguments or at least a clearer direction. --slakr^\ talk / 23:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dartmoor tors and hills. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dartmoor tors and hills, which already includes two Sharpitors and multiple Sharp Tors. The article refers to a site near one such Sharpitor. I can't find any reliable sources about a stone age site: just personal web pages and sites that publish user-submitted content[1][2]. No evidence that there has been serious archaeological or historical analysis of the site, or in-depth coverage in reliable sources, or evidence that this is an official or widely-used name for the ruins. This site is not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Multiple searches also failed to find anything significant enough for this article. The consensus seems to be that there isn't anything to add substance to the article. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for article retention. The notion of a merge can continue in a discussion on an article talk page if so desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebro[edit]

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

This article has been tagged since 2008 as being WP:CRUFT. There is not a single reference to a secondary source. There is no attempt made to assess the subject based on its real world impact. Instead, it is just a long winded plot summary for a fictional device. The only audience are the X-Men fetishists, and they are better served by a fanservice wiki. Wikipedia is not for summary-only descriptions of works. - hahnch e n 22:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - The author deserves a scolding for not sourcing or writing it properly as well as not doing maintenance when requested, but not being an comic book fan myself, I can't say how notable this is. We have lots of articles of the type for things like the holodeck, so if anyone can demonstrate the notability of this topic, I'll vote to keep. My vote will probably be delete. Bali88 (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at worst merge somewhere; there are any number of potential sources. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you specify which of the sources you feel justify the keeping of this article? Looking through those books, the Cerebro is only mentioned in passing as a device that Professor X uses to locate mutants. I think Professor X would be a good redirect target, the device is already covered in that article. I don't think anything needs to be merged into it. - hahnch e n 12:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fictional device is of key importance in most of the X-Men movies and in other X-Men media. bd2412 T 23:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are available sources. [3] [4] [5]--Crazy runner (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep though if there is a solid merge target, that might be the editorially correct way to go. I dug up a few sources (see my talk page) but nothing great. I think it's over the bar of WP:N, but it's close. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Business (company)[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 22:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though there is some promotional material in the article, it would be a minor job to rewrite and make it more encyclopedic.The company is notable, there are reliable sources cited, and the article provides a wealth of material on a rather fascinating topic. Work is definitely needed (is the filmography necessary?), but this article should be kept and improved. - Gorthian (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify, for while it has been the subject of multiple secondary sources, it reads as highly promotional throughout, with pretty much no citations outside of the lead. – 23W _{(talk · contribs)} 09:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to meet GNG. Promotional content and inappropriate writing style should be cut, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed and revised most of the promotional material – pretty much anything outside the lead. – 23W _{(talk · contribs)} 23:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:23W, good job. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"SNOW" Keep per meeting WP:COMPANY AND WP:GNG. Well nominator?? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be too harsh here, but the radical edit of User:23W turned it into an acceptable article, although it still contains some fluff. Request speedy close as keep, as nominator. The Banner talk 10:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add that its the way the article was for a couple of months before a new user started expanding the article with no references. – 23W _{(talk · contribs)} 17:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Didn't seem to meet WP:NFOOTY as has never participated in an actual world class event, only a "qualifier". (non-admin closure) — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poon Man Tik[edit]

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

Non-notable POV puff piece. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is about a footballer who has played in FIFA World Cup Qualifying matches and meets WP:NFOOTBALL. I've removed the unsourced trivia, and the article needs additional sourcing, but it should be improved rather than deleted. Jogurney (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a former Hong Kong international, he clearly meets WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL, article was in need of improving rather than deleting. Poor nomination. Giant Snowman 19:08, 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 23:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ImperialCoin[edit]

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

Contested prod. Reason was "Non-notable. The page itself says its future as a currency is not promising." Bensci54 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found absolutely no independent coverage in any reliable source; subject fails to meet WP:GNG or other notability standards. Agyle (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero reliable sources covering it. It's never a good sign when a Wikipedia page is created by the same guy who invented the thing.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 14:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (or WP:SNOW, if you prefer.) Meritless and self-contradictory nomination of an indisputably notable topic, contrary to relevant guidelines and policies. I suggest a read of WP:AADD, because several of its examples are touched on. postdlf (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of infantry weapons of World War I[edit]

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

Totally unsourced list of countries and other political entities and weapons of all kinds, with not a single inline citation anywhere, and just a few books listed at the bottom of the list. Creating such a list might have been a good idea a long time ago, but now it's just a playground for IPs and new user accounts who add fantasy content and political entities that had nothing to do with World War I. A quick look at the page history shows that all "serious" editors have abandoned it a long time ago, with noone even bothering to try to keep the list clean, and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia, any more. Thomas.W ^talk 21:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is self-contradictory in that it claims that the page is "totally unsourced" and it then tells us that it lists a "few books". There are plenty more books out there with titles like Weapons of WW1 and so the topic easily passes WP:LISTN. All the entries are blue links and, if we consider the first one, it is easy to verify this with a source such as Military Handguns of Two World Wars. The nomination does not provide a single concrete example or evidence to support its wild claims. In this centenary year, we should dismiss the nomination immediately as disruptive. Andrew (talk) 06:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The blue links leads to the articles that confirm they are infantry weapons used in World War 1. If you have a problem with IP addresses vandalizing a page, you don't try to delete the entire page, you report it to Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism and they can block IP addresses and new accounts from editing it. As for your claim that all serious editors have abandoned the article, well, maybe they felt the list was completed and didn't need anything else added. Anyway, no valid reason given to delete this article. The information is verifiable and it meets all requirements for a Wikipedia list. Dream Focus 06:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being unsourced and subject to vanadlism are not valid reasons for article deletion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speed keep Per above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 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 DELETE - Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzle Club[edit]

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

Unreleased, no sourcing or establishment of why this game would be notable if it was never released. -- McDoob AU93 21:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 6 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:35, 7 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) 18:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches failed to find anything to add to the article. Obviously it wasn't released and there isn't anything to support redirecting or merging somewhere else. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 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 after good faith efforts to find independent sources came up short. - Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Junkbot[edit]

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

Non-notable browser based game. James^x12345 20:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the notability. Bali88 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:35, 7 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) 18:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not find multiple independent sources of significant coverage in reliable sources to meet general notability standards. Some sources considered:
- Zimmerman, Eric (2003). "Play as research: the iterative design process". In Laurel, Brenda (ed.). Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. MIT Press. pp. 182–184. ISBN 978-0-262-12263-4. (PDF of full text; good RS for info, but author Zimmerman worked on the game, so this is not independent coverage for notability purposes).
- How - Volume 19, Issues 4-6. RC Publications. 2004. p. 96.
- Children's Software & New Media Revue. Vol. 12. Active Learning Associates. 2004. p. 19. (Brief one-paragraph review)
- Robison, Alice J. (2006). Inventing fun: videogame design as a writing process. University of Wisconsin - Madison. p. 65. (Incidental; more about iterative design in game creation, citing Junkbot's development as an anecdotal example)
Keep The sources listed above are actually pretty good. Yes, the first one is by the author, but in a collection he was invited to contribute to. That's at least as good as an interview (where a person talks about themselves, but for notability purposes the fact that someone independent did the interview is what's relevant). The other sources are reasonably good, if not great. This looks more notable than many games that just have reviews in the standard places. Nice job hunting down sources (even if I disagree with the conclusion)! Hobit (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." I was a iffy on on counting Zimmerman's piece toward notability, but that excerpt lead me to reject it; the paper is still Zimmerman's work, regardless of where it's published. I really scoured for other sources, and the subject is discussed in one-person newsletters, one-person resource sites, graduate coursework, and it's linked (sometimes with a one-sentence description) on a lot of school, library, and educational resource websites (e.g. this "Worthy Web Sites" article from Early Childhood Today), but none of those are significant RS coverage. Agyle (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your objection and I think it's reasonable. I just feel that when invited to write for an edited collection like this, it is clear that the editor thinks the work is notable and worthly of coverage. That's (much of) the point of WP:N. Not saying your read on this is "wrong", merely that I disagree. Hopefully a few others will chime in and we'll see if we can get a consensus on the question. Again, I'm really impressed with your ability to find sources like that. I'd looked quickly and missed most. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. and WP:SALT j⚛e decker ^talk 23:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shafkat Chowdhury[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The citations used in the article do not, in any way, establish his notability. Shovon (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No GNews hits. Only GBooks hits are copies of Wikipedia. Considering recreation, recommend Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. WP:GNG not passed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 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 speedy keep. per no reason given for deletion. v/r - T P 20:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmal Kumar Ganguly[edit]

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

Reason Ichgab (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid delete reason. Meets WP:NACADEMICS. "The Indian Council of Medical Research the apex body in India for the formulation, coordination and promotion of biomedical research, is one of the oldest and largest medical research bodies in the world." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:54, 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. Withdrawn — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

85th Street (Manhattan)[edit]

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

It is totally redundant to List of numbered streets in Manhattan, other than the picture and coordinates. There's also a discussion at Wikipedia talk:NYC#85th Street (Manhattan). Epicgenius (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC) (Update: It's sourced, but now it's more of a list of landmarks along the street than a description of the street itself; it still may not be notable for that reason. I personally support a merge of most or all content to the List of numbered streets in Manhattan page, not a wholesale deletion. Epicgenius (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]

I think I'll withdraw my nomination. The article now is significantly higher quality than it was at the time that I requested this for deletion. (And giving credit to User:Epeefleche for the significant expansion.) Epicgenius (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is now sourced. The redundant input on the list of numbered streets was unsourced, and tagged for that malady, and has been removed per the tag and wp:v. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into List of numbered streets in Manhattan That 85th Street exists and that there is a little bit of notable stuff on it does not make 85th Street of great enough importance for a standalone article. None of the cited sources focus on the street, merely on the buildings of note that happen to be on the street. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of this is on the crufty side (is there really a reason for that Japanese Maple tree to be mentioned?) but there are enough legitimately notable landmarks and historical data that should be enumerated in a description of the street that it won't fit in List of numbered streets in Manhattan. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article describes with sourced details the street's role in the area's transport and architectural history; it's thoroughly encyclopedic. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not yet an outstanding article — some of the facts mentioned seem to be trivia, like the unendangered Japanese Maple tree noted above, and a few of the references are bare URLs — but it looks like a solid article, well-illustrated, and heavily sourced and cited. It's also a comfortable size, easy to navigate. (I've just dropped the stub template, this is no longer a stub.) I'm surprised that it was nominated for deletion; I had to check the revision history to discover that this 20kb article was a 2kb article two days ago. My complements to Epeefleche for a weekend of marathon effort.
By comparison, the “parent” article, List of numbered streets in Manhattan, is already uncomfortably long, even with many of its street entries just links to separate single-street articles. Merging the contents of 85th Street (Manhattan) into List of numbered streets in Manhattan would seem to be a move in exactly the wrong direction.
Unician ∇ 05:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to User:Epeefleche for the thorough expansion and improvement of the article, which include ample reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating notability. This effort provides a model for creation of standalone articles, where appropriate, from within the unwieldy parent article List of numbered streets in Manhattan. Alansohn (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the work by Epeefleche to improve this article. Wow. I was quite prepared to !vote delete, as I am familiar with the street (my dream home when I win the lottery is pictured in the article), but then I saw all the improvements! Bearian (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. User:Epeefleche has brought the content and sourcing totally up to snuff. Yoninah (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the numbered street list. There does not look to be any dedicated coverage of this street itself, only of a few landmarks on it, with passing mentions of the street. Hey, if it was up to me, I'd be fine with that... Tezero (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far two editors have commented that this article doesn't deal with “the street itself”, only with “landmarks” or “buildings of note” on the street. Please enlighten one who truly doesn't get it. This article isn't about a highway, bridge, or tunnel built merely to connect two points, it's about a city street built to host buildings for human use. I assume that the asphalt surface and supporting substructure of 85th Street are like those of the surrounding streets and avenues, and so would need no special description here. I believe the compass alignment of 85th Street is part of a regular grid plan used for this area of Manhattan, also needing no special description here. So what about “the street”, independent of all its structures, is absent? Unician ∇ 08:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of the street itself. Look at WP:N. Also, notability is not inherited. Tezero (talk) 18:17, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McVerry[edit]

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

Delete as ~~non-notable/~~insufficiently notable individual or, in the alternative, merge with Peter McVerry Trust stub article. Quis separabit? 17:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Quite a notable person especially in relation to his work with the homeless. Definitively meets GNG. Snappy (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That alone does not confer sufficient notability per se. Quis separabit? 23:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does indeed. Check for reliable sources, loads out there. Snappy (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google search by name ~~(see [6]) brought up one link to the official Trust website and to one RTE article referencing Father McVerry himself.~~ registered 18,600 hits, a relatively low number, with many fewer actually deriving from reliable sources. In any event, as I indicated above in the rationale, I believe that a merger of the Wikipedia article on Father McVerry (which I will have to fix up and can expand but won't do anything until this AFD is resolved/closed) and the Wikipedia article about the Trust, which is basically a stub, would be good. Quis separabit? 17:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable person. Numerous sources meet general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: NOMINATION HEREBY WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR ON RETHINK. WILL PURSUE MERGER AS OUTLINED ABOVE Quis separabit? 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hugh van Cutsem. Please note that the hen harriers incident should almost certainly not be merged per WP:BLPCRIME. Editors are reminded that the strictures of WP:BLP are not optional. Arguments related to inherent notability were discounted due to the history the community rejecting such a practice in these cases. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William van Cutsem[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)

Non-notable individual, only claim to fame is acquantance with one of the Windsor boys. TheLongTone (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is the God Father of the Future King of England and he is an intimate of both PrincesMasterknighted (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ie he has inherited notability. Has he got any notabilty in his own right? The answer is no.TheLongTone (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was with Prince Harry when the hen harriers were shot at Sandringham which Jeremy Deller made reference to in his piece for the British pavilion at the. 55th Venice biennaleMasterknighted (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was named godfather to the heir presumptive of great Britain by the heir presumptive before him you know very well that he is notableMasterknighted (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraireTheLongTone (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with Hugh van Cutsem. Quis separabit? 21:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Prince George of Cambridge. WP:NR is a failed proposal which suggests that certain members of the Peerage inherit nobility (by Wikipedia standards) however I think "godfather to the heir apparent" is a bit of a leap from Peerage. I'm not an expert in this, of course, but since NR never achieved consensus we have to fall back on WP:BIO. This person is mentioned in passing in a few news pieces about the Royal Couple (a subject covered in excruciating detail) but even so is not personally covered in any significant detail. It may be worthwhile to mention him on the young Prince's page (along with his six other godparents) but a separate article is not warranted. Ivanvector (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual is not a member of the peerage, as he is not titled and does not sit in the House of Lords. (Real actual peers usually meet WP:POLITICIAN because they are members of a national legislature, or in the case of hereditary peers may become members if other peers elect them.) He's a private individual who has gained very minor notability only by association. He's done nothing and holds no position which would make him intrinsically notable. Not only does WP:GNG apply here, so does WP:BLP - a private individual with no claim to notability has the right of privacy, including privacy from a a Wikipedia article. Also, do not merge: nothing here is worth keeping. --NellieBly (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inherit tone of this directive is that somehow this quorum that forms what notability is somehow above the media and that it allows a cabal to create a criterion, whereby obscure objects carry merit whereas subjects deemed non notable do not. As if notability is or was not oft inherited where when they play a central role in a popular story which is sure to become legend and the only way to insure ones oversight is to have to the subject be stillborn only to reappear later. Whatever happened to foresight- give me a break , editors here make up their own terms like laureate of the nobel prize which is nobel prize laureate ...Really often it is only insisting on the importance of the editorial function when we do not celebrate ourselves properly because we are all pretending to be celebrating somebody else , everybody is notable and we are not the determinators of this Masterknighted (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to claim to fully understand this jumble of words that you've posted (twice for some reason) but I assure you nothing here is "made up". The Wikipedia community has a General Notability Guideline which you can read if you wish - it says basically that subjects which meet the guideline can have their own Wikipedia articles, otherwise the subject does not meet the criteria and does not have an article. This is not arbitrary, as you allege, but based on the agreement of hundreds of thousands of editors in a great many discussions over the last decade or so that Wikipedia has been operating. A more specific version of this guideline that applies to biographies also covers the topic of this article in greater detail, and by my reckoning, the person who is the subject of this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, thus I have argued that the article should not be included. As for "sure to become legend", we have a policy against trying to predict the future. I have no idea what you mean with your stillborn comment, but no, everybody is not notable (by Wikipedia standards) and the Wikipedia community is the determinator of this, as far as this website is concerned. Ivanvector (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an infallible religion there are all kinds of made up stuff here that gets indoctrinated and is repeated without people finding out if it is true wikipedia only determines if people are notable as far as wikipedia is concernedMasterknighted (talk) 06:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not true at all. Information on Wikipedia is required to be documented by a reliable source, otherwise it can't be verified and it gets deleted. This is especially true for biographies of living persons. As for notability, you are correct that Wikipedia editors only determine notability for the encyclopedia's purposes, based on established consensus. It is not a commentary on a person's actual real-life notability; that is not an evaluation we are allowed to make as Wikipedia editors. Anyway, this is getting away from the discussion at hand; if you'd like to continue this discussion about general notability I invite you to comment on my talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you answered that very well, there are semantic mistakes legislated in by quorums of editors determining a template and reading it off from style guides such as laureate of the nobel prize which is clearly nobel prize laureate, there are plenty of inaccuracies voted in and then blindly read out notably in the listing of deaths, I have vented and am happy with the response, thank youMasterknighted (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - This article should stand on its own. He is by virtue notable and deletionist would better serve humanity by adding to an article rather than push for deletion. More information is valuable and if left to survive the article would most certainly grow with information and may lead to a future valuable resource.Jimgerbig (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable by virtue of what exactly?TheLongTone (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SeeUser talk:Jimgerbig#William van Cutsem, the above editor appears to have been canvassed by User:Masterknighted TheLongTone (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked the editor to look at it is that illegal the information is public how else would you have found out about it?Masterknighted (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By virtue of the fact that he is the God Father to the future King of England. As for the comment about being canvassed. It is very much my prerogative to view any days articles for deletion, and I am able to do it all by myself, as I am the curious type. Thank you very much! Jimgerbig (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lrt's be exact. He is one of a number of godparents. Not an office, merely indicates that is a pal of Edward's. Do you understand the idea of inherited notabilty?.TheLongTone (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Edward? And it is not an idea it is an attributionMasterknighted (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC) He is also born of Dutch nobility via his mother Emilie (née Quarles van Ufford).Masterknighted (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop avoiding the issue. I realise from the above postings that English is not your native language, but you really ought to make a serious effort to understand WP:NOTINHERITED.TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to insult me dear chap.. I will happily point out that your user page is used to insult both Damian Hirst and Jeff Koons, which in of itself is highly improper, Tom Wolfe wrote an essay called "Why Picasso will be the Bouguereau of the year 2020" so calling Damia16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)~~n Hirst Jeff Koons the Bouguereau of our times you have got to wait on line buddy....[7]. Furthermore they have labeled Julian Schnabel that as well [8]. Meanwhile, it is obvious that TheLongTone by calling the subject in question Edward (as in William's elder brother Edward van Cutsem) is not even sure which person's Wikipedia article he is endeavoring to delete here.Masterknighted (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, commenting on your English was not intended as an insult. I was merely positing that you may have missed a nuance or two. Secondly, thinking Koons vacuous is a fairly widely shared opinion. And it was Hirst whom I compared to Bougereau. (a widely respected painter in his day) I have not read the Wolfe article, btw. Thirdly, you are avoiding the issue: Cutsem is only the subject of coverage because of his association with the Windsor family, as your truly barrel-scraping recent addition to the article demonstrates. Fourtly, I really can't be bothered to remember the names of the members of the Windsor family. Life is too short.TheLongTone (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't offer any notability, it says he is well connected. Szzuk (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely he is not a member of the Windsor family so this proves you don't even know who we are talking aboutMasterknighted (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)Masterknighted I have met Jeff Koons on numerous occasions and I will be happy to relay to him that you feel that he or his work is vacuousMasterknighted (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When Kate Middleton comes to your wedding, when you get write-ups in the Telegraph, you're notable in British eyes, although my American sensibility suggests that Cutsem has not really done anything substantive other than have well-connected friends, so I guess I am a weak keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Pageboy at the wedding of Charles and Diana one of the most notable weddings of all timeMasterknighted (talk)2:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

CommentIs there a single item of media coveage of Cutsem that is not a story about the Windsors? No. Even coverage of his father's funeral is mainly about the members of the royal family in attendance.TheLongTone (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hugh van Cutsem, where he is mentioned. Reading the biography, I do not see anything I consider notable in what he has himself done, other than be a friend of the members of the Royal Family. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In answer to the question posed by the TheLongTone (who put his comment in out of sequence from where it should chronologically appear) Are there any news articles about the subject which do not refer to the Windsors? (of whom he thought van Cutsem was one ) There is from the business side [9] And to spend so much time trying to delete something couldn't your energies be put to better use somewhere else?Masterknighted (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trivial mention of the acquiring company which van Cutsem happens to be involved with, but that isn't a point in favour of notability for him or for the company. The company they acquired doesn't seem to be all that notable either, for what it's worth. Establishing notability requires significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Significant means much more than having one's name briefly mentioned in an article about something else; it requires publications of great detail about the subject directly, and most often for our purposes multiple such sources are required (but not always). The Telegraph article mentioned by Tomwsulcer is very light on detail but it is a start towards significance, however it's the only one - if there were several such articles about other things that he's done (especially things that don't involve the Royal Family) then I might start to be convinced of notability. Alas, such is not the case. Ivanvector (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rather a question was posed if there was a single news source for the subject which did not involve the Royal family and there isMasterknighted (talk) 11:38, 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 speedy delete. A7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Kumaar Shukla[edit]

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

Appears to be an article written by User:Iamrohitkshukla about himself. It does not mention why the person is credible and does not have any citations. WP:YOURSELF states that these articles should be nominated for deletion. Tary123 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete : PROD tag was better idea. OccultZone (Talk) 18:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 18:48, 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 23:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benoit ramognino[edit]

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

Apparent autobiography, promotional and lacking outside references. Prod contested by article creator. --Finngall ^talk 17:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An uploaded autobiographical CV which the subject didn't even bother to render into English. Nothing found on Highbeam or Questia about the subject; the best I can find is probably this short piece about him dealing in furniture. Not enough for encyclopaedic biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for his CV. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cv crap. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable, unsourced, CV.--Theredproject (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Borderline G11, fails WP:GNG/WP:PROMO. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a free place to host one's spam - "Benoit Ramognino promotes ..." says it all. Bearian (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Postcard Museum[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Since my WP:BEFORE analysis of sources returned so few results, I'm going to list everything right here in the nom:

Currently in the article:
- David Hoekstra's Sun Times blog (Nov. 2007): Decent length article on the website, about a dozen journalism-length paragraphs (i.e., one- to two-sentence paragraphs). Might be enough for one instance of "substantial coverage", but arguable.
- Steve Johnson's Chicago Tribune blog (Jan. 2008): Two paragraphs (comprising two sentences), originally printed as part of a longer column. I don't see this as being "substantial coverage".
- Rachel Devitt's Chicago Timeout blog (Feb. 2008): Two sentences, part of a larger article on various locally-relevant websites. No longer available on Timeout.com's website. Not "substantial coverage".
Lexis Advance returned five hits (one was Steve Johnson's blog post above):
- Gregory Tejeda, Chicago’s “Elite Eight” for ‘08 at Blogspot. False positive: the only reason this hit was returned was because of an image credit.
- Sandra M. Jones, "Crate & Barrel looks to Dubai; Emirate is 1st stop in overseas expansion", Chicago Tribune 8 March 2008: Article centrally on Crate & Barrel, but contains eight sentences referring to the Chicago Postcard Museum. Half of that discusses Gale and his memories of Marshall Field's, and half of the remainder is about a Marshall Field's "exhibit" by the Chicago Postcard Museum. I have serious doubts this is "significant coverage".
- Andrew Huff, "City of Cards" at the Gapers Block blog (Jan. 2008): 27 words in one sentence announcing an exhibit. Not significant coverage.
- Margaret Lyons, "Just Because It's a Federal Holiday Doesn't Mean We'd Skip the Awesome" at The Chicagoist blog (Jan. 2008): One sentence on the Chicago Postcard Museum mentioning that the author had just spent an hour looking at it. Not significant coverage.
WP:SET: There are sixty-six results for "Chicago Postcard Museum". This is not filtering out any Wikipedia mirrors, and certainly not filtering out any mere image credits.
Alexa pagerank is high enough that they don't track historical data: 9,370,939, which is higher (i.e., worse rank) than last month by over 3 million. Alexa also notes that there are a total of 55 incoming website links... which seems very low for the kind of website we'd consider notable.
There are zero hits on any academic database to which my university subscribes.

That's all folks. That's everything that even merits consideration. Blogs and traditional sources. The very minor local interest in this website peaked within six months of its launch in 2007. Even if there is significant coverage here, it's all focused on one event... there's no lasting coverage as discussed in WP:EVENT.

I understand there may be some resistance given the creator of the website has started coming around spuriously claiming copyright violation on the article as a pretext to getting it deleted. I personally don't like deleting an article under such circumstances. But... there really is no notability here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – mainly as non-notable but also tangentially as promotional. Epicgenius (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of this is substantial coverage. Trivial mentions in the local sections of newspapers, however illustrious, does not imply notability, because notability is not transitive; those same newspapers have a dozen micro-stories every day about local things like restaurants closing - that doesn't make any of the subjects of those stories worth having a Wikipedia article. Beyond that, there's evidence that it's a website which fails WP:WEB, and an article whose content can't be referenced with independent sources. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 18:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Philosophically, I'd like to keep the article, but several things bother me: the aggressiveness of the owner, the fact that the website seems to be a project of the owner's (presumably commercial) web resource company, the fact that the website asks for cash donations, but gives no indication that it is a tax-exempt organization, and doesn't warn potential donors of its yax status. None of this enters into notability per se, and it doesn't look to me to be overtly promotional, as suggested above - it looks more like a labor of love. The lack of strong sourcing is a notability problem, but still, I can't quite bring myself to !vote "delete", so I'm going to abstain, unless I see some stronger arguments here.
(Odd, too, that a website is fighting to be removed from WP - most sites like this want the traffic.) BMK (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the time of the first page blanking—03:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)—and the time that this related AfD closed as "delete"—02:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC), I suspect the demand for deletion is out of frustration. I'd also note that the page owner is an online marketer... sometimes having something that doesn't freely comport with your current campaign (marketing that Living History group, as well as the current version of this article, which does a lot less to obfuscate that this is a website rather than a brick-and-mortar museum) is seen as a detriment. In any case, I just want to remind you that as far as notability is concerned (and I admit notability is not a policy), this is one of those cases where you can independently verify with little effort that this website is not notable. It was created in 2007 and has exactly 66 ghits; if it were a small, old, niche, very local museum (e.g., Chicago's old Museum of Holography) I could understand it having such a small web presence, but this is a recent website. And if you check any of those hits, they're almost all Wikipedia mirrors or websites giving image credits (despite the Chicago Postcard Museum likely having no copyright in any of those images). The only other possible sources are the two local radio stories from February 2008 (WLUW—9 minutes—and WBEZ—4 minutes). The WBEZ interview talks mostly about Gale and his hobby, and an unrelated postcard collector club (presumably there wasn't much to say about the "museum" at that point given it'd existed for less than three months). I haven't listened to the WLUW story yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the WLUW story is an interview of Gale, which almost entirely discusses Gale's hobby of postcard collection, plus repeated mentions of the website and its URL. Honestly... these strike me as being little different than reprints of press releases. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Delete - After consideration of the arguments, I agree, not for reasons of copyright infrigement (those are bogus, NeilGale, and your hysteria will eventually catch up to you), but for lack of notability. BMK (talk) 23:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination which demonstrates that WP:WEB is not satisfied. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I, Neil Gale, am personally tired of being bullied by Wikipedia volunteers. I did not write this article. I don't see any value to Wikipedia visitors having this information available, which apparently, the Chicago Postcard Museum is not worthy of anyway. I find it funny that all this talk of sources and lack of citing is now being discussed after it has been on Wikipedia for six (6) years. This has only come about because I requested it removed from Wikipedia. If I had a "Marketing campaign" going, as suggested by Mendaliv, I would be seeking out real sources and not an open source biased fiasco as Wikipedia seems to be. Get over yourselves! Secondly, the group "Living History of Illinois and Chicago", which was removed from Wikipedia, actually has a real value to Wikipedia readers as it is constantly being added to daily and is an open Facebook group that everybody can learn real history from, without having to join to view it. The narrow mindedness of Wikipedia volunteers is second to none. And, yes... the removal of that article prompted me to get the Chicago Postcard Museum removed from Wikipedia as well. Neil Gale (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, please bear in mind that the fact an article has existed for a long time is irrelevant to whether or not it is appropriate or properly formatted, please read Wikipedia's policy on editing with a conflict of interest, and please remember that subjects must be notable, not useful, in order to have articles (and, in addition, notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just noticed that you guys forgot to mention (and rip apart the validity of) the Chicago Reader's full page, in color, article "Show us your...postcard museum" dated 2/2/2012 - http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/neil-gales-digital-chicago-postcard-museum/Content?oid=5546777. I guess it didn't fit-in your agenda. That is really first class research and discovery from "Professional" Wikipedia volunteers. Neil Gale (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please assume good faith and remember that there is no agenda. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Gale, your tone is offensive and inappropriate for this discussion. Please keep things civil. Agyle (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources listed so far don't provide adequately significant "reliable source" coverage to meet the notability guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:WEB. In addition to the above linked sources, I also found a one-paragraph description in Antique Trader, and a one-sentence critique on Forgotten Chicago. I did not listen to the radio interviews, as User:Mendaliv's synopsis suggests they would not matter. Agyle (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and per Mendaliv's in-depth analysys of the level of sourcing. Very poor Alexa rank (9,370,939!) seals the issue for me. Even the owner wants the article gone! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic accusations of editorial incompetence by the subject

Comment - My tone is subjective Agyle. You should just focus on the issue at hand and not worry about someone who will have an article removed.

Keep the comments coming. I find it humorous that after six years on Wikipedia a bunch of unpaid, bully volunteers now find the Chicago Postcard Museum not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Oh… don’t get me wrong, it will be removed! As I tried to remove the data the first time, I was told that “you should also note that you cannot be "in charge" of determining what can and cannot go into the article. We don't allow that. Please keep that in mind. Thanks, BMK” Well guess what. Apparently, I’m in charge now.

Wikipedia should do a better job in screening volunteers. In general, you have missed important data and focused on a bunch of BS. Mendaliv's in-depth analysis isn’t so great. He would get a “D” in any research class. Wikipedia has set the bar for inclusion very high, which I will adhere to as I search for other articles that do not meet the standards of inclusion, just like you guys do, insuring that all volunteers have plenty of work ahead of them. Neil Gale (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I was thinking of going back for a degree in library science. I'll have to take what you said to heart and just go be a practicing attorney. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so not impressed Mendaliv. Perhaps you would do better job researching if Wikipedia paid you an hourly rate. It's a shame that Wikipedia doesn't force volunteers to log-on under their real names. Neil Gale (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Again, please assume good faith and remember that there is no agenda; The Bushranger". Just saying this does not make it true. Neil Gale (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can find is this from Chicago Reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seriously... DELETE the Article already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Gale (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and speedy close per WP:SNOW. There's obviously nothing to save here. I honestly don't understand why admins leave these obvious snowballs open so long that editors get backed into a corner, get emotional and start flinging personal attacks because they aren't getting their way. What I don't get about this discussion is both sides want to delete the article, but Neil Gale is still attacking everyone. Why hasn't this user been blocked yet? Shut it down, guys. Ivanvector (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I don't think the notability issue was particularly obvious. No one person is apt to have found all the sources that were found here as a group, and interpretation of "significant coverage" and "reliable source" often vary between editors. I do think unfortunate choices were made in the nomination and in another editor's comment in bringing up the topic of an individual editor; those comments should have no bearing on the AfD nomination, shouldn't have been made, and created a hostile discussion from the outset. However, I think you're misplacing the blame for those choices on administrators; people are responsible for their own actions. Also, administrators, like any other editor, have no special responsibility to patrol every article on Wikipedia; it's quite common for years to pass before an editor raises an AfD nomination for a topic, particularly obscure ones like this with few links from other articles. Agyle (talk) 01:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to the admins, as a group - I mean to imply no wrongdoing and appreciate the work that the admins do for Wikipedia. I have recently come across a number of these discussions where the result was obvious, like this one, but the discussion was left open far too long such that editors had nothing left to do but attack each other, having already made all appropriate arguments about the article being considered. I do expect that someone is watching Afd pages and could close a discussion per WP:SNOW when it's an obvious result, and I think that there is quite a bit of harm done by letting these discussions get personal. In this case, nobody has argued in favour of keeping the article, yet the discussion is still open. Do we need to agree on why the article should be deleted before taking action? Ivanvector (talk) 05:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was listed two days ago; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion says "A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven days." Agreement on the reason for deletion is not required for a consensus to delete. I don't think the personal accusations and namecalling resulted from foot-dragging; it started before the article was nominated, and continued here from the outset. Many AfD's are kept open for several weeks without personal disputes; I think the causes are unrelated to the duration of the discussions. Agyle (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing non-!vote commentary and personal attacks by article subject

Comment - I am just posting MY observations about this conversation as the "community" has Ivanvector. Nothing more. I've screen captured this entire Article for Deletion conversation for my future use. I have also sent a certified letter today to Wikipedia with a formal complaint. Neil Gale (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please bear in mind WP:NLT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ivan, if I'm reading it right (and it's possible I'm not), it looks like the Neil Gale account wants it deleted for copyright reasons, having blanked it several times and asserted copyright on the talk page. Whereas the community is discussing the viability of an article for sourcing/notability reasons. So it's an unusual case where everybody wants the same thing, but can't quite agree on the reason. You're right that the ultimate result is the same either way. As an aside to Neil Gale, if you encounter copyright problems on Wikipedia, these are generally handled very swiftly but it's best not to simply blank the text as it does remain in article history and thus isn't really 'gone'. See this page for a contact address where you can request removal of copyrighted materials you own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with namecalling and other material not related to the deletion nomination

Comment - Thank you Andrew Lenahan. I actually did open (Ticket#2014060610003501 Removal of copyrighted material). I did not expect the onslaught of crap these few community jerks had thrown at me. It was personally insulting. I call them bullies because that is how they handled this situation; like children having to prove a point that wasn't even an issue. Food for thought: Being on Wikipedia for six (6) years was no help at all in getting web traffic to my museum site. You guys just proved that with the Alexa pageranking stats and poo pooing all the other articles and mentions and radio interviews. (NPR isn't good enough either?) The museum was my way of sharing my personal collection of Chicago postcard online. All the news and media attention just came my way. I have done no, zero, marketing of the museum. Additionally, the Chicago History Museum found my Museum worthy of a repository for people to donate postcards to and posted it on their website; http://www.chicagohistory.org/research/artifactdonation. Something else your crack researchers did not locate or did and purposely left it out!!!
I had the log on of drgale for years. Then when the "Living History of Illinois and Chicago" article was removed a few days ago I couldn't log on to that account. So I started another account so I could get my Chicago Postcard Museum off of Wikipedia, which I feel doesn't deserve my Museum data posted. Now I am able to log on to my old account, so I posted is as "DISABLED". Look for yourselves. I understand a vetting process is necessary, but perhaps because this is open source, you get the volunteers who are in it just to carry a gun and feel important. Again, my personal observations. I really don't care if you remove my accounts or not. But beware of that slippery slop, as I have not done anything but try to get my museum removed from Wikipedia. Nor have I screwed with other articles, ever!
When I posted the Chicago Postcard Museum article in 2008, it was removed, being deemed unworthy of Wikipedia. Then a regular contributor reposts the same information, and guess what? It stays up for six years uncontested. Really? Everything was the same but WHO posted it. How is that fair (without quoting from the Wikipedia bible)? Neil Gale (talk) 23:39, 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. It got snowy. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Books About Curling[edit]

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

Can see no value to this as an article Jac16888 ^Talk 16:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - basically a list of books that appear to be non-notable individually, without sourcing indicating the topic is of general interest. I deleted most of the body of the text, as it consisted of book descriptions copied from sales sites and thus presented Copyvio problems, but even with descriptions, it had notability problems. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - No evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It may be interesting content on the "in popular culture" section of the Curling article, but not notable enough for its own articleBali88 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these (nor their authors) appear to be notable, so we wouldn't include even a mention of them in such a section. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is merit in having a section about curling in media such as books, films, and the like. HOWEVER I need to stress that none of these books should be in that section. I did a little digging on the books and these books are all decidedly non-notable. None of them have really achieved any coverage in reliable sources. I'd say that anything put into the article subsection should have at least one reliable source to assert some sort of notability, otherwise it'd just become the newest location for people to spam for their own work. Again, none of these books are notable enough to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl79; no encyclopedic merit to listing nonnotable fictional works, whatever potential there is for a section in the curling article on cultural depictions in notable works and/or by notable authors. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 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 keep. Closing this slightly early, because the nominator has withdrawn the nomination and the remaining delete !vote has been sufficiently countered by the provision of sources herein. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aidan O'Rourke (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. The Daily Record article is insufficient to be considered "multiple, non-trivial, published works" as per criterion 1, and the awards received are not major enough to be considered to pass criterion 8. LukeSurl^{t c} 16:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable as per WP:SIGCOV. Quis separabit? 19:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:SIGCOV as in addition to the Daily Record article already cited, O'Rourke has been the subject of significant coverage in the The Herald [10] and The Scotsman [11], and on the websites of the Scottish Arts Council [12] and the PRS for Music Foundation [13], all of which would appear to be independent and reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Qwfp (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His commission for New Music 20x12 indicates notability and received significant coverage. --Deskford (talk) 22:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above sources, here are two Allmusic reviews [14][15]. Given the coverage on the whole, this person appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow talk 18:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone providing new sources. I see Aidan O'Rourke meets the GNG. I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. Perhaps these sources could be incorporated into the article? --LukeSurl^{t c} 10:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Drew: Shadow at the Water's Edge[edit]

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

Article is a lengthy piece about a computer adventure game for girls. The references include a rating for mild violence from a site that tracks such things (for all video games), a Youtube trailer, a dead link to the manufacturer's website, one to the listing of the game on IMDB, and a series of personal blogs dedicated to the game. All I could find on an Internet search was promotional material designed to get you to buy the game-- I could not find multiple reliable secondary sources discussing it anywhere. As WP:VG defers explicitly to WP:GNG for assessing notability, this game does not seem to meet the necessary criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). The fact that the article was originally written by Bob o'clock, an account with no user page that has been used strictly for creating articles related to this series of computer adventure games, I strongly suspect that the article was written by someone hired by the game's distributor. KDS4444^Talk 13:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Metacritic only has one review listed, but Moby Games has has a few linked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:06, 6 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) 15:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews from Just Adventure, Gamezebo, Adventure Gamers, and Jeuxvideo, all of which are vetted by WP:VG/RS. In the future, Moby Games, Metacritic, and a WikiProject Video Games custom Google search are all good ways to determine notability for video games. Standard Google results are usually very poor for pop culture, as the useful results get buried under mountains of useless splogs, torrents, and social media. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC) update: I fixed the broken URLs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if that information were available on the project page-- I admit I was overwhelmed by the long list of promotional material I was looking at, and did not know where to begin to search elsewhere (or that there even WAS an "elsewhere") to verify notability on other terms. I am not a member of that particular project-- are any of you? KDS4444^Talk 00:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NinjaRobotPirate has proven it passes all Wikipedia requirements for notability. Dream Focus 17:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified above; subject meets WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 00:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus herein from this dated discussion is for article retention and for this discussion to be closed. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Mantle[edit]

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

Basically a personal biography with references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MeAbFab (talk • contribs) 16:21, 9 April 2014‎

Keep Although the biography needs severe-editing and looks like it's been copied from the actor's website, Kelly Mantle has the film and TV credits to establish notability. Mantle also has the references/citations to establish it. The article is just in the need of clean-up. Burnberrytree (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Burnberrytree it should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firemoss1 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with both users that this page should stay. Mantle has the notoriety, and the credibility to establish and maintain this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazzy666 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — Yazzy666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment. This AFD was started almost two months ago but never appeared on the main AFD page, meaning only people interested in the subject of the article were aware of it, resulting in low discussion participation and possibly a biased result. I'm moving it to the main AFD page now so it can have its full 7 days of the entire community's attention. I take no position on whether the article should be deleted or not. Angr (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Angr (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural closure Given the circumstance of how this was nominated but never appeared on the AFD page for nearly 2 months (isn't there a bot that prevents that from happening?). Only people that have edited this article have voted making this discussion biased. I suggest closure and re-nominating. JayJay^{What did I do?} 18:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems awfully bureaucratic to me. It's on the AFD page now, so other people have a chance to make their opinions heard. Angr (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close per JayJay - Been open for 2 months & pointless keeping it open now. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:29, 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) 00:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cross Church, Braga[edit]

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

Unreferenced one-sentence article about a Portuguese church that has not been the subject of anything other than perhaps travel guides. Redirect to a list of Portuguese churches could be an alternative if anyone objects to outright deletion. KDS4444^Talk 13:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ I'm not seeing anything that makes a claim to notability other than tourist guides, nor anything at all that could be used to write anything beyond a stub. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too looked this church up under its Portuguese name, and I accept the notion that, due to its age, it stands a high probability of being notable on that count alone. But I'm not seeing the sourcing, so for now, reserving judgement. Mangoe (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 17th century church is clearly going to be a significant heritage building, especially a Baroque church with that level of decoration. If this was in the UK or the USA we'd almost certainly keep it without a second thought. Any church of that age and appearance can most certainly be expanded beyond a stub, so that claim is a non-starter (did either contributor so far even bother to check the article on Portuguese Wikipedia? That's considerably more than a stub). And if it's in a travel guide then it is likely to be notable in any case. Travel guides don't tend to list non-notable buildings; they list sites that tourists are likely to want to see. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Travel guides often contain indiscriminate lists of places that anyone might want to see (including long lists of restaurants and bars and hotels); in many such guides, the listings are paid for. By this logic, any structure that anyone has paid to have mentioned in a travel guide becomes ipso facto worthy of a Wikipedia entry, which I hope we can all agree should not be the case (?). See WP:NOTGUIDE. More than this, I am not convinced that a 17th century church building is de facto notable no matter where it is located. I want to see verifiable evidence of notability, not evidence of its mere existence nor a conjecture of its likely notability simply because of its age (see WP:MUST): there are rock circles in the Sierra Madre Mountains of California/ Nevada that used to be human dwellings and which are often several thousand years old-- none of them individually is worthy of a Wikipedia entry because none of them has received more than trivial coverage in published sources. See WP:ITEXISTS. The Portuguese Wikipedia article may have something interesting in it-- I do not speak Portuguese, and I suspect that going there and typing "Holy Cross Church, Braga" will not take me where I would want to go (and even if it did, other Wikipedias sometimes have very different standards for what constitutes a reliable secondary source). Could you provide a link so that others can verify what is there? That would much more helpful than just asserting the building's significance. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 21:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be obtuse. I was clearly referring to tourist attractions and not restaurants, bars and hotels. I was also referring to reliable, published travel guides, not random collections of information on the internet. To put this into perspective, in England we list historic buildings with a Grade I, II* or II rating. On Wikipedia it is customary to have articles on all Grade I and II* listed buildings (none have ever been deleted to my knowledge). This church would undoubtedly be listed Grade I if it was in England. Is there any reason to discriminate against buildings in non-English-speaking countries? As to Portuguese Wikipedia, the article is linked from the English article. If you're not familiar enough with Wikipedia to realise this, then maybe you should familiarise yourself with the way we do things before you start nominating articles for deletion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now been to the Portuguese article. Thank you for so politely pointing it out to me as I do not regularly find myself needing to access articles in foreign languages. No doubt you followed the link yourself and were able to see that even the article in Portuguese included no references. None. I have asked for someone-- anyone-- to provide evidence of this building's notability, and so far no one has done it. I nominated it because I saw no references and could find none on my own. An article containing no references and for which I could find no references and for which no one else has so far been able to find any references to me signals at least a consideration for deletion. I do not understand why you must respond to such a reasonable act with such smug vitriol. It is unwarranted and unnecessary and deeply uncivil. KDS4444^Talk 20:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but where's the "smug vitriol"? My point was merely that if you aren't familiar enough with Wikipedia to do even the most basic checks (such as following links on the article page to articles on other versions of Wikipedia that may have more information) then why on earth are you nominating articles that others have put effort into creating for deletion? This is not an unreasonable point and I am not the only editor to have made it. Do you have any familiarity with architecture or with Wikipedia articles on architecture? If you did, I think you may have realised that this is clearly a notable building by virtue of its existence alone, with or without references. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - considering age of the church its pretty sure that sources exists in Portugese. Also google book search gives quite a few hits for Portugese name [16].--Staberinde (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article needs more information, now it's just a stub, but is one of the most important churches in the city. Joseolgon (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The Portuguese WP article consists of an architectural description of the building, an interesting one, but not necessarily all that remarkable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs expanding, Not deleting. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As noted by others, this church shows up in multiple travel sites as one of the notable sights in the city of Braga; it's not the most notable church in town, but notable enough. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom pretty much admits to not doing a WP:BEFORE check (not even checking the Portuguese article, which can be found conveniently from the languages menu). As noted by Staberinde, a Google search for "Church of Santa Cruz" finds numerous book hits, going back to the 1800s. Many sources exist, both in English and Portuguese, on the various architectural and artistic features of the church. -- 101.117.31.62 (talk) 10:20, 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)} 03:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chi-Town Bulldogs[edit]

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

Article appears to have been written by a disgruntled would-be player. Team never played, was only a proposed expansion that never happened. In fact, it seems the team never even got to exist before it folded. I think this means it fails to meet the notability criteria given at WP:NSPORTS. KDS4444^Talk 13:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Never happened. No notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wasn't written by a bitter player, but the ABA is an amazingly unstable league where teams can come and go every day; this seems like one of them with no games played. Nate • (chatter) 18:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aborted attempt to start a team; no evidence of anything especially notable happening with it. (On a related note, though: I find interesting the unsourced claim that someone collected $100 from each person for so-called "tryouts" for team that never formed. I wonder if that ended up being the main profit of this operation: I'll bet making a logo and a couple signs and renting out a high school gym isn't that much expense to get a few dozen people paying you $100 just to screw around on a high school basketball court. If there's a reliable source that this sort of thing is happening in the ABA, maybe it should be in the main ABA article.) --Closeapple (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Generally, we are generous with franchises in professional sports. I understand that this is a regional semiprofessional sport, but I can see solid evidence that the team existed from respected sources: a Eurobasket.com recent alumni list and USBasket.com current team info.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those citations shows the appearance of the team's name on a list, but neither says anything else about them. The fact of mere existence is different from notability, yes? And isn't notability considered the defining character of any Wikipedia article? I do not disagree that the team existed (at least in some theoretical sense) but I do not see evidence of notability. KDS4444^Talk 08:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above. The team never played a game and didn't garner enough press to automatically meet GNG. In general, the new ABA doesn't get enough coverage for its teams to meet GNG in my opinion. I had a franchise in my hometown for three years and didn't even know it - the local paper didn't even cover it. Rikster2 (talk) 12:07, 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 no consensus. I've been watching this discussion since its inception, and ultimately there's no consensus here. Additionally, the notion of a merge can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green Line bus route 724[edit]

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

Unremarkable bus route TheLongTone (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing quite a lot of results from my Google search. When I have time I will sieve out which ones are reliable and which are not. In addition, it is likely that there are many results offline.--Laun chba ller 13:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My google search revealed nothing other than routine stuff which one would expect from any bus route that actually exists. Two at least are lifted from Wikipedia.TheLongTone (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I might be able to dig up some (offline) bits on this. Not sure if I will be able to do it within a week though. If the outcome is delete, would it be possible to userfy to my userspace please? – Thx in advance. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 16:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent. WE culled hosts of artilces on bus routes some time ago. This one evidently slipped through the net. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is totally different to what we culled last year, Google brings up heaps of stuff with this, I admit it needs tidying up and better sourcing but that can all be fixed. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bus routes are inherently non-notable. They can be created, cancelled, or changed at a moment's notice. They're similar to airline flights, but even less notable. -Zanhe (talk) 03:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It being cancelled would have no bearing on the article, And it's unlikely to be changed either. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Long-standing, survivor of the well-used Green Line coach route that once linked three of London's airports. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above Ibsiadkgneoeb (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge and redirect to Green Line. Per WP:PRODUCT products and services should be covered on the service provider's page. There is no need or reason for this to have its own page and per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTTRAVEL we do not need route maps and lists of stops, e.g. buscruft.--Charles (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gareth Griffith-Jones aycliffe^talk 12:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be stating simply that it should be kept because it is a bus route.TheLongTone (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, We're (well perhaps I) saying it should be kept because it's encyclopedic and has quite alot of history behind it :) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean it needs a standalone article.--Charles (talk) 17:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem notable to be, and the precedent seems to suggest that such articles are deemed by the community to be non-worthy. Z10987 (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except it is notable and we've kept routes like this quite alot. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 08:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike rail lines (which are inherently notable), this is a bus line, some of which are notable, and some of which aren't (like in New York City Bus). If there's a relevant "list of Green Line Coaches bus routes" page, I will vote merge. Otherwise, I will vote keep, as the route isn't exactly notable in the sense that it's on the news every day, but it's used often enough that there should preferably be an article on the route. Epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 23:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Frampton[edit]

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

~~Per this request on my userpage; article subject requests deletion.~~ Sources are limited, notability borderline; ~~in such cases, deletion after a community discussion is fairly standard.~~ See note below for strikethrough reasoning. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There simply isn't enough significant coverage from reliable and independent sources to meet our notability guidelines, WP:42. Most of his google hits that I'm seeing are either unreliable, primary sources or forum postings. And besides that, it's not all that uncommon to grant deletion for individuals who request deletion of their own article, especially when they are lacking in the notability department as is the case here in my opinion (example1 and example2). — dain omite 13:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm having second thoughts about this. If I'm re-reading User:Robframton's contribution history and messages correctly, that account was not set up by Rob Frampton himself (many of its earliest edits are allegations that the article subject would be very unlikely to make...). One assumes from the message that inspired this AFD that Mr Frampton has control of the account, but if he doesn't, posing as him and making a deletion request would be a good way of getting a page about someone you disliked deleted. I'd therefore recommend that !voters disregard the apparent wishes of the subject and make their recommendations based purely on the notability or otherwise of the topic, at least until it can be determined that Rob Frampton is in fact the operator of the account User:Robframpton. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yeah, I see now. When I saw the following line on Solarra's talk page ("My wife signed in and wrote this i have found it on her computer and to save this happening again i would just like the information removed please!") I thought "he" meant that his wife had made the initial edit on Solarra's talk page and this was "Rob" who made the second edit and has summarily asked for deletion afterwards. I'm not even going to put down what I think now because it's just pure speculation and there's no way of knowing at this moment. However, I still think a delete is in order nonetheless. — dain omite 15:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Yunshui and dainomite. This request was originally posted on my talk page, and I don't feel this passes WP:ATHLETE. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 01:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per User:Yunshui and User:dainomite. Agreed doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 07:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete I do not thinh that WP:BLPNOTE fails.

AHLM13

✉ 11:54, 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. A rather obvious snow close of a well-sourced article, of an easily notable hashtag. No sense in letting this run on any longer - Alison ^❤ 22:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YesAllWomen[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)

Unnotable hashtag. fails WP:LASTING. Beerest 2 Talk page 12:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with international coverage in multiple well-known, widely distributed publications. Whether it has lasting effect is as yet unproven either way, but WP:LASTING is not a reason for deleting: "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

too early to tell we need to wait a few months to see if this has had lasting effect. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge to 2014 Isla Vista killings as is already suggested. Mangoe (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I really, really don't like the idea of full articles for individual Twitter hashtags. It is an abomination against all that is encyclopedic. However, this has satisfied the requirements of the GNG. If there's no lasting news coverage, then we can merge it into an appropriate article. Ask me again in six months how I feel about this article, and I might support a merge proposal. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Do not merge, as 2014 Isla Vista killings is already at a point where WP:SIZERULE, which is a guideline, recommends splitting out content, rather than folding new content in.~~ This is a sensible editorial cut point for a spinout article whether or not it meets WP:GNG. (I happen to think it clearly does, as well.) --j⚛e decker ^talk 15:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out SIZERULE argument, as the guideline refers to readable prose, leaving the measurement I used in my opinion above invalid. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not merge or delete. While it started with the 2014 Isla Vista killings, the hashtag is now notable enough on its own through international coverage to warrant its own entry. --Smokebomb (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted in WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Satisfies significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Suggest wait and see. Lradon (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LASTING is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:NTEMP. Bottom line is that this satisfies WP:GNG. End of story. And I strongly suggest everyone consider The Gender Gap on this one. --Theredproject (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Technically those two policies aren't in conflict with each other, it's just pointing out that lasting effects is one type of notability. WP:LASTING is not a reason to delete a page, as Colapeninsula pointed out above, although it can be a reason to merge a page. We really should give the page a few months, though, since between the fact that it's an ongoing thing, and the fact that the 2014 Isla Vista killings page continues to grow, this almost certainly deserves its own page. - Shiori (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the user above Lathomas64 (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2014 Isla Vista killings Fails to meet WP:LASTING on its own. Datavortex (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Agreed with j⚛e decker. The subject has enough notability to be recognized with at least a lengthy section within 2014 Isla Vista killings, which is sort of has already, but the parent article is getting to the point where is should be split out anyway. - Shiori (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Notable enough for an article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above discussions and due to the cumulative cultural significance, i.e. NYT's unpublished satirical cartoon.--DrWho42 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, ask me again in a month. I'm not incredibly fond of an article about a hashtag, particularly since hashtag activism tends to be, by its nature, fleeting in both popularity and impact. That said, this one has received enough coverage and attention to meet WP:GNG, but it's too soon to say whether it will also meet WP:LASTING. I also have concerns about whether coverage of this topic can ever be truly neutral, as there already seem to be a lot of problems with WP:UNDUE, but that's not so much of a keep/delete argument as a general observation. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: "There's a Battle Going on Over the Wikipedia Page for #YesAllWomen" at Jezebel ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jezebel calls it a "battle" - Not much of a battle when it comes to Wikipedia. I don't think the author understands how Wikipedia works.Mattnad (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Also keep, but it doesn't look like anyone is really arguing deletion at this point. We're just keeping it open out of politeness to the nominator? It is their 365th edit after all, that's one for every day! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly socially and culturally relevant event that has been covered around the world, completely independent from the crime. Blaze33541 (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This is a notable social response to a significant event. — Sddblake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:26, June 6, 2014‎ (UTC).
Comment It appears that this article has been mentioned by a news organization, and may promote single purpose accounts that contribute to this discussion. I've added the appropriate tag. The specific article is http://jezebel.com/theres-a-battle-going-on-over-the-wikipedia-page-for-y-1586704111 . Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2014 Isla Vista killings Does not meet WP:LASTING, WP:GNG, nor WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a news website or database for passing fads. Should not be in its own article. --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snowkeep eep. It obviously meets the GNG as it stands currently and is still receiving significant coverage. Trout the nominator because WP:LASTING is not a reason to delete the article currently. WP:LASTING is not a way/reason to preemptively delete articles just because they're something that doesn't have lasting coverage because it hasn't had time to receive lasting coverage yet. Additionally, as Joe Decker points out above, the proposed merge target already hits sizerule. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not merge nor delete. An article on #YesAllWomen is important. This is exemplified by the fact that hastags are now the subject of academic books. In the past two years, several books have focused on the phenomenon. For instance, according to Interpreting hashtag politics : policy ideas in an era of social media hastags allow in part to map the diversity of viewpoints and how to capture debates, among others. Another book such Tweets and the streets : social media and contemporary activism examines the relationship between the rise of social media and the emergence of a new protest culture. Many other academic books have focused on hastags. This is an important cultural and political phenomenon, which should be reflected in Wikipedia. --P119921618 (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As previously pointed out, intended merge target is already at sizerule, and the hashtag has grown independent of the shootings. Mtndrums (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge While the shooting article may be at sizerule, that doesn't mean we can't trim this and merge. "Merge" =/= "copying and pasting an entire article into another." For instance, there is no article on 1777 campaign of George Washington, despite the fact that our article on him is very long. As Jonathanbishop says, Wikipedia is not a database of fads. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:LASTING, WP:GNG, nor WP:NOR. Not eligible for merge with 2014 Isla Vista killings as that article is already at a point where WP:SIZERULE, which is a guideline, recommends splitting out content, rather than folding new content in. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 2014 Isla Vista killings is only 4000 words, and the readable prose size is 23KB. That's nowhere near the limit. I think people may be confusing the "readable prose size" with "wiki markup size". These two small articles could easily be merged together, but I don't think it's absolutely necessary. I would prefer that they were, but there's no real policy mandate for it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops, you were right about the guideline here, I've removed that part of my rationale, a ways above. --j⚛e decker ^talk 19:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As other have pointed out, it may take some more time to see how lasting the effect is, but that's not a reason to delete it yet. As well as continuing to get multiple posts (random sample 12 posts in the last 5 minutes) on Twitter, the YesAllWomen tag is also being used on other social media sites (e.g., Pinterest, LA Times [17], Facebook [18], Google+. I think it's moved in significance beyond the 2014 Isla Vista killings. If #YesAllWomen is not significant enough to keep, will we question keeping that article too? -CocoaZen (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be ~~two~~ three ongoing discussions concerning this article - one here on deletion - and another discussion on the talk page at 2014 Isla Vista killings and another at the talk page of the yesallwomen article about merging the content of this article into that one. Whatever the outcome of this discussion is, the consensus (albeit a weak one) at the talk page discussion about merging is oppose, as is the other discussion at the other talk page. Two of the three paragraphs in the section pertaining to this hashtag in the 2014 Isla Vista killing's article are nothing but opinion's of not so notable commentators anyway. If anything, the content from that article should be merged into this one. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this discussion is a bit premature. This thing is very much connected to the shootings right now, but could show permanence, or fizzle out and then warrant merger. Isaidnoway's comments about removing some of the opinions pieces is not so relevant. There's opinion all over wikipedia from various reliable sources (these qualify), but at any rate they focus on the YesAllWomen hashtag in the context of the violence and are therefor germane to the article. There are more negative views on the hashtag, but these were selected because they were written by women, one of whom is a somewhat prominent feminist. I suspect some might not like them because they are not as positive on all aspects YesAllwomen, but I think they are helpful for balance and NPOV.Mattnad (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this has indeed gotten enough press coverage to be considered notable (albeit, not sure if it has *lasting* notability, the criterion for which is not well defined on WP). However, this should absolutely not set a precedent to create articles on temporary "internet notable" phenomenon. Also, we should be sure to continue to cover this topic in an NPOV manner, as well as adequately cover criticisms of the hashtag/movement. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this particular internet occurrence has received enough coverage to have lasting notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant discussion among multiple sources. — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - it clearly is a reaction to the Vista Isle shootings and ought to redirect there. As should the #NotAllMen article, for fairness' sake. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do not merge nor delete. Writers and academics will find this sort of information useful for their work as an example of the Internet-enabled mobilization of women. This hashtag was inspired by the shooting but has actually grown into a much wider conversation that deserves its own page. The debates about its very existence suggests that it is notable enough.Magsmacaulay (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per nominee's suggestion that it fails WP:LASTING, this is a recent subject (2-3 weeks old), and I think it's too soon to assess whether it had a lasting effect. Meanwhile, general notability guidelines suggest a presumption of notability based on the very significant coverage in many very well known reliable sources cited in the article. I think deletion based on WP:LASTING or WP:ONEEVENT, in this case, will require a longer period with which to assess the subject in a historical context. This Daily Beast column, which makes the argument three days after its inception that the hash tag had "jumped the shark", also acknowledges that "#YesAllWomen isn’t just a hashtag; it’s a social media movement", suggesting that that there may be some effect distinct from the initial hashtag creation. I think time will make this clearer, one way or the other. Agyle (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether this subject will meet WP:LASTING is something that can be determined in the future. #YesAllWomen has catalyzed discussions about misogyny and there has been WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE up through this week in national publications including The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and MSNBC. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 22:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It clearly meets the general notability guidelines. Enough coverage separate from the event that spawned it, enough content about just it, it deserves its own article. Dream Focus 22:08, 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 no consensus. I appreciate there are strongly held views on this, but the argument has essentially become "There are good sources! No there are not!". This is an inherently subjective question, and it's obvious from the even split in numbers that it's not one that the community has come to a consensus on. Therefore, I feel no consensus is the only appropriate response. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Konig's Westphalian Gin[edit]

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

No indication of the notability of this product. The only source directly about it cited in the text is an advertisement. The rest of the sources are only for background or just mention the product. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move or merge. I think all or part of the article could be saved by (a) moving it to a more representative title which says it's about advertising, e.g. "Konig's Westphalian Gin (advertising)", or perhaps (b) merging part of it with an article on historical advertising or something related to Psychological manipulation. The article has limited sources, but so do our stub articles in which more sources are expected to be added later. This article has value in reminding us of certain obvious untruths in historical advertising (such as miracle cures), and perhaps we should not be wasting this possible usage.--Storye book (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a bit ironic that the only book hits I get for this century-old booze are century-old advertisements for it. We need a claim of notability to come from somewhere else besides the article writer. Mangoe (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any significant coverage on this product from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, what might such sources look like for such a long-discontinued product? Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional content added that shows that the gin was award-winning at the Amsterdam 1883, Chicago 1893, Paris 1900, Dusseldorf 1902, St. Louis 1904, Brussels 1910, Bochum 1912 and London 1913 exhibitions. I acknowledge that this information is from advertising but I think it should be accepted at face value. It is partly verified by the official report on the Chicago exhibition in the refs. As a nineteenth/early twentieth century commercial product it is not surprising that sources are often from advertising. The product is no longer made so there is no risk of commercial endorsement. The article also contains worthwhile examples of historical advertising methods that would be lost if it was deleted. We have few articles on this type of historic commercial product and I think there is enough here to make it a keep, even if it will never be a featured article! Philafrenzy (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "From advertisements" =/= reliable sources... indeed, not even independent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - What weight do you give to the awards won at Amsterdam 1883, Chicago 1893, Paris 1900, Dusseldorf 1902, St. Louis 1904, Brussels 1910, Bochum 1912 and London 1913? (I accept only partially verified) And what allowance do you make for the nature of the subject matter that is never likely to appear in a book published by a university press? Are we never to have an article on an everyday commercial product just because the sources are mainly in German or pre-internet and therefore difficult to find? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If they're not confirmed independently, say in a newspaper article from the time? Zero. I could advertise any damn thing I wanted, if I had the money. I could even phrase it misleadingly, say that my crayons are "New York's Favourite" based on a single trial in a single Buffalo kindergarten. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It can be quite hard to find genuinely independent coverage of modern products, let alone something this old. And in some ways it is the over-the-top advertising that makes it particularly notable. After all, the product was probably not much different to any other gin. As always, we need to beware the dangers of WP:RECENTISM. The idea of renaming it to "Konig's Westphalian Gin (advertising)" is wholly unnecessary - no one is likely to believe the claims, even if the article were not to comment on them. Edwardx (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see a single policy-based argument there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about WP:COMMONSENSE. Why not try using some! Edwardx (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions per WP:ATA. Please also do not make comments like "Why not try using some" for "common sense"- comes off as condescending. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was asked for a policy-based argument, and I have provided one. Your counter-argument appears to have little validity, as it relies on something in an essay (ie NOT a policy). My apologies, attempts at humour often do not come across well in these discussions. Edwardx (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:ONLYESSAY isn't anymore convincing argument. Essays and their validity are often underestimated and overlooked. "Common sense" also isn't really an excuse to just outright disregard guidelines or essays, particularly not for lack of notability. In fact, the "common sense" idea is often exploited and misused. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - (ec) If "common sense" means every product with multiple 100-year-old ads is notable, I should start a series of articles on dildos meant to cure hysteria. How many were there? Dozens, perhaps? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is not what common sense means. The discussion should be about this specific product, not all products. We would consider other such articles on a case-by-case basis. Edwardx (talk) 10:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article has won multiple awards at international exhibitions. Participation in those exhibitions is verified by third party reliable sources in at least one case. (It may be possible to confirm more awards with a wider search.) Philafrenzy (talk) 23:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide said source here. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's the Chicago one referenced in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Participation, but not the awards so far. WP:SPS urges that we avoid non-independent sources for such promotional claims. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is an independent source for Chicago in the article. I agree the exact award is not specified. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was one of the 250 gold medals they say they got! Philafrenzy (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say Keep, taking into account that very little evidence of this product would remain. Certainly, it's important enough from a historical perspective, ie. the sorts of products you would find at trade fairs, the types of competitions they held, the development of international marketing for things like Gin, and that sort of thing. I agree that it would be helpful if even one of the boasted gold medals/records of such could be found, and that their gin advertisements should be taken with a grain of salt. The Steve 08:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "historically" important, it would need more sources to verify that. WP:LOSE is also an argument to avoid per WP:ATA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:ATA is only an essay, NOT policy. Edwardx (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Only an essay" is itself an argument to avoid as such a statement underestimates the value and insight that essays can bring. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a comment on the sourcing issues: Giving this product a pass on sourcing because it's old is the wrong approach to the problem of recentism. The problem isn't that old sources are missing; it's that unimportant new sources are given too much weight. Mangoe (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that, there is actually a good range of different types of sources, historic works, advertising, academic journals, technical books on making beverages, blogs relevant to the area confirm more minor points. Seems like a reasonable mix to me. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The key question here is what purpose would deleting this article serve? Yes, there may not be as many genuinely independent sources as some might like, but they are very hard to find for old products like this. Per Wikipedia:Does deletion help, "Where an article actually does add to a reader's knowledge without misleading or biasing them in any way, it should, in keeping with the editing policy, be kept. Where it is misleading or biased, it should be removed." Edwardx (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, the bare minimum an article needs to be kept is multiple reliable third-party sources giving significant coverage. When the references are closely affiliated with subject, self-promotion, unreliable, or only give trivial mentions, they don't add to notability. Sounds like a case of WP:LOSE and/or WP:MERCY. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does not address my question - what purpose would deleting this article serve? Edwardx (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I neglected to mention is that WP:LOSE and WP:MERCY are arguments to avoid. If an article cannot be backed with reliable third-party sources that give significant coverage, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making those arguments. And you're still avoiding the question - what purpose would deleting this article serve? Edwardx (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To keep in accordance with inclusion criteria, which (as I've said) this article does not meet. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've seen the latest expansions and sources for the article, yet none of it (except the new ad image, again not a reliable source) is specifically about the subject, which is the product Konig's Westphalian Gin. I don't see any significant coverage of it, nor how it is notable per WP:GNG. Note: my understanding is that people are supposed to identify themselves as interested parties in these deletion discussions: both Edwardx and Philafrenzy are creators of this article. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On your last point, I thought that was self-evident, but will certainly mention it early in any similar discussions. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you describe what sources you would like to see for historic and pre-internet commercial products please? Sourcing needs to reflect the article subject. You have written over 30 articles about Glee, for instance, for which you have ample internet sources, but I wonder how many of those sources are truly reliable, objective, non-commercial sources? If you were restricted just to books published by Oxford University Press or Harvard could you have written those articles? The nomination of this article for deletion contrasts tellingly with the grossly excessive coverage of modern pop culture subjects like Glee or Big Brother for which, in my opinion, one article would be enough. Articles like this correct, in a small way, the systemic bias against pre-internet and foreign language subjects here. Regarding advertising, I fully agree that advertising is not a reliable source, but it is a strong source for the existence of a thing, the time period to which it belongs, the methods of marketing used, some basic facts and the claims made for the product and that is all that has been claimed for it in the article. Indeed, the interest in the article is precisely in the spurious medical claims made for the subject. (By the way, this is also a good example of a German product which was heavily marketed in Britain and the Empire, and claimed British royal warrants, but withdrawn following the outbreak of the First World War. Source - the advertising in the Royal Colonial Institute. But that part has not been added to the article yet.) Philafrenzy (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is an argument to avoid for deletion discussions and is unconvincing since one cannot determine a subject's notability solely based on another's notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the argument I was making. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, but it was definitely a WP:WAX argument. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. Please re-read. Amongst other points, I was giving an example of the pernicious effects of systemic bias which prioritises some subjects/languages/eras over others. That is not the same thing. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationale of User:Thesteve and WP:IAR, specifically to allow time for print sources to be located. As a a defunct brand of gin that was first produced in 1640, it's likely that pre-internet print sources are available about the topic. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There might be print sources available, but IAR is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions per ATA as it comes off as an excuse to disregard criteria (and is often exploited as such). Snuggums (talk • contributions) 12:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will retain my !vote as it is congruent with the spirit of WP:IAR, a Wikipedia policy page. WP:ATA is an opinion essay. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously mentioned, "only an essay" is itself an argument to avoid as it underestimates and overlooks the value and insight essays can bring. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 12:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citing content in an opinion essay about not referring to policy pages in AfDs is a humorous conundrum.

It's all good, and sources available online about the topic are sparse. However, I retain my !vote for article retention above in this very particular instance. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably listed among arguments to avoid because the idea of "ignoring rules" is essentially asking to be exploited, and it is quite often misused. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 15:00, 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 delete. G7 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SlowHTTPChunked[edit]

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

Apparently novel DDoS technique which only exists as a single proof of concept posted to Github last month. Fails WP:GNG, can't even find any Google results which aren't Wikipedia mirrors. McGeddon (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This attack techniques is new, therefore it will take time before google will able to index relevant and reliable sources as eForensics Magazine, Hakin9 Magazine, communities and others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Frogteam (talk • contribs) 12:51, 6 June 2014‎
Delete. Too soon for an article if it's that new of a concept. Wait a while, let it appear in reliable sources, and then recreate the article if it becomes notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close and delete - looks like the original author has now attempted to blank the article, which per WP:G7 can be taken as a request that the article be speedily deleted. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 06:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norval Jones[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010 - I don't feel that restoring a LST into a museum is a noteworthy enough achievement to make him notable Gbawden (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is essentially WP:ONEEVENT. Not mentioned in USS LST-325, article in ship in question, or I would suggest a merge.TheLongTone (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of 28 men who sailed a ship. Not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable individual. — dain omite 15:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete I was eventually able to determine that there was a Norval Jones who did serve as a med tech on this trip and who did die early in 2008, but that's about the size of it. It's not enough to justify what reads like a dump of his death notice. Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with comments above. A quick google search revealed nothing substantive.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:18, 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 DELETE - Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Schlex[edit]

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

Cannot find sufficient reliable sources establishing notability. Article started as an autobiography and has been primarily edited by the subject, too, which usually is not a good sign for notability... rahaeli (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A very easy name to search for on Google. Clear GNG failure, it seems to me; a little bit of token coverage of his anti-littering campaign, but otherwise routine coverage of a local hip hopper. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale; fails to meet notability guidelines at WP:GNG and elsewhere. Agyle (talk) 07:02, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 as a blatant hoax. Giant Snowman 08:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Estrada[edit]

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

Faked soccer player biography.

No such player found for Guingamp
The addition of "Jan Estrada" to En Avant de Guingamp got removed because "nowhere seems to acknowledge the existence of im".
No such player found for Aston Villa
No such player found for the France national under-21 football team. The creator of the article tried repeatedly to add "Jan Estrada" there:
- first attempt, successful for a month, then removed in an update.
- second attempt (with changed alleged birthday), got reverted a day later as vandalism.
- third attempt (with again changed birthday) survived for a month before it was undone.
The two images that were added to the article (see history) showed Joe Bennett (and were copyvios).
The external links given as references are bogus:
- [19] gives me an empty page
- [20] gives me a 404
At Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jan Estrada, a rather different but equally fake biography is suggested.
A previous version was prodded: logs.

I suggest also deleting Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jan Estrada and User:Eagman1/Jan Estrada. Since this a repeat attempt to create a fake biography, an indef block of User:Eagman1 should also be considered.

Lupo 07:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as hoax. There is no indication this person is real, let alone notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 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 - Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Catholicism[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. Fails WP:GNG as a neologism. Elizium23 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not a notable, widely-used term. It was coined/popularised by Christopher Ferrara whose article was itself subject to a deletion discussion which ended as no consensus. He's probably only just notable, but his individual ideas are likely not. Not sure why this was recreated after the last deletion. Suggest closing admin considers salting the title. Stalwart111 04:25, 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, Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a rather unclear neologism used in intra-Church debates, apparently only in the U.S. context. In effect, it's just a bit of unspecific name-calling used by some traditionalists to denigrate certain converts as not being real Catholics. If it needs to be in WP at all, mention it in the Ferrara article. -- Bistropha (talk) 00:51, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1: nomination request is for merging, not deletion. Further, policy requires alternatives to at least be attempted first, per WP:ATD. Here there has not even been one attempt to revert and redirect the split, nor to communicate at all with the one editor who made the split yesterday. AFD should be a last resort for such issues. postdlf (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by The Vamps[edit]

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

Too few awards earned by a band too young to have much history. This material should never have been split out of the Vamps article. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article at The Vamps. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's no need to split on grounds of length. And there's no other reason for a split. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 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. Once the obvious sock postings are discounted, it's clear there is a consensus to delete this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Wenfei[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer, does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's true he doesn't meet WP:KICK and that the article, if kept, badly needs to be rewritten. However, winning the 2011 Chinese national championship in Sanshou is pretty impressive. You could argue that he might be notable under WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, no, he is a very famous athletes in Chinese. In Liver Kick, Sherdog, muaythaitv and other sites, can search to his news.WP:KICK Fyfw523 (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Being the Chinese sanda champion is nice, but isn't enough to meet WP:KICK. The sources are routine coverage and don't show he meets WP:GNG. Jakejr (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ You guys, wait, he will soon meet the WP:KICK condition! Fyfw523 (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you could explain why your statement is true. Papaursa (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and copy to Fyfw523's sandbox so he/she can work on it there adding as the future events happen the reliable sources that will show that it meets WP:KICK, then reintroducing it as an article. --Bejnar (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would also allow time to fix what looks like a poor machine translation. It is really badly written.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:16, 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 04:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ You said he did not comply with the WP:KICK is wrong, he is fully compliant with the WP:KICK conditions!! Fyfw523 (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking nonsense! (Anger) Fyfw523 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

It does not help to vote "keep" repeatedly. --Cold Season (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the notability criteria has not been met as stated above. --Cold Season (talk) 08:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, No, No, he is completely satisfied the above conditions! Fyfw523 (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out how it is established that the topic "completely satisfied the above conditions", because I don't see it and these lack-of-argument (as mentioned earlier) evasive responses are unconvincing. --Cold Season (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this fighter has fought both Buakaw and Albert Kraus in WLF, and WLF is indeed considered as a notable event among Albert Kraus's titles, I would suggest to keep his page with proper editation Linusji (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! Say well! Best gay friend!! Fyfw523 (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's now obvious where you stand; do not WP:SOCK. --Cold Season (talk) 06:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do happen to know this contributor through a forum, but my point is still non-biased. Linusji (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability has not been established. Future performance is not relevant as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And neither is it inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). Who he fought matters less than what was fought for.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit! Fyfw523 (talk) 03:31, 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 keep. Additionally, the potential for a merge can be further discussed on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Condominial sewerage[edit]

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

Page was created in 2007. Since then, it has not been edited in any real sense; indeed, the last edit was a bot "removing non-applicable orphan template" in 2009. So either this article is so perfect it needs no editing or it's so obscure that no one can be bothered. (I found it as a Random Link.) At best, I suspect this may be no more than a dicdef, though my knowledge of sewage as a topic is not, I admit, wide ranging or deep. Emeraude (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my view the article should be kept. The term is similar to "simplified sewerage", and the term "condominial sewerage" is more common in Latin America with a slightly different connotation. If one looks for "condominial sewerage" the article provides a succinct summary as to what it means and thus is useful.--Mschiffler (talk) 16:36, 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 17:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Little in the way of valid reasons for deletion; I don't think dicdef applies because the topic can be treated in an encyclopedic fashion (assuming sources can be found, and Google suggests there are some albeit in technical and academic publications). The real question is whether this is too similar to simplified sewerage to merit a separate article, but I doubt that question will be decided in the time of this AfD. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article should definitely be kept and expanded. http://www.wsp.org/sites/wsp.org/files/publications/global_goodsewerscheap.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.155.21 (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but there should really be more than just one citation. Possible search terms include "sistema condominial de esgotos", "esgoto condominial", "alcantarillado de condominios". World Bank Report #34812 Agua (October 2004) would be a useful source, in Spanish here. --Bejnar (talk) 19:01, 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, slakr^\ talk / 03:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I'm sure there are people in the world who enjoy reading about sewage systems, but with as little content as there is and as few views as the page gets, I think this information would be a better fit on some other, more general page about sewage. Bali88 (talk) 05:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found two more references; probably more if one searches for "condominial sewers" instead of using the term "sewerage". Valid encyclopedic topic. Essentially a different approach to sewerage systems. Since it is two words, hard to see it as a dictionary definition.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:09, 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 merge to Louisiana State University. Rounding to merge slakr^\ talk / 02:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hill Farm Community Garden[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, could be merged into article about LSU or community gardens Montanabw ^(talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD seems to expand contention and not to help develop Wikipedia in this topic area. This article was prodded by editor Pigsonthewing, and I removed the prod with call to discuss at Talk page, where I opened discussion. The deletion nominator and Pigsonthewing and I and others have been commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community gardens in Omaha, Nebraska, which seems related, and I will provide notice there of this AFD, too. There is not yet good development of community gardens topic in the United States (or in England, either); see Category:Community gardening in the United States and Category:Community gardening in England. One option would be to develop city or regional level topics and break them out of national-level topics. Where there are articles about individual gardens, perhaps sometimes those should be merged to a city or regional level topic. The general development should be discussed elsewhere. About this particular article, I think Montanabw should have discussed at the Talk page, where i had opened discussion, first. This is an unnecessary escalation, expanding conflict, IMHO. But, since the AFD is started, I assume it will carry on.

To Montanabw and to Pigsonthewing, have you performed wp:BEFORE. What about looking into what I said at the Talk page, previously? What about the state of the article, with sources, before?

As I noted at the Talk page previously was that the article "was substantially better than it is now. A non-logged-in editor removed a lot of sourced material in 2013 in this big diff of a few edits, with no explanation in edit summaries or otherwise. The article previously had several sources, and had a history going back to 1927. I removed a PROD proposal that would have deleted it quickly, which would be somewhat justified based on the poor current condition. But based on its previous state and sources, I tend to think it may be a Wikipedia-notable topic. It should be developed not deleted." I also add the WikiProject Louisiana template and may post at the wikiproject."

I vote "Keep" for now, on the basis that this should be developed, and/or could be merged into some new regional article or some new schools-based community gardens article. Development should be under auspices of some group of community garden-interested editors, not sure where that is yet. Multiple attacks on separated articles is not the best way forward for developing Wikipedia in this area. I will now also notify Wikiproject Louisiana and Wikiproject NOLA.

By the way, entirely jokingly, at User talk:RexxS#‎Community gardening in the West Midlands, i jokingly suggested that all two of the community gardens articles in England could be forcibly merged into a new article at the England level, and that a Community gardens in the West Midlands article could be created too. I was joking; I don't think spreading disruption is the way forward. I was not then aware that this new AFD had been started. --do ncr am 19:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"expand contention", "unnecessary escalation, expanding conflict", "multiple attacks", "spreading disruption" - is it possible that we could have an AfD discussion without you smearing other editors' integrity, canvassing or posting walls of text? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems that the development and organization of Wikipedia treatment of community gardening topics, including standard for notability of individual gardens, should be discussed centrally. I just found my way to Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening (and have posted there about this AFD). How about discussion with an RFC there, instead of battling around on existing articles. --do ncr am 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Louisiana State University. Source searches are not demonstrating the topic as meeting WP:GNG. A selective merge is in order because the Louisiana State University article presently doesn't mention the garden. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:54, 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, slakr^\ talk / 03:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither Montanabw nor Pigsonthewing responded to my question above whether they had performed wp:BEFORE. Pigsonthewing on numerous AFDs in the last 2 months has not responded to similar questions, and numerous of them ended Keep. Since nomination, editor Oakshade in this edit restored an earlier version of the article with various sources. I reiterate my Keep vote above as the nomination is not supported. --doncram 04:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You've been warned before about making ad hominem comments in deletion discussions. And many of the TfDs, and PRODs, which you've challenged recently have resulted in deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Each of the six references currently in the article (including those from The Daily Reveille) are associated with LSU, and thus fail the "independent" requirement of WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Louisiana State University, per NorthAmerica, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep with acknowledgments to Philg88 for his work on the article. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hulu Concept[edit]

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

Article is an advertisement. All of its sources are either WP:SELFPUB, or otherwise partisan, and search for WP:VER came up with nothing reliable. Article is likely solely for advertising, especially since creator likely has a major COI.>(some_info_on_creator_here) Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added two references showing funding for Hulu from the Hong Kong Jockey Club and the Government of Hong Kong, which are independent and reliable - there is other coverage out there in reliable sources. Article still needs a lot of work to clean up the Chinglish. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update I've rewritten the article and I'm in the process of further improving the references. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ In its current form this is an advertisement and needs a major rewrite in order to be kept. Additionally most of the sources fail WP:RS. The few that don't do not provide the in depth coverage required by WP:ORG. Am willing to reconsider if someone wants to attempt a rewrite and can add enough sources. But as of right now it needs to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing my !vote to reflect the enormous improvements in the article. Tip of the hat to Philg88. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article has been renamed to Hulu Culture, the accurate name of the organization. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include CNN, The Standard and Muse magazine. Additional news sources include [21], [22], [23], but I am having difficulties translating these pages into English. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Close to a Heymann improvement by Philg88. It still needs work of course (doesn't every article!), though it's now sufficiently supported by 3rd party sources to establish notability. 91.125.29.135 (talk) 19:56, 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. There is consensus that the material is notable; whether it needs to be renamed or merged can be discussed on the article's talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polynomial transformations[edit]

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

A page of polynomial problems and solutions, or sort of solutions, as formal proofs aren't given, but they're all trivial problems. Not a good subject for a WP article. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

per discussions below change to redirect to Polynomial-time reduction, already the target of Polynomial transformation.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Delete~~. This reads too much like a textbook. The first section is more extensively and (in my opinion) better described in reciprocal polynomial. The rest is not really specific to polynomials but about a transformation of the dependent variable in a function (as explained in the last section). The article has been around for eight years with little improvement. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with there being an article if it is a complete rewrite (and satisfies the rules). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nomination suggests that this is not a good subject for an article, but that is not the same as saying that the current article is unsatisfactory (Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). ZMATH reviews 35 articles with the exact phrase in the title. Google Scholar has over 2000. I suggest that the topic is notable, even if the current contents are not. Deltahedron (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide links to some of the articles you think makes this a notable topic? The current content is unencyclopaedic, or at least not appropriate for this encyclopaedia. Finding sources for it won't change that – they could be more of the same sort of content. They could be on topic covered by other articles we already have, such as reciprocal polynomial. Or there could be a notable topic out there waiting to be written based on sources.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase seems to have several radically meanings, so perhaps a disambiguation article is appropriate. For example,

Polynomial transformations of Tschirnhaus, Bring and Jarrard [24] seems closest to the current version
Polynomial transformations and data-independent neighborhood functions [25] in statistics
Survey of polynomial transformations between NP-complete problems [26] in computational complexity
Polynomial transformations of real and complex n-dimensional space:

A geometry of polynomial transformations of the real plane [27]
Jung’s type theorem for polynomial transformations of ℂ 2 [28]
On polynomial transformations of C n [29]
Certain examples in connection with problems about polynomial transformations of C n [30]

Polynomial transformations of integers and general fields:

On polynomial transformations. I, II [31]
On polynomial transformations in several variables [32]
Intrinsic characterization of polynomial transformations between vector spaces over a field of characteristic zero [33]

Deltahedron (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that looks like its related to Holomorphic functions, but that doesn't mention polynomial transformations. It mentions polynomials and in a sense holomorphic functions are transformations. Which may why there are so many hits, transformation is a broad term that has many uses in maths – functions and mappings, rotations+translations in space, algebraic techniques as given here, and of course polynomials themselves.

And looking at them they're not actual sources. They're text searches of catalogs, which have summaries, if that (this has just the title and journal details), of the source. You need access to sources to write an article. Many are foreign too - the 'transformation' may arise from a translation of a more precise foreign term.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a ZMATH link isn't an actual source in itself. It's a link to a page containg the precise bibliographic details you need to find the source, together with a summary of what that source contains and often a DOI link to online text as well. What I posted is a handful of references that show the existence of potential sources for an article. If it were decided to write or rewrite an article here, then access to the sources would of course be needed but almost everything indexed by ZMATH is either a book or a journal, and they can almost always be found an any decent library if not online. What we are discussing here is whether an article could reasonably be written. Deltahedron (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and when you wrote "this has just the title and journal details", you forgot to mention that it also has a scanned image containing a summary of the article and a DOI link to the text. What more do you want at this stage — a hand-illuminated copy of the author's original manuscript? Deltahedron (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't notice the DOI link, just the scanned page which seemed to be the main source of information. The DOI link takes me here: [34] which has a sentence more unless I pay £33 to read the rest.

I still think though that all you have is a list of links. If there's an article to be written we need a clear idea what on, which requires only a single source not many unrelated ones. Sources aren't needed for a disambiguation page at all: that is based only on articles, and which have either similar titles or mention the topic. A quick search finds only one, Polynomial-time reduction, which is the redirect target for Polynomial transformation and mentions polynomial transformations as one type of polynomial-time reduction. That would make that a good redirect target, as I don't see any more articles so a need for disambiguation.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself: I posted a list of research papers, with links to additional information for the convenience of the readers. The purpose of the posting was to provide evidence for the proposition that "polynomial transformation" is a sufficiently widely used term in the mathematical research literature to merit some kind of article. I leave it to other editors to agree with that proposition or not as they see fit. Complaining that the convenience links, as supplied, are somehow less than adequate for some other purpose, such as writing the article in question, is a diversion quite irrelevant to the matter in hand, which, I repeat, is is the term "polynomial transformation" one about which an article could reasonably be written?.

I note that recommending that the article become a redirect is a recommendation to keep, not to delete. Is the original proposal being withdrawn? Deltahedron (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have expanded the article using one of the references above. Deltahedron (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found the above article after searching, to see if I could find articles for a dab page. That's there's only one and it's an exact match suggests this should be a redirect, yes, so I'm changing my !vote to that. And I saw you've added a paper on Tschirnhaus transformations but there is already an article on them.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So there is. The paper is on "Polynomial transformations of Tschirnhaus, Bring and Jarrard", and if you read the text I added, there's a link to Tschirnhaus transformation and a discussion about how those transformations and others are used in a specific context. Describing a paper with a title of the form "A, B and C" as if it were a paper on "A" alone is not accurate. Deltahedron (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. This is an encyclopedic topic (one that is completely unrelated to the proposed redirect target polynomial-time reduction despite the similarity of name) and Deltahedron has improved it to the point where it looks like an encyclopedia article. It still could use more improvement (especially inline sources) but that's not a big enough problem to warrant deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This sounds like the classic set index article. Maybe WikiProject Mathematics can take it on as a project. --Bejnar (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "Polynomial transformation" may be understood in two completely different ways: either as "transformation of a polynomial", the meaning in this article, or as "transformation described by polynomials". As far as I know, for almost every mathematicians (even interested in the same area as the authors of the unique reference of the article), the term "polynomial transformation" alone refers to the second meaning. Therefore, if the article is kept, its name has to be changed because of WP:PRIMARY TOPIC.

In fact, the subject of the article is not "transformation of polynomials", but "manipulation of polynomial roots without computing them". This could be the subject of a good encyclopedic article, with links to properties of polynomial roots, Vieta's formulas, Algebraic number (polynomial whose roots are the sum, product or quotient of the roots of two polynomials), Resultant (the main tool for such manipulations), ... The present article could be the stub of such an article. However, I do not like the title "Manipulation of polynomial roots without computing them" and I have not found any better title. D.Lazard (talk) 08:59, 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, slakr^\ talk / 03:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this being relisted? It seems nobody is in favour of deletion anymore. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:51, 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 speedy delete (G1) by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Gongshow talk 07:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Standards For Indispensable Aspects In Psychic Experiences[edit]

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

Incoherent personal essay. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 02:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like it was generated using a computer program or perhaps a script from a website. I've seen ones that can create rather coherent short stories. I think was intended to be nonsense. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 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 - Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our Munster Memories[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable future film. Fails WP:NFF. - Mr X 02:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable: I can't find any coverage in reliable sources. Could be mentioned in The Munsters if a reliable source existed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per being TOO SOON. Even the article itself tells us the project was only just announced on May 29. It is just barely sourcable as in pre-production. BBC Even filmmaker Frank McGowan himself at the Bad Pony Media website tells us that his trip to the US is pending,[35] and on his own website tells us this is in pre-production. Nominated for deletion 90 minutes after being contributed, we can allow undeletion or recreation only when it gets coverage to meet WP:NF. It lacks notability for a separate article. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an upcoming documentary/film that has been announced and will likely be made. If this is deleted by the time the film is made, the page will need to be redone. Riadse96 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Riadse96. While asserting "likely to be made" is fine, we have standards that must be met for unmade, planned films to merit inclusion: That would be through coverage of production plans in reliable sources, and this topic simply does not have it. If we had an article on filmmaker Frank McGowan, it might be mentioned therein as a planned work, but we do not have an article on him. And I can assure you, if a time comes when the article merits inclusion, it is simple enough for a Admin to undelete. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject does not appear to meet WP:NFF; article can be undeleted/recreated when this is no longer the case. Gongshow talk 00:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TOOSOON. Until the film is shot and has a definite release date, an article on it is clearly premature. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 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, no prejudice against recreation if reliable sources have been provided.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:38, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Susana[edit]

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

No indication of importance, fails general notability, unreferenced since December 2012 — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 03:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. It actually strikes me why this wasn't PROD'ed when it was created 5 years ago. 舎利弗 (talk) 14:33, 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 01:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with a tinge of regret. No evidence has been supplied that this is anything other than a small neighborhood in Pasig, and I couldn't find any. The subdivision name doesn't even show up on Google Maps. I would have liked to find something more, because the photo gallery contains evocative images of the subdivision's old-style entry sign and its narrow streets, but unfortunately there don't seem to be any sources to back it up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:58, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Borchard de Herle[edit]

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

As far as I am aware, this looks rather like a pretendy fantasy article by a D&D orientated schoolchild. The only online record for this chap are mirror sites of this article. Could someone check up on this please? Otherwise I think this should be deleted. Brendandh (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nom for User:Brendandh using his comment on the article talk page. Ansh666 01:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that there is no entry for this gentleman in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. One would expect such an entry if he existed and did what the article says he did. None of the external links cited mention him. The title "Lord" is only given to sons of marquesses and dukes, not the sons of knights or people ennobled in their own right. I'm thinking hoax. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete JSTOR says no. I'd like to hear from Gosox5555 on why they approved this article in the first place. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I smell WP:HOAX. I am not sure that necrothesp is quite right about the title "lord" at this period. It might refer to a baron (apprearing as dm in a Latin orignal). Nevertheless if this had a source in a reputable historian's work, I would not expect that author to have called him "lord" so repeatedly. I also failed to find him in any external links. I do not have the Cambridge Medieval History to check. However, being too familiar with peasants is not treason. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "Lord" can refer to a baron, but only before the surname, not the Christian name (i.e. he would be Lord de Herle, not Lord Borchard). This has not changed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Cambridge Medieval History volume 6 appears to have nothing, so this is a hoax. This is when punitive blocks would be called for. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, delete as hoax. Unfortunately, Gosox is gone, so we're not gonna get anything out of them. Ansh666 15:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It smells wiffy. Szzuk (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

117.194.241.74 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]