Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 March	7 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalonji Jama Changa[edit]

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

Submitted for 184.75.114.3 (talk · contribs) as possibly non-notable. Auric talk 23:02, 6 March 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 March 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the groups he was involved with or his involvement were notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Handyside[edit]

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

Deprodded at the last second. Deprod reason: "Someone who didn't find third-part [sic] coverage of this artist probably didn't even look". I did look and found no relevant sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, deprodded by an admin who was probably reviewing PRODs due for consideration. I, too, conducted a search and couldn't find anything by way of significant coverage in reliable sources. Stalwart111 01:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not quite sure of why the prod was declined, as I haven't been able to find anything reliable, substantial, or independent on this person. Does not meet WP:ARTIST in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meagan Taylor[edit]

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

I don't think this article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. I don't believe the article significant independent coverage (both links are articles with accounts made by Meagan / her father. I believe the this was a flash in the pan (no long term interest). Finally I also believe this article is promotional in nature although very subtle (someone financed a music video independently, so this make them no different than any other youtube user but for the quality of production. Lcaraway (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The references (which are secondary WP:RS from Canada and Panama, not primary sources as claimed) support WP:MUSBIO #11 (Panamanian airplay). The one primary link seems dead, although seems available at archive.org - no current promotional factor. Some additional coverage seems available e.g. ew.com. Not the strongest notability, not a lasting career, but neither have any deletion criteria been clearly established. Dl2000 (talk) 05:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your feedback. I feel like from the articles provided there is mention of heavy rotation in one of them but it isn't independently verified. If you check the canada.com article and check the context it appears the entire article, and the assertion of airplay is just first person feedback from the artist/manager and not the journalist the article is attributed to. The article isn't even attributed or signed off by, the journalist cited in the wiki page. Lcaraway (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)Lcaraway[reply]

Delete - I also found the EW article which is weak for establishing notability. There is the assertion of airplay, but I don't see any sort of coverage beyond the one time flash in the pan coverage here. Notability is not temporary, and this seems to be just a blip of temporary fame. I see no reviews of any of her work. In fact, I cannot find any evidence of an album or anything aside from the song and video. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no assertion of notability, g11 ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso di cincotta[edit]

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

No indication of notability Imaginatorium (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nominator changed their delete nomination to "Very Weak Keep" at the bottom of the discussion, essentially withdrawing the nomination, and no outstanding delete !votes are present. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Mamoru Takagi[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage from independent sources. Also lacks notability--opening the first aikido studio in Arizona is not enough to show notability nor does his rank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdtemp (talk • contribs) 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Although I'm still not convinced of his notability, I have changed my vote (see my final comment below).Mdtemp (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this article! I will post some of these issues on the page's Talk page to clarify. - I am currently actively researching this individual and will add more information as I can substantiate it. However, since he died quite a while before the Internet, it is difficult to track down true original sources. This is an ongoing process, and the "start-class" wikipedia page has already attracted attention and led me to new sources.
Comments on Notability

45 years ago, Takagi opened what was probably the first aikido dojo in the western United States outside of California. It was also one of the first full-time, free standing dedicated aikido dojos in the U.S. (as opposed to rented space at a gym or as a college class).
Takagi was known as a charismatic and exceptionally talented pioneer of aikido, and was significantly involved in spreading and advocating aikido in the U.S. He was a central figure in the founding of the current American aikido organizations: Ki Society (1974), USAF (United States Aikido Federation, 1976), AAA (Aikido Association of America, 1984), and ASU (Aikido Schools of Ueshiba). Having achieved 6th dan in 1984, Takagi was a peer (and good friend) of the current leaders of those organizations, and also the large and influential CAA (California Aikido Association).
When Koichi Tohei (aikido's only 10th dan) demonstrated aikido for American publications and audiences in the 1970s, he chose Takagi as his demonstration partner on a number of occasions. Takagi appears with him in several of his most famous early photos as his "uke" and demonstration assistant (see links on article page).
The current leaders (2014) of the main U.S. aikido organizations are 7th and 8th dan (aikido ranks seldom reach higher, as you may be accustomed to seeing in other martial arts). Had Takagi not been killed in an accident at age 41 (at 6th dan), he would possibly be one of the highest ranking aikido practitioners, and based on his actions in life, likely a leader or central figure in today's aikido. Takagi was truly a pioneer in this country, having started aikido study in 1958.
To summarize, Takagi's name is well known and respected 30 years after his death, particularly in West Coast aikido. This article began when other instructors pointed out that his legacy and impact may soon be forgotten, since his peers, leading the organizations he helped found, are now in their 70s. Being on the East Coast, it has been difficult to source original documentation, and much of what I have written here comes from first-hand information related to me by head instructors around the U.S. As I am able to substantiate with external sources, I will certainly add them. There is little debate as to Takagi's notability within the aikido community, however, documenting it is on ongoing project.
Please feel free to contact me directly for more information or to help improve this page!

Joe Shuri (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that this brand new article looks like it is currently receiving about as much traffic as Fumio Toyoda (another deceased U.S. aikido instructor and leader with unquestionable notability) and several others, e.g. Frank Doran and David Shaner, current leaders of key East Coast and West Coast aikido organizations and two of the senior American aikido instructors (both 7th dan). I feel that the history of aikido in the United States is currently poorly documented and that a number of the key early (and current) figures are not documented in Wikipedia; this page is a step to rectify that. Thanks! Joe Shuri (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about aikido, but I know a little about Wikipedia. The problem with this article is the lack of significant coverage in independent sources, which is what WP:GNG requires. There's little documented evidence to support the claims or the claims are irrelevant. Examples: probably the first aikido dojo in the western U.S. outside of California, was a good friend of people who now head major aikido organizations, would be a high rank had he lived, was used as a uke by Tohei. These don't really show notability, they fall more under WP:NOTINHERITED. My google search turned up nothing. No objection if you want to move this article to your sandbox and keep working on it, but right now I don't see any evidence that he meets WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. If you can provide some then I'll change my opinion, but right now I don't think he's notable.Mdtemp (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I am a new user on Wikipedia, but I have been practicing and been involved in the "politics" of aikido for more than 30 years. I feel that the history of aikido in the U.S. is poorly documented on Wikipedia, and with this article and a few others, I'm trying to rectify that.

I was not trying to establish Takagi's notability as a "good friend" of the senior instructors. As I stated, he was a central and active figure in the creation of many of them, including as a co-founder of AAA as documented in source #5 on his page.
He was already one of the few highest ranking instructors in the U.S. during his life; again, you may be used to seeing higher ranks in other arts, but I mentioned the current ranks as an example of how slowly senior practitioners are granted rank in aikido. He was 6th dan 30 years ago, when aikido was much smaller in the U.S. Today, when aikido is many, many times as large, the current leadership of most organizations is 7th dan. There were very few senior aikidoka in the U.S. in the 1970s, and almost none outside of the schools founded by the Japanese aikido headquarters.
The fact that Takagi's notability is well established in the oral and written history of aikido cannot be referenced in wikipedia, and I will continue to rectify that. His death decades before the internet, and the dearth of information currently available online, is exactly why this page should exist.
You will find few martial arts schools of any kind that have been in continuous operation since 1968, certainly only a small handful in aikido. Takagi's school was not only the first in the western U.S., he brought aikido to the western U.S. through his extensive travels and advocacy throughout the Rocky Mountain states. I cannot document that yet through published works from the 1970s, but verbally, he is well known for reaching out throughout many western states to help establish aikido where it never existed before. I have received several contacts by having this page available who are helping me document this - but at a slow pace, since this is no-one's top priority (and not my own, either).
Takagi was Tohei's partner in magazine articles and in public because he was a central figure as I described above, not by chance or friendship.

My inexperience with Wikipedia is probably preventing me from making my arguments well here. I have not read every page of the references and can't keep up with an expert like you.Most aikido organizations are non-profit; many instructors are not paid; as it is non-competitive (in most forms), you will not find extensive "sports" coverage of it (as with MMA). As a very traditional style, there is simply not the same level of coverage readily available as in other more flashy "for-profit" martial arts. However, there are many thousands of practitioners, and much interest in it, and I think that Wikipedia is a great forum for that. I cannot spend a lot of time on Wikipedia "defending" this, so if you are intent on keeping this from getting off the ground, you'll have successfully stopped my initial foray at documenting the pre-internet history of Aikido, which is currently mostly verbal. If that's your goal, I don't have the time to spend resisting it. I know your work is not personal, but I think that keeping this page out does the aikido community a disservice.

Keep Wow that certainly is a lot of text but the main point is that unlike professional fighters there tends to be far less press coverage for traditional martial arts like aikido and the fact that there is some (and the subject is not a BLP) is a positive thing. I believe the subject meets WP:GNG and the article does make a case for notability in US Aikido world.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me where you see significant independent coverage? I would love to make Joe happy and keep this article. I don't want to squash the enthusiasm of a newbie.Mdtemp (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ While I certainly appreciate the passion displayed by the author, the fact remains that the article lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. This has always been a problem with martial arts articles, but that doesn't change the fact that, as it now stands, I don't believe the article shows notability. My google search turned up nothing supporting notability nor did I find him mentioned when I searched martial arts magazines [1]. I'd prefer putting this article into the author's sandbox until he can improve the sources, as opposed to getting rid of it, but I don't think this article is ready for mainspace yet. Papaursa (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although I haven't seen the articles, I am willing to take KendoSnowman's word on it. Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability follows guidelines in WikiProject Martial arts. Independent sources: double full-page, article with large pictures in Arizona Republic (largest mainstream newspaper in Arizona) was unprecedented for a martial art in 1973. Co-founder of a major national aikido organization per article in the main U.S. aikido journal. Six photos + text in national martial arts magazine listed. Lack of google-ability is to be expected -you won't find anything online on someone who died in 1984, it's all in print and still being dug out of old boxes. Thanks to all for taking notice and for the constructive help. (disclosure: I started this article, but I know Joe Shuri in the real world)KendoSnowman (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that link to the Aikido Journal to be a passing mention. However, I am willing to change my vote to Very Weak Keep. I'm still not convinced, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.Mdtemp (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 no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time. I have to say that there's a strong argument to MOVE this to an "...incident" title with a redirect, which makes far more sense, but I will not super!vote D P 09:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enfield Monster[edit]

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

See also Space Penguins of Tuscumbia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Penguins of Tuscumbia. Probable WP:HOAX that doesn't cite sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one reliable source. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reliable sources are even rarer than cryptids, apparently. Gamaliel (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. One source is another wiki. One of the websites (which doesn't look like it'd meet WP:RS anyway posits it may have been a kangaroo the person saw. Simonm223 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a reliable book that mentions the Enfield Monster on two pages (written by Daniel Cohen) but it's only one book. It wouldn't be enough for the article. The best suggestion is a delete due to lack of sources. Goblin Face (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cryptozoonews.com source given in the article is clearly headlined as being a reprint of an article from Fate magazine. Combined with the Cohen book mentioned above, this seems enough to meet WP:GNG. --McGeddon (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the above, the incident was the subject of a scholarly paper published in 1978:

A Critical Examination of the Social Contagion Image of Collective Behavior: The Case of the Enfield Monster by David L. Miller, Kenneth J. Mietus and Richard A. Mathers. The Sociological Quarterly , Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter, 1978) , pp. 129-140. Available on JSTOR (subscription required).

This paper (top hit on Google Scholar) discusses the incident in great depth and mentions the media attention that it gained at the time - it appeared in papers "throughout the state" on 27 April 1973, and on 7 May there was an interview on radio station WGN, Chicago and articles (of what length I don't know) in the Chicago Daily News, the Moline Dispatch, Champaign-Urbana Courier and the Alton Telegraph. There were earlier articles in the Carmi Times. People really ought to do a little basic research before asserting "no reliable sources" or "probable WP:HOAX". —SMALL JIM 14:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People really ought to do a little basic research before they create articles on fringe topics. Gamaliel (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly seems to put the WP:HOAX claims to rest, but I'm not sure that it establishes notability. Usually notability requires sustained interest in the topic itself - that paper is on social contagion and uses the Enfield Monster as a single case study. I would think that it would have to be a fairly well-known study to pass the threshold of notability. And even then, the article would likely be about the study itself, not the subject of the study. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per:

Introduction to Collective Behavior and Collective Action: Third Edition. pp. 148-151.
Reprinted article from Fate magazine
Unknown Creatures. p. 27.
"A Critical Examination of the Social Contagion Image of Collective Behavior: the Case of the Enfield Monster". The Sociological Quarterly.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Unknown Creatures" book is self-published and not reliable. I'm not familiar enough with Fate to judge whether it's a reliable source, but from the article there it certainly seems Fringe. I also don't think that the first and last sources really establish notability for the monster itself, since it's presented as a case study in mass hysteria. To the extent that they establish notability, it's really only the notability of the reaction, not of the monster itself, which is incidental to the story. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fate is pretty much the definition of fringe. Gamaliel (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

0x0077BE, the article isn't about a "monster" – that would be WP:FRINGE. The article is about what happened in Enfield in Spring 1973: a set of incidents (caused by a kangaroo and mass hysteria, I suppose) that generally go by the name of the "Enfield Monster" – a much smaller version of those that make up the Loch Ness Monster article for example. It's this set of incidents that we have to determine the notability of, and IMO they have been discussed (for what purpose makes no difference) by enough reliable sources to pass WP:N. I've added Miller's Social Contagion paper and a 1/3 page summary that was printed in a Pennsylvania newspaper in August '73 to the article. There are without doubt many more newspaper reports: I haven't found copies of the contemporary ones (listed above), but the fact that they're mentioned by a reliable source suggests we can trust that they exist, and they all add towards the notability. —SMALL JIM 13:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not about the monster, why isn't it called Enfield monster incident or something? The first line of the article is "The Enfield Monster is a creature reported by several eyewitnesses in Enfield, a village in southern Illinois, United States in April 1973.". It's pretty clearly about the monster. The attention that a popular high school football star receives is just a "smaller version" of what professional football players receive, so again I don't see how that's much of an argument. Notability guidelines specifically indicate that coverage has to be sustained (not necessarily ongoing, but it has to be of interest well after its initial coverage), so a purely contemporary account doesn't help without reliable sources from later on. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:COMMONNAME for the article's title, and see Category:Cryptozoology for numerous examples. 2. You can rewrite the article if you want – it does need it! 3. The point about the "smaller version" of the Loch Ness Monster article is that such articles don't try to come up with a description of the "monster", they describe what has been said about it by others. If enough reliable sources have written about it, we can have an article. Exactly the same would be true of your high school footballer. 4. Sustained coverage? See WP:NTEMP, as long as it's more than WP:NOTNEWS. HTH. —SMALL JIM 18:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP is why I said "if not ongoing". A contemporary local news story isn't enough to establish that't is more than WP:NOTNEWS was my point there. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and to address concern #3, I think that the Loch Ness monster itself has become notable independent of any individual incidents of social contagion. Same with Bigfoot, Spring-heeled Jack, etc. They've entered the public consciousness as characters themselves. That's different from this case, where there doesn't seem to be any non-fringe interest in the monster, just interest in the mass hysteria event that swept through the town. Do we agree that there's a difference here? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck one of the sources I provided above; it's self published. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Decent sources are mounting, and I think they will continue to do so. Apparently hundreds of halfway decent (e.g. American Monsters) to marginal or poor blogs, a scholarly paper, treatment in part of at least one reliable book (discounting the other self-published one), the Fate magazine article, mention in a few other marginal sources, and then I found this episode of Haunted Collector, a show on Syfy, which seems like a pretty strong source (though I haven't watched it). Passes GNG by my eye, anyway, if not with flying colors. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Also, the Reading Eagle source seems decent as well as a seemingly old and established, albeit local, newspaper. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any "mounting" sources. A million non-reliable sources doesn't help establish notability any more than 5 non-reliable sources. The only thing close to a reliable source you've cited is the Reading Eagle paper, and that's a contemporary account in a local newspaper. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly are you interpreting WP:RS? The subject of a scholarly paper, significant coverage in a book, the subject of a nationally broadcast television episode, a newspaper feature-length article, a magazine article -- and all of them reliable sources. The "million non-notable sources" are not essential for showing notability, but do suggest that, for this decades-old subject, there are more reliable sources out there (i.e. unreliable sources that mention unavailable reliable sources). So, again, if these unreliable sources and the yet unseen reliable sources were the entire case for keeping, you'd be right to jump on it. But they're not. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my understanding of how reliable sources work. The whole point of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE is that fringe topics need mainstream coverage if they are going to have coverage in this encyclopedia. A show dedicated to fringe topics, even on a mainstream channel like Discovery, is not sufficient to establish mainstream notability, nor is a magazine devoted to covering all the fringe points of view. My whole point was that you can't count the unreliable sources at all, so you can't say, "Well we have one reliable source plus 50 unreliable ones, so that's close enough". The zero times 50 is still zero.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 18:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper and article sources are reliable, but I explained above why I don't think they establish notability. The magazine and TV show are WP:FRINGE sources and not reliable. So far I see exactly 3 reliable sources - the book and article about social contagion and the newspaper article. I think the newspaper article can establish notability in combination with some later coverage of the same event, per WP:NOTNEWS. In my opinion, the social contagion papers may be enough to establish notability for something like Enfield monster incident, but not an article on the monster itself. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 19:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're using WP:FRINGE as rationale to call sources unreliable. From the top of that page: "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." It's about the role of fringe theories when talking about mainstream subjects, not that publications about fringe topics are unreliable. "Enfield Monster" is a fringe subject, so publications about fringe subjects are absolutely appropriate. If someone wanted to cite these sources to talk about a scientific topic, then you'd have a point. But this is a cryptid. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After seeing the sources being put forth, I'm ready to vote. I am unconvinced by the arguments above about the notability. At best they make a case for redirect to an event-based article like Enfield monster incident or something. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 17:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of the article, whether called "Enfield monster" or "Enfield monster incident" will discuss the same subject in only slightly different terms. If Enfield monster incident already existed, a redirect would make sense, but what you're really saying is that this should be renamed. That the article title isn't descriptive or appropriate isn't a good reason for deletion. It can always be moved to a new name afterwards, but is the subject notable enough to keep? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that there's notability even for Enfield monster incident, but the case is stronger for moving the article there and reformulating it than for keeping it where it is, which is why my !vote is for deletion, but falling back to supporting a redirect over keeping it how it is. There's also probably an argument for WP:TNT anyway, since the existing article is about 90% in-universe, and a move to Enfield monster incident would primarily be focused on the mass hysteria and social contagion, and not on the monster itself. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 23:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's two skeptical books that mention the Enfield Monster. One is Superstition and the Press written by Curtis Daniel MacDougall and published by Prometheus Books. Unfortunately the book is out of print and hard to obtain but it debunks the whole case. The other is the book Everything you need to know about monsters and still be able to get to sleep by Daniel Cohen. Cohen wrote for mainly for young audiences but his books took a skeptical stance to such subjects unlike most other authors who wrote on the topic. And yes there are quite a few cryptozoology books that mention the case but many of these are quite unreliable. I don't have the MacDougall book, it's been on my purchase list for a long time. Sorry I can't be of help on this. I will change my vote to a keep if other sources can be found. Goblin Face (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No substantial evidence of notability. The sources so far are not very high quality. Open to changing my vote with some more sources, further argument and some editing of article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you compare the Enfield Monster article to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loveland_frog you will see that the sources of the latter are much more worse. There is no unanimous agreement over a deletion. It´s now time to stop this totally absurd discussion and to accept that this article is notable and relevant enough for Wikipedia ! --SpongebobLawyerPants (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Kinjo[edit]

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

Biography with no sources. The only source given doesn't mention him at all. The claim of being the father of karate would be notable, but there are no sources to support it. Nothing else shows he's notable.Mdtemp (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete After removal of the section directly copied from Ankō Itosu which had no obvious connection to the subject there really is nothing left to indicate any notability. This includes the comment about being the father of karate which was also copied from Ankō Itosu which I also deleted. Even to biography sentence (not deleted) appears to actually refer to Ankō Itosu. ~~The subject is not referenced.~~Peter Rehse (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References have been added and some effort has been made to flesh out notability. I am leaning more towards keep but am not there yet.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I'm not finding the coverage I'd like to see to meet WP:GNG. Most of the coverage is by his student, and I don't consider that independent coverage. If additional sources can be found, I might change my mind. The article is improved from what it was--although that's not saying much. Papaursa (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ... article already speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Sing 01:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

José Rafael Corderó[edit]

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

Article is poorly written and does not seem to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Furthermore, its only two sources are in Spanish, making them useless to the vast majority of English Wikipedia readers. G S Palmer (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Cordero Sánchez. Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moat Farm School[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced primary school. PROD contested. Xoloz (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing much to delete even. Szzuk (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the page was written by one of the pupils it's not a bad effort; nevertheless, there's no indication whatsoever of notability, so delete. There's a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moat Farm Junior School. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, nothing much to delete. Nothing notable. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says no. Atlas-maker (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George B. Schwartzman[edit]

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

No claim for notability. Being a candidate in an election is insufficient for WP:GNG, as described by WP:POLITICIAN. What's more, the election he ran in was a free-for-all, with 135 certified candidates. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2003 California Recall. This is the usual outcome for losing candidates for a state/provencial-wide executive race per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a candidate in a free-for-all election does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With over 100 similarly situated failed candidates in that election, I can't even support the redirect. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as hoax. ... discospinster _talk 01:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Marriage Alliance[edit]

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

Looks like advertising and fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 16:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an obvious hoax. Someone's trying to tar the name of an anti-gay marriage group. The supposed website listed in external links has been deleted. Googling the subject name with "snowmobile" brings basically things derived from this page. Googling the supposedly well-publicized "Pink Boa 500" brings things derived from this page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Samar day. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 π! 00:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mutya Han Samar[edit]

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

Non-notable local event. No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Move to Samar day or equivalent; the holiday or festival may be notable, but the beauty contest appears to be just part of the larger feria. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Or provide a separate section of it in the holiday article with some few information about the pageant.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 16:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move (or Sub-merge if that's the term) to Samar day as per argument by Bearian - Alternativity (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Samar day, that stub could use some expansion.---Lenticel ^(talk) 01:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Samar day.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here I Come Falling[edit]

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

Their one major-label album only scraped the bottom of a minor chart, and the sources (outside of an album review, which doesn't count as "substantial coverage") do not seem to establish any other notability. I say delete. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band charted on a Billboard chart, which is enough to establish notability via WP:MUSIC; I'm not sure why the nominator denigrates this achievement as evidence of notability (the nom seems to have changed his mind about this article for unclear reasons). The charting alone is enough to keep the article, but the band was covered by several music outlets, such as Allmusic, Alternative Press, HM, CCM, and Absolute Punk. (Album reviews, based on longstanding consensus, very much do count as substantial coverage in establishing a band's notability. I occasionally hear people attempt to argue that album reviews establish album notability and not band notability, but this specious argument has never gotten traction in any deletion debate I've been a part of; coverage of a band's work is coverage of the band.) Chubbles (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, not that it matters, but yes, I did in fact "change my mind" on this article's notability in the two years since I made that edit. Human beings tend to do weird things like that.

Second, you might want to look at WP:MUSIC again. For one thing, it says that a band meeting the listed criteria may be notable; things like WP:GNG can still override them. For another, bullet 1 excludes "trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings". (So this and this are out.) Album reviews do count as trivial because they are generally done as a matter of procedure, and also because, as the name implies, they tend to focus more on the album than the band. As far as Billboard, I maintain that while they do technically meet bullet 2 because of that, spending one week at number 46 on a genre chart is such a bare minimum of qualification that it's not even worth it. That leaves us with some guy's blog post about their breakup and a single CCM Magazine profile.

In conclusion, while they may meet one or two requirements of WP:MUSIC, the lack of significant third-party coverage means that they fail WP:GNG. My position, therefore, is still delete. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Invisiboy42293 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 March 2014‎

I don't think coverage by Alternative Press, particularly more than once (even if each individual piece is short), is trivial; this is a top publication in its genre, and it still presses a paper magazine which is distributed nationwide. The suspicion of album reviews, full stop, makes no sense; a third-party book review is evidence of notability of the author, a third-party film review is evidence of notability of the director, a third-party album review is evidence of notability of the musician. Invisiboy's WP:HEY standard, I believe, is well beyond what WP:MUSIC actually requires of bands and musicians, both in terms of charting and coverage via album reviews (both generally regarded as acceptable indicators). Chubbles (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chubbles. There's enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 10:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, just barely poking their head above #50 on a genre specific chart is probably enough to barely scrape them over WP:MUSIC criteria #2. I find the assertion that reviews automatically confer notability to also be a bit weak - if they're substantial and credible then sure, but a capsule review would probably not be substantial enough. As always, context must be considered. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was : Speedily deleted as promotional. We don't even have an article on Energy Tools International (company which makes this product). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Force Technology[edit]

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

If a trademark, it is just promotion; no evidence of notability for the claimed technology. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article for a very fringe-y sounding geewhizzery. A better reference for the claims made in the article is needed than the trademark registration. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 16:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moat Farm Junior School[edit]

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

PROD removed with no rationale. An entirely unremarkable junior school. TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing notable about this school Atlas-maker (talk) 16:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Schools are generally deemed notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC) Removed !vote as misread schooloutcomes. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable private primary school. While High Schools are generally kept, primary schools are generally deleted if private or redirected to their school district article if public. Safiel (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a stub filled with trivia about a lower-form school. We have almost always deleted such articles, except truly famous or notable schools. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. There's a related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moat Farm School. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as CSD G7/author blanked. Xoloz (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finny Samuel[edit]

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

No sign of notability. Searching Google with name and "drink" or "cocktail" brings up no relevant results. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be WP:MADEUP. No evidence this is a popular or well-known drink. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter what I vote because the creator has blanked the page, so it should be deleted shortly. Jinkinson talk to me 18:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intramural (film)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:FFILM. There are a handful of website references that indicate that filming might be scheduled but it hasn't been released or reviewed by anyone yet. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the film shoot date and test screening release date. DepressedPer (talk) 1:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The filmmakers plan to release the film around the 2014 NFL season. DepressedPer (talk) 3:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well... a release date doesn't really mean anything. Something can still achieve notability before its release. We have to have enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability per WP:NFF (future films). Offhand I noted that more than a few have issues because they're primary sources ([2], [3]), routine database-type listings ([4]), or articles written by an alumni publication for the college the director attended ([5]). We can't really use any of those to show notability. Now when it comes to the other sources, the one from ComingSoon.net looks to be a reprint of a press release, which is considered to be a WP:PRIMARY source regardless of where it is posted. The Austinot is a blog that seems to accept submissions from a wide variety of people, so I don't think it'd be the exception to the WP:BLOG rule. I think you could use it for some smaller things, but I wouldn't hinge notability upon it. Now as far as the rest goes, those look good. The Austin Fusion Magazine article was written by a staff member, The Wrap is always good as a RS, and the ABJ is good as well. It's a good start, but to really cement notability for an unreleased film, we need more. I'll see what I can find, but offhand I'm thinking that this might be a bit too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That said, we might be able to rationalize an article for the director since he's done a previous work that has received at least one review. I'm not finding a huge amount out there for the film, but if I can't find enough for NFF purposes what would happen is that we'd make the director's article and redirect Intramural to there, but with the history intact so that when/if it gets more coverage we can always un-redirect and have the article history to pull from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a borderline weak keep, but there is coverage of the production before, during, and after. True, much of it is local, but we have coverage that isn't. It's very, very close but I think it just manages to squeak by WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 6 March 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 March 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similar findings to Tokyogirl79. Not the most notable film project out there, and I'd probably re-vote to delete if this ultimately doesn't get released, but as it presently looks I'd say it's just notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to its scheduled premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival. DepressedPer (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability seems to be established. --do ncr am 15:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've created a page for the director and if by some chance (which looks somewhat slim at this point) that this is deleted, this should redirect to Andrew Disney with the history intact. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have the confirmation missed by the nominator that the project has completed filming, and we do have coverage, WP:NF is met. Seems a no-brainer keep. Perhaps the nom might consider a withdrawal? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Center for Japanese Culture[edit]

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

This looks like a copy of the organisation's own website. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete first paragraph at least is a copvio of this page. Unsure about overall notability of the topic, but if it comes back it needs a total rewrite to sound less like a brochure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately the creator has not removed the promotional wording even though they were warned about it and given time to make the improvement. Deb (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as copyright violation, since virtually all of the text has been copy & pasted verbatim or paraphrased from various pages on the official website. --DAJF (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - close enough to a cut and paste job as to be virtually a copyvio. I'm not sure the institute is even notable. Bearian (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Ryan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Laun chba ller 13:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A regular on a popular TV show for seven years. Looks notable enough to me. Would someone in such a role on a popular modern show get an article? Of course she would. No question. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And the mother of Paul and Barry Ryan. Rothorpe (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED.--Laun chba ller 14:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep with a side of WTF are you thinking? Easily passes WP:MUSIC with several hit singles (UK top 20). A good overview of her career is here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the article doesn't indicate notability. It still doesn't. Charting a single in the UK top 20 is, but the article doesn't say that and I am waiting for it to be added to the article before I consider withdrawal.--Laun chba ller 18:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She was on television all the time. Rothorpe (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added a source to the article about her song "Love Me Forever" peaking at number 5 in 1958. Coverage like this and this help show that she meets WP:GNG as well as WP:MUSICBIO (ETA: and WP:ENT). Gong show 01:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Could use more cites, but appears WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not a Good Article, but there are plenty of sources - such a the Guardian obit - that could be used to verify and 'beef up' facts in the article. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden Markram[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern was that the subject has not competed at a level of cricket considered notable by WP:CRIC, but the PROD was removed with the rationale that he "is the subject of multiple non-trivial sources". Only one non-trivial source is included in the article, and the other is a trivial player profile on the same website, so if there are "multiple" non-trivial sources in existence, where are they? Furthermore, I have doubts that the more substantial source in the article should be used to determine notability, as the site it comes from is a cricket-specific site, and therefore it is within their remit to cover subjects that would be considered less notable by broader media outlets. Finally, it seems the article is making the point that Markram is notable for only WP:ONEEVENT; he may go on to do more notable things, but until then, it is inappropriate for him to have an article. – Pee Jay 12:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should be kept although I respect whatever decision is reached at the end of this discussion. I think we should improve this article and add links from outside of cricket sites. Aiden Markram was the captain of the U-19 South African team which won the U-19 World Cup 2014 under him. Also there is another player Kagiso Rabada who was in the same team and has an article in wiki (although it might be considered as an 'Other stuff exists argument'). Markram also recorded two consecutive century in U-19 ODIs which is a record. Itz arka (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rabada meets the requirements of WP:CRIN having played List A and T20 cricket in South African domestic cricket. Hack (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the conditions for notability should be improvised a bit. As it states that First Class and List A players are notable, but doesn't mention anything about players playing in U-19 World Cup. In fact the U19 WC is telecast world wide while several First Class or List A matches don't even come to the television. Also U19 WC gets certain coverage by the media, but FC and LA matches don't get that much coverage. So certainly Aiden Markram is more popular than any less known & so called 'notable' FC players in South Africa. That's why I think WP:CRIN should modify it's notability criteria and include players who played U-19 WC as notable ones. Time is changing so Wiki should change itself too. The old days are gone and nowadays an U-19 WC is certainly as important as any other international match. Itz arka (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been a lot of media coverage of the Under-19 World Cup, in which he was captain of the winning side, so I believe that he is notable per WP:GNG. JH (talk page) 16:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, particularly Itz arka's comment about centuries, if that can be cited? He will no doubt play FC or LA cricket soon (which I know is by itself a duff keep arguement) but as an inclusionist I can see captaincy of a winning U-19 world cup and the century think being enough to keep him until he plays top flight cricket. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can find the two-century streak here in Wikipedia in the article 2014 ICC Under-19 Cricket World Cup. He scored 120* against Zimbabwe in the last group match and 105* against Afghanistan in their first knockout match in the next round. Itz arka (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some links about his name mentioned in the media: [6] ; [7] Itz arka (talk) 03:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal Keep based on WP:GNG. Johnlp (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kothapalli Geetha[edit]

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

The subject is standing for political office, so fails WP:POLITICIAN. Her earlier life is unremarkable, fails WP:GNG. References are minimal and do not establish notability. WWGB (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom The artical fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if she were to become notable, this stub is a huge mess of word salad. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David John Pearson[edit]

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

This appears to be an autobiographical piece, with no accessible reliable sources and no verifiable demonstration of notability. The article was created in 2011 by User:Catscar, who has edited almost no other pages; expanded by User:Ozyman0308 - similar editing history; and by IPs User:24.207.116.79 and various other IP addresses, all in British Columbia, again similar editing history. This all strongly suggests that the article is an autobiographical puff piece of no lasting merit or importance. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - autobiography or not, the sources list is a mess. More than half of those should be in a publications list or something - they are primary sources with regard to the subject. They were written by the subject, they are not about the subject. Some might be used to verify certain claims within the article but it's difficult to differentiate between primary and secondary sources at the moment. On that basis, I'd probably support deletion (notability not being remotely clear) until significant coverage in multiple reliable sources can be specifically identified. Stalwart111 11:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether this is an autobio or not is irrelevant for AFD. Creating an autobio is discouraged, not prohibited. Possible POV is reason for cleanup, not deletion. Having said that, I just looked at the references (and pared them down, several were used twice in the article). The only one that has a link actually does not mention the name of the subject. --Randykitty (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per above.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sofía Vergara. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Vergara[edit]

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

It appears that this minor actor is famously primarily for the fact that she is Sofía's sister. I would like to open a debate to consider whether this actress is notable.

Thanks Dusty Dusty|💬|You can help! 01:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Minor yes, but seems to be enough outside sources to meet WP:NOTABLE and she's in more than just one or two things. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sofía Vergara. There's a case that she meets WP:GNG, but slightly too much of the coverage is about her sister and "Look what Sofia's sister is doing" or "Sofia is being mean to her sister"; little in-depth coverage. Doesn't quite meet the requirement of significant roles in notable works: her role in Chico de mi Barrio might be big enough (I've not found sufficient information to tell), but she only had a small part in Fright Night and the other roles are also one-offs or recurring guest roles in series (when I'd expect someone to be a regular at least for part of a show's run, or to play a very well-known guest character, to be significant). Could merge some information to the article on her sister. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 24 February 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, --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to her sister's article, second choice delete. Notability is not inherited. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chirag Kulkarni[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sources are, in order:

A non-notable podcast run by one person;
A non-notable "Web TV show" run by one person;
A crunchbase entry, the unreliability of which is demonstrated by the fact that it was written by the subject;
The subject's own website;
The TEDx clone at a university;
A school newspaper (not university - a high school);
The aforementioned "Web TV" show;
The "Teen Business Forum" (of the 'web forum' type, not the 'industry forum' type);
BusinessInterviews.com, tagline "We tell your story to the world!";
An interview on some guy's personal website.

This, ah. Doesn't hold up to our guidelines.Ironholds (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete and salt Subject fails WP:BIO. As noted by nom, sources massively fail WP:RS. A Google search turned up a gazillion hits, of which every one on the first four pages were promotional. The article appears to be a WP:PROMO piece by not one, but three(!) SPAs. If these aren't all puppets of the same master I have a bridge I will sell you real cheap. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I have referred the three SPAs to SPI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per above. There's no significant coverage in the secondary, independent and reliable sources to establish notability of the subject. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the following mentioned, these are my opinions;

A non-notable podcast run by one person- that is a generalization. What is considered a notable podcast?
A non-notable "Web TV show" run by one person;- This "Web TV show" has received a large amount of hits, and has done very well.
A crunchbase entry, the unreliability of which is demonstrated by the fact that it was written by the subject;
The subject's own website;
The TEDx clone at a university;- A clone? What makes you say that? I think it is clear who he is
A school newspaper (not university - a high school); What does it matter whether it is a school or university? It works either way.
The aforementioned "Web TV" show;
The "Teen Business Forum" (of the 'web forum' type, not the 'industry forum' type); There is no distinction. Just because the forum is new, doesn't mean it isn't industry
BusinessInterviews.com, tagline "We tell your story to the world!";- This is an extremely notable interview page
An interview on some guy's personal website.- Again, this personal guy's website has had other serious entrepreneurs such as Neil Patel on there. Neil has a wiki as well.

Of course, we can go on back and forth arguing about whether or not Chirag Kulkarni's links are notable enough, however, I, and many others believe he is of importance to be on wikipedia. I think we should take off the ban and proceed. There are many other people with similar links, and no one attacks them.

I don't think you can call it a web promo peice either. He is a seriously acclaimed and successful entrepreneur, who has done amazing things. Just because the SPA's are new, doesn't mean they should be valued. -Bobsimon232422 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsimon232422 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ironholds' assesment of the sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again I think that you all are making claims that the sources are not legitimate claims, however, they are as legitimate as can be. There is clear backing that the links are true, validated links. Deleting the page will not do any good as some one else wil upload the same page again, *especially because the sources are real and represent credible evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsimon232422 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, they're validated; the websites at the end exist. That doesn't make the websites reliable coverage, and if you think a high school newspaper qualifies (as seen above), you haven't studied our guidelines in any detail. If someone is going to upload the same page again, that's grand - if it still doesn't meet our guidelines, we can nominate it for deletion again - and if it's the same person under a different account, block them for sockpuppetry. The actual disruption to Wikipedia processes will be minimal. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The high school newspaper is one article. What about the rest? I don't think you can contest the reliable coverage. There has been consistent evidence that the information provided makes sense, and is consistent across the board. Those are in fact legitatime websites. If this was a problem of inconsistency, then I would understand. however, there are 8 different links, which, I believe is plenty. Just because one of them isn't Forbes, Inc, or some other business website, does not mean it is legitatime. I am not trying to be harsh, however, I do believe in this articel and its legitamacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobsimon232422 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am compelled to conclude on the basis of your continually repeating assertions that are factually false, that you have not actually read the applicable guidelines for sourcing and establishing notability. Please see WP:RS and WP:V. You may also read WP:42 for a brief summary, although that is not on the same level as the actual policy guidelines. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Miss - Notre Dame football series[edit]

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

This football series or rivalry, whatever we call it, is not significant enough to warrant its own article. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The article doesn't seem to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT or WP:NRIVALRY. But that is mostly a lack of sources, not inherent non-notability. If someone can find some decent sources I would probably change my mind. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there should be plenty of sources covering the two games played in this series. I can't imagine there being any reliable sources that treat the sum of these two games as a rivalry. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the article doesn't even call itself a "rivalry", it's really just a list of games between the two schools. There's nothing notable about this head-to-head list than between any other two NCAA Division I football schools. I'm with Jweiss, I need an article that talks about the notability of the series of football games between these two schools. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two games with seven years between them does not make a "series"--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Jweiss. Information like this should be placed in the individual season articles. Patriarca12 (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asia excluding Greater China[edit]

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

Article does not actually make sense, (how can something excluding "Greater China" just replace the previous term "excluding Japan") and no evidence that this term is other a generic description (like "Europe excluding Germany"). Imaginatorium (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search shows that the term is used primarily in organizational job descriptions, where one or more persons are assigned to cover the non-Chinese part of Asia, with presumably one or more other employees assigned to Chinese areas. I have not found any significant coverage of the phrase itself. Accordingly, it doesn't seem notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate term that is used in the financial services industry particularly relating to market activity and investments in Asian markets that do not include China. I have added four sources that reflect this including Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10K from the US Government. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the sources you provide actually devote significant coverage to the topic "Asia excluding Greater China" itself, and the third and fourth use it exactly as I said - as part of a job description. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also, the sentence to which these references are attached makes absolutely no sense. What are "supernormal profits" (linked to a children's tv programme and the generic word 'profit')? What, exactly is "situated in Asia"? And if this is about new access to the China economy, why invest somewhere else? Note also that this meaning of "Greater China" is missing from Greater China (I think). There may well be relevant content which could be usefully added to that page. Imaginatorium (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course it is possible to find places where this expression is used, just as it is possible to find places where the expression "put the book on the table" is used, but that is not enough to justify an article on the subject. The question is whether there is any source that does not merely uses the expression, but devotes significant coverage about it. Neither the article nor my searches produce any such source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term does not seem to have the high level of usage or notability the article suggests. From searches, the term often is displayed as Asia (excluding Greater China), as if to indicate a clarification of what they mean, rather than a distinct type of practice. Information on why businesses might exclude China may be useful in different titled articles, but this article treats the actual term as distinct, when it does not appear to be. Scarlettail (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Szabo[edit]

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

Subject seems to be notable only for an unconfirmed theory about his possible association with a pseudonym. If/when this is confirmed, he would become notable as Satoshi Nakamoto, but he is just the latest of many theories as to Nakamoto's identity and is not notable at this time. — TORTOISE WRATH 05:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The guy invented 'smart contracts', which is the hotest thing in the crypto world, and he also invented 'bit gold', which is a precursor to Bitcoin. He would be notable if every mention of Satoshi Nakamoto were removed from the page. Sanpitch (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly possible. I'm not a major follower of cryptocurrency; all I know is that the article wasn't created until the theory of his Nakamototude was publicised. — TORTOISE WRATH 16:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? If the claims are true there should be vast cites on GS. There aren't. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Satoshi Nakamoto has an article without having any classic publications. Szabo also doesn't have publications in maintstream pubs, but he is nevertheless influential. Sanpitch (talk) 17:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also famous for his critique of micropayments, which heavily influenced the micropayments debate, per the references in the article.Mercury's Stepson (talk)

"famous"? sources please. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The arguments here seem to be leaning between micropayments/smart contracts are notable, therefore Szabo is notable and he might be Nakamoto, so we should talk about him. I think the best option at the moment might be to merge into Satoshi Nakamoto, Micropayments, and Smart contracts. — TORTOISE WRATH 18:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His name appears in 12 different Wikipedia articles by my count (using advanced search). We would be leaving a bunch of orphan links in Wikipedia if we deleted or merged. Mercury's Stepson (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will be useful to many readers, and many readers will expect Wikipedia to have an article on him. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Gwern (contribs) 01:11 9 March 2014 (GMT)
Keep. His works on smart contracts are very important and we are only starting to see the first practical efforts to implement some of his ideas. --Joancharmant (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He made important contributions to cryptocurrency. Binarybits (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For work on smart contracts and micropayments. Autarch (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- given the combination of his work on cryptography and media coverage due to the association with Satoshi, he should be presumed to be notable. --Aqwis (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These claims are all very well but where are the sources? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. He is a precursor. Limit-theorem (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are keep !votes here asserting this publication is notable, but none of them to my mind demonstrate how this is the case beyond "it's just notable". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Dharti Rawalakot[edit]

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

A non notable newspaper, finds no mention in reliable sources covering the topic significantly thus failing WP:GNG. In the earlier AfD, a keep concern was that there is an article on the subject at Urdu language Wikipedia (ur:روزنامہ جنگ), but the linked article is about a different newspaper (Daily Jang) that probably was added here by mistake. SMS ^Talk 19:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 19:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 19:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is only paper in rawalakot, rawalakot is a large town, we don't get jang paper bec it is from pindi and not show up for one day late. No need to delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.169.164 (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A local paper in a large town is in of itself notable. Not really sure if being in wiki makes any difference to the editors of this paper. They don't read English. Just like mullah Omar could care less about what wiki editors have to say about Taliban. They won against two super powers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan1216 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC) Striking !votes by a blocked sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 19:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite notable newspaper from Rawalakot, should be kept. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please let me also know how you find this a notable paper? -- SMS ^Talk 23:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. It is the only news paper. So by default it is notable.

2602:304:CE9A:9A40:79CE:63F5:826B:35AB (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer Well, what we want in a notable newspaper, they have an online version where they update newsfeed regularly and they have circulation. Offcourse they are not at the level of Jang or Dawn that you would find their reference somewhere, they have only been there for less than four years and I see the article does not have anything promotional in it as well, it only says that newspaper is there and their website proves the existence. Now I wouldn't pay a monthly web hostage fee, if i don't have a business, i don't know why would somebody else do that. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sajjad, We want a notable newspaper to have received non-trivial coverage in reliable and independent sources. I say it again a subject is considered notable at Wikipedia if it is covered:

non-trivially in
multiple,
reliable,
independent and
secondary sources.

Now I don't see it satisfying a single bit of this criteria. The only source in the article only has a passing mention of this paper. And Existence ≠ Notability. The argument that It Exists just proves that it is not a Hoax, I never claimed that it is a Hoax, neither did I claim that it is promotional. Also in a deletion discussions one is supposed to give an argument by explaining how a particular subject meet or does not meet any of the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (related to deletion), not our personal opinions or what we think about the subject. Neither is this the venue to discuss alterations to these policies and guidelines. And I don't find reference to any policy in your answer. -- SMS ^Talk 14:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added some refs which have elevated the status of this article, there is no reason to delete it, notability has established. Thank you Sajjad Altaf (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, it meets everyone of the criteria, stated above. Great job

Heman 18:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan1216 (talk • contribs)

keep. It meets all the standards.

Adnan1216 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !votes by a blocked sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 19:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The reference which was added is quoting four different stories from this newspaper, it's not just a passing reference and this is alongside other major newspapers. More than enough to establish notability. I didn't want to comment on this topic anymore but i don't want this to be deleted considering the last note left on this topic which denies notability. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closing Admin: Though I don't find any value in the comments made by IP editors (as of now), but this SPI may be helpful in closing this discussion. -- SMS ^Talk 02:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note While deciding this matter, please consider the sources which were added after this discussion was started and not just the votes here. I have spent quite considerable time of my life finding those sources and i don't want that to go wasted. Such an action of not considering the sources would discourage me a lot from trying to improve Wikipedia in future. I have done this without any personal interest of mine. Thank you Sajjad Altaf (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:N. The two sources fail WP:RS, the first being primary and the second being a trivial quote from the paper. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't even try to assert notability, much less actually prove it. Use of sockpuppet accounts above doesn't suggest a good-faith attempt at an encyclopedia article either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The second source is not a trivial quote, news stories of a newspaper quoted in third party source establish notability for the newspaper. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based only on English-language sources, it fails WP:GNG. I think that there are people who who have already !voted and have a reasonable capability to search suitable non-English ones. Assuming that the "second source" referred to by Sajjad above is this one, it adds nothing to the notability claims. It is just a news digest report that aggregates what various media say - it doesn't actually discuss this newspaper in any meaningful manner. As per someone's precis of the guidelines above, we'd need multiple sources also, not just this one. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial third party coverage to support WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercator Fund[edit]

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

The article does not meet WP:ORG. It has no secondary sources and I cannot find any on Google or High Beam. — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete My gut says this should be a notable organization. But I couldn't find anything on Google that meets WP:RS to back that up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though there might be a possible redirect to the article on the sponsoring organization--or to the prize it awards, if someone writes an article on it--this is just an intermediary organization of no clear significance. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot; article speedily deleted (WP:CSD#G11) by User:Jimfbleak. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Londa Marks[edit]

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

This person does not meet the notability requirements of either WP:ARTIST or WP:AUTHOR. There are no reliable sources cited in the article and a search for them did not find any either. SmartSE (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 21 February 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 / 08:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Related AFD — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Hunt --slakr^\ talk / 08:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G-11. This is pure unadulterated SPAM created by a WP:SPA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure it quite merits a speedy (though I'm on the fence enough to have left the tag in place in case another admin disagrees), but definitely not up to WP:CREATIVE, which would be Wikipedia's relevant inclusion guideline. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rand cam engine[edit]

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

Appears to be an advertisement. Only citations are the company's website, a patent, and some sort of document or media as a citation for a related technology. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article subject fails WP:PRODUCT. Sources are trivial and or fail WP:RS A Google search yielded quite a lot of hits but no RS sources. Oddly, a lot of non RS sources seem to connect this product in some way with the Jehovah's Witness movement. I didn't delve though once the source was ruled out for our purposes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage in independent, reliable sources is lacking. TheBlueCanoe 03:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) buff bills 7701 π! 00:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Penis insurance[edit]

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

Not a notable topic in it's own right, insurance is insurance regardless of which anatomical feature it is applied to. Thus I doubt this warrants its own article. Dolescum (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Body part insurance ~~Health insurance~~. Upon a source review, the topic passes Wikipedia's notability standards. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sources are notable, that's not my argument. I can also dig out numerous examples of famous people insuring other parts of their anatomy (Holly Madison and her breasts for instance). Do we need an article for each piece of anatomy? Dolescum (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified my !vote above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per Northamerica1000; sources check. -- Brianhe (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It does seem to meet GNG, which is not cause for a loud cheer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Body part insurance isn't the same as health insurance, since the former is to protect you against loss of earnings not pay for medical bills (it's more like critical illness insurance plans or income protection insurance), so a merge would be wrong. There are certainly sources for body part insurance and a general article on the topic might be justified.[8][9][10] I would prefer a general article to one per body part, but for now I can't dispute this article's right to exist. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep like the rest of the wacky stuff insured by Lloyd's of London (who also insured Jimmy Durante's nose), this is really more a silly publicity stunt than an actual type of insurance. But Wikipedia documents silly things, as it should, and the sources are certainly there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability requirements. Would prefer name change and re-focus to something like "body part insurance." Orser67 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/rewrite as Body part insurance, as per above. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula, Orser67, etc. Body part insurance isn't the same thing as health insurance, has an interesting history, and it's worthy of an article. For the moment, not too surprisingly given Wikipedia demographics, we're stuck with this sufficiently-sourced penis piece as synecdoche for the whole body. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted under G11/A11 by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) ₆an⁶sh₆ 08:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World War A[edit]

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

Personal essay on a non-notable neologism and the very POV concept that it denotes. A google search found no one but the creator usign this term in this way. Delete unless reliable independent sources can be provided showing the term is in wide enough use to be notable and pass the WP:GNG. DES ^(talk) 01:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has been tagged for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, and on top of that, I consider it to be an attack page as well, with the target of the attack apparently being human society in general (which is a new one). It also seems to be part of a promotional campaign, which means you could probably throw in advertising as well. Jinkinson talk to me 02:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined speedy deletion because this isn't a hoax (it isn't intended to deceive.) I also don't believe G10 covers this, technically speaking -- intellectual theories concerning humanity's capacity for evil aren't the sort of "attacks" that criterion is meant to cover. Having said that, this is an unattested neologism that clearly needs to go, even if it escapes just barely speedy deletion. Xoloz (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is pretty much one guy trying to promote a neologism he made up. Now don't get me wrong: the general idea he's trying to peddle isn't new. People have been arguing that humanity has been mistreating and exploiting animals for as long as we can remember. However this article is more about the neologism and an attempt to promote the author's viewpoint. It isn't commonly used and the article is a pretty obvious platform for the author, who I'll note is also likely the editor who created the article. (This link is about a book by Herbert M. Garvin and the editor who created this is named Garvin641. Not trying to dox, just saying that it's extremely likely that this was a promotion attempt.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As such, I've tagged it as speedy deletion for something someone made up one day (for the neologism) and as an obviously promotional article. It's trying to promote both the term, the book, and the viewpoint. I honestly can't emphasize enough that this term is non-notable and not in use by anyone other than the author. I can't find it in use anywhere in this context to where I'd say that it would merit an entry or even a redirect anywhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a copy of the article in his userspace, so I've tagged that for speedy deletion as a way of hopefully preventing its recreation in the mainspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone moved it there with the hopes of the person cleaning it, but I'll again state that this is a very, very non-notable and very promotional article. There is pretty much only a 1% chance that this will ever become notable enough for an entry. I also have to say that given the very promotional standpoint of the article, this is one of those instances where I'd prefer that a COI editor not edit about their own work or keep a copy in their userspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per G-11. This is so over the top, no further commentary should be required. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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