Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 May	18 May >

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hemu Aggarwal[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced biography of a non-notable author. Fails WP:AUTHOR - Mr X 11:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the reasoning. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable spiritual counselor. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not properly asserted. She has written one book that is purported to be a best-seller, but I can find no evidence to support that claim. Jsharpminor (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of significant coverage. Article can be recreated later with reliable sources – if they exist. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequately sourced. RomanSpa (talk) 05:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have been unable to find notable coverage as above appears to fail WP:NOTE due to this Amortias (T)(C) 14:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Schedule. I didn't find a strong argument for deleting under the redirect, we generally reserve that for deeply problematic content j⚛e decker ^talk 16:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule (resource)[edit]

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

I would suggest to merge but the page doesn't contain any info that's not already under a multitude of pages including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schedule_(workplace), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schedule, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roster. Its only reference is the homepage of a random software company. U2fanboi (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is yet another page with much the same info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schedule_(project_management)U2fanboi (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 23:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Schedule per nom. This article appears to cover the same subject but its poorly written, unsourced, and a target for adspam. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then Redirect to Schedule. Unreferenced article with no unique content. Contravenes Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar ♔ 17:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HYT (watchmaker)[edit]

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

no notablity and promotional Puccetto (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two-page New York Times article cited. That's substantial coverage. And it's not the only source, for example. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete unless a major rewrite can be performed. "The engineers at HYT have felt entirely free to shatter limitations!" hardly sounds encyclopedic. Jsharpminor (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Candleabracadabra --ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 16:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Candleabracadabra - NY Times coverage & other coverage. Jersey92 (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was return to draft space. There is an assertion of notability, but the promotional tones need to be dealt with before it can be in the mainspace. Since there is a consensus here to return it to the draft space, I've moved it back there. I would recommend against it being re-added to the mainspace until an experienced editor has checked it over and ensured that it is no longer promotional and is properly sourced for notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve ODell[edit]

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

Biography of a producer. Reads like a cross between a press release and resume. References consist of YouTube and citations to the subject's own website. Google doesn't return many relevant hits, and I don't think this producer passes WP:FILMMAKER. Even if he does, the article needs to be rewritten from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By any standards Steve ODell has complished much more than ordinary men. His life represents a resounding independence and his entrepreneurial spirit sets him a part. - Roseanna Viafranco 08:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseanna Viafranco (talk • contribs)
- Well, that's nice for him, but we need significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK article is revised. What's next? - Roseanna Viafranco 09:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseanna Viafranco (talk • contribs)
- Well, I'd suggest you remove the puffery and gratuitous boldface, add more reliable sources, and read our guideline on conflicts of interest. Other people will – hopefully – comment on the discussion, and they will help to find a consensus. Deletion discussions usually last a week, but they can be extended. The more reliable sources that you can find, the greater the chance that the article will be kept. Sometimes people will vote to delete overly promotional articles despite the existence of reliable sources. I'd also read WP:FILMMAKER and make an argument based on that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Check and re-inform me about any other errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseanna Viafranco (talk • contribs) 11:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notability is yet to be supported as the TV series mentioned in the lead would be a red link. Also, there is still a lot of bold usage that shouldn't even be italicized, as well as lack of separation between career and personal life that results in double-mention of some items. I don't want to discourage a new user, but the page at Steve ODell (disambiguation) may also need to be deleted, especially if this page is deleted, since there are only two entries. This article is still not encyclopedic in tone; it still reads more like a self-serving ad. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 11:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've striped it done a lot. Take a look. - Roseanna Viafranco 12:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseanna Viafranco (talk • contribs)

So far, so good – some very good changes, there. I still think it needs to be moved back to Draft namespace, so it can be tweaked some more and then reviewed by experienced Afc reviewers. They are the ones that can help you the most. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 12:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move. This draft article was moved in error from Draft:Steve O'Dell. I suggest it be returned to Draft namespace as it is not yet ready for publication in mainspace. This will require the help of an administrator. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 12:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I left some observations on moving this page at Talk:Steve ODell#Spelling. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- when "Steve ODells Greatest Places on Earth TV series" is searched in Google, the first page lists at least 2 websites not created by Steve Odell. One is travel.com & the second is Honduras.com. Doesn't that validate its existence?- Roseanna Viafranco 12:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseanna Viafranco (talk • contribs)

Those websites are tourist sites and not always well-received as reliable sources due to their ads and sometimes questionable practices in regard to how and who they promote. What do Steve's peers have to say about him? I read that he was mentioned in at least one periodical. That might be a good source. Then, how and where is the TV series aired? Is it syndicated to other nations including the US, UK, Brazil, and so forth. How well-known and widely-accepted is Steve O'Dell and his TV series? That is the question you need to answer to pass notability muster. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 13:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If he's working mostly in central America, it may be difficult to find evidence of his notability. I'm not sure how well Google (or other search engines) index sources from there. I've created a few articles on South American films, but it wasn't easy to locate sources even for films that Variety called major financial successes. Draft would be helpful, because it would allow the article to grow and find sources without fear of deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ma'am I don't mean to challenge you. I respect all that you are doing to guide the users, but: your statement that, "tourism websites are not always reliable sources" is beyond judgmental! Our validating website Honduras.com is the flagship website representing all tourism in Honduras. Honduras is a nation to be respected, with high profile destinations like Roatan, which is a much desired vacation destination as well as a permanent stop for Carnival Cruise Lines & Royal Caribbean. Point taken? Of all the film producers in the entire world, Honduras chose Steve ODells Greatest Places on Earth Discover Honduras tv episode to represent their nations tourism product! Please consider these and other factors when pronouncing judgment on this article. By proportion alone, the US is just a speck on the globe while Mr ODells 18 countries to date represent vast populations & riches untold. Please do not view his accomplishments through the wrong end of a Coke bottle. I mean this with the same respect that we give to all of the nations that we defend through video reeducation. - Roseanna Viafranco 15:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseanna Viafranco (talk • contribs)

There certainly was no disrespect meant for any one particular website. My statement about tourism sites, however "beyond judgmental" it may seem, was born of previous experience with tourism websites in general. Please forgive me if I sounded too rash and hasty. I would not want to bend your focus away from the task of building an encyclopedic, undeletable article. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at least admitting the relevance of the entire tourism product of Honduras. After working over 100 hours, doing as you have instructed, and stripping my article to bare bones, I see now that the whole process was a song and dance, ending with a discriminating judgment call by my advising editor. I guess that a life spent promoting a world outside of your borders is not worthy of validation. I choose to leave my article where it is and let the final judgment be by the powers that be. If it is deleted it is no surprise considering that it is similar opinions that have originally coined the phrase, "third world." Roseanna Viafranco 18:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseanna Viafranco (talk • contribs)

This is why we advise editors not to directly edit articles with which they have a conflict of interest. It's difficult to look at this objectively when you're so close to the topic. Accomplishments do not really matter to Wikipedia; instead, we require significant coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately, this means that many accomplished and admirable people do not satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. It is not a slight against them; it means that a) we currently do not have enough sources for an article yet or b) our inclusion criteria may need to be amended. You may be interested in WikiProject Countering Systemic Bias. They may be able to help you work within Wikipedia's confusing and bureaucratic rules to include topics that are subject to bias from Wikipedia editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft: space and mark as a formal AFC submission. Once in Draft: space, it can be worked on without fear of a further AFD; but bear in mind that it cannot be left there indefinitely. If it is left untouched for six months and not brought up to a quality which justifies its being moved to mainspace, it then becomes eligible for WP:CSD#G13. It should also be worked on by somebody who is unrelated to, and not acting for, the subject of the page. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have chosen to . Trying to neutralize the article. I have legitimate documents to prove these events,see them on subjects website. It was good then and is good now. Can you make suggestions? Or is this a lost cause? Pona (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Donnell (politician)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician whose only claims of notability are (a) the deputy leadership of a political party, and (b) his non-winning candidacies in provincial elections — neither of which is a claim of notability that satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. In addition, the article's sole source is his profile on the webpage of his political party, which is a primary source that does not provide valid evidence of notability by itself. And furthermore, the edit history contains numerous edits by usernames "Kevino" and "Kevinodotnet", strongly suggesting WP:COI. As always, I'm willing to withdraw this if it can be upgraded to a substantive claim of notability referenced to reliable sources, but a person isn't automatically entitled to keep an article on here if this is all they've got for notability and sourcing. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat (no relation). While we have often (but not always) kept the articles of leaders of minor parties - especially those who are perennial candidates - we have almost always deleted all the other shadow cabinet members; see WP:POLOUTCOMES. I don't see how this is an exception to longstanding consensus. If somebody can find and add reliable sources that signifcantly covers this living person, then I'd change my mind about general notability. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per longstanding consensus for unelected local politicians. Deputy leadership of the provincial Green Party gets close to meeting my own personal threshold for inclusion, but I have minority views on such matters. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly might accept that as a sufficient claim of notability if the article actually cited reliable source coverage, and wasn't sourced exclusively to his profile on the party's own website (a primary source that cannot demonstrate notability.) Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amuze (website)[edit]

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

No claim to notability for this shopping website. Of the sources, one is the site's Alexa rank, one is a "sponsored" blog post, one is a brief mention in what may or may not be a reliable secondary source, and the fourth is the website itself. The article was PRODded and the tag was removed with an assurance that sources would be forthcoming, but none has been added. bonadea contributions talk 18:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No indication or evidence of notability, either per GNG or Wikipedia:Notability (web). No independent, reliable sources. Since the article IMO makes no actual claim to significance, I would tentatively suggest an A7 speedy delete but now this discussion has started I won't do it myself. BethNaught (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no claims of significance, no usable independent sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 16:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:WEBSITE. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any independent reliable sources with any coverage, and see no other basis to establish notability. I skimmed the first hundred results of a google search for "amuze", which is not exhaustive; please link any sources I may have overlooked. Agyle (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While rationales varied, the strongest arguments seemed to surround WP:CREATIVE point 3. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cathryn Mataga[edit]

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

Non-notable video game programmer. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Weak Delete~~ Keep - Regrettably. I have found undeniable existence of this person but no significant coverage; one of her only mentions in a reliable source is a mere mention in a Gamasutra article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Weak Delete since some sources were found but it's still rather flimsy. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep since I believe the current referencing demonstrates appropriately that the subject meets WP:CREATIVE. Good rescue, guys! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Likewise cannot find any coverage. Sam Walton (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sticking with delete despite the sources added. There is no significant coverage of the subject, sources are largely passing mentions or primarily about other topics. Sam Walton (talk) 12:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~if more sources can be found~~, otherwise please move to Draft:Cathryn Mataga so we can work on it per Wikipedia:Drafts#Incubation. BOZ (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How would drafting help it if there are no sources? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would give us time to find more. And there are not no sources (as is clear from a cursory glance at the references section), there just haven't been many yet. BOZ (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to reiterate my Keep response, so that it doesn't seem like I have no rationale; at first I worried that no more sources would be found within a week. But, seeing how much we have developed from this point, I feel that we now have enough WP:RSes meet the WP:GNG at minimum, and actually a bit better than that. The "biography" section has more than quadrupled in size and now has seven separate citations whereas before it had none. BOZ (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neverwinter Nights (MMORPG) or delete. I don't have a problem with moving this article to draft space, but like TT says, it's probably not going to accomplish much. Although she seems a bit obscure, she was apparently instrumental in the creation of the original NWN, which does make her a possible search term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources can be found for William Mataga. I have added one from a 1985 print magazine, which is a fairly extensive interview with Mataga and a couple other people. I will add more details from it in the next couple days. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One source links to William Mataga, is that the same person? [1] Anyway, their work is mentioned throughout a magazine article, I finding an archive online and adding that to the references [2], and mention of this person elsewhere show they are a notable coder, getting mentioned in interviews for their roles in various things that led to notable works being created. Dream Focus 05:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both the mention in GDM and at Halcyon Days are coincidental and certainly not significant coverage that helps establishing notability. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about 2, but they certainly meet number 3 of WP:CREATIVE. Those articles mention people in charge of those games giving them credit for having a significant role in co-creating these significant or well-known works, which do get coverage in multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Dream Focus 16:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Compute! Gazette source is pretty significant coverage as well. Multiple quotes from Mataga discussing video game design. Here's a link to the magazine. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Compute! Gazette says William Mataga, not Cathryn Mataga. I agree, they pass the GNG also with this coverage, if it was the same person. I just checked the previous version of the article, where it clarifies things by saying the person did undergo a sex change operation and change their name. "Mataga has worked on Neverwinter Nights. She was born William Mataga and at some point underwent sex reassignment surgery." Can we find a reference for that to put in the article? Dream Focus 20:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus:: I found and added a source saying they're the same person. So sources for either can contribute to notability. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, and thanks for all your diligence and hard work! BOZ (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fleeting mentions in reliable sources referring to the subject, does not qualify as significant coverage to be quoted a few times. WP:GNG is not met; career is otherwise unremarkable. wirenote (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed with the above. The majority of the sources, regardless of how reliable they are, are such fleeting mentions of the individual that they most certainly do not come close to being signifigant coverage. There is really nothing left that fulfills the requirements of meeting notability. 99.151.24.53 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)— 99.151.24.53 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per WP:CREATIVE. A person in the creative profession doesn't need in-depth sources about themselves (though it would be nice, it tends to be a high bar and is arbitrary) - rather, they need in-depth sources about the works they created - that is what makes them notable, their works. That is why Book Authors, for example, are notable when they have book reviews. The same here, this individual is notable for the attention paid to their works, games, of which they are a co-creator. -- GreenC 17:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- a book is written by one person and a review of the book helps establish the notability of the person that created that work. a video game is the work of hundreds and sometimes thousands of individuals and so a review of the work does not automatically make every one of them notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you're talking about modern big budget AAA games, that's true to some extent. But Mataga singlehandedly wrote quite of few of those games, and was the lead programmer on others. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of the sources you want to find are not going to be online and you'll only find passing references since the key work outside Neverwinter Nights (which was a huge credit and should meet the bar alone) is the Interactive Fiction work which is only going to be found in some period works that are stashed about. Though I think the Dragon's Lair work is also pretty fair - some projects less important and less impactful than others, but WP:NRVE. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another source, which is mirrored in a lot of my texts for this "Better than Zork" engine which was key for Synapse and the Mindwheel release is credited and based upon Mataga's work.Link. Many of the games produced and credited to Mataga are extremely obscure now, but Mindwheel and Neverwinter Nights are two credits alone which meet notability because they are entirely different projects with big impact - and it was for Robert Pinsky's work - the United States official poet from 1997 to 2000. Mataga's work allowed Pinsky's work to be functional and the work made a big impact in 1985 in the IF world. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems sufficiently notable and well sourced. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armin Hodžić[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was declined on the grounds that he has now played in the Bosnian top flight. Given that this league is not fully pro playing in it does not confer notability per WP:NSPORT and he has not received sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Not played a full international game, not won any individual awards of note nor played in any notable leagues, certainly won't have played in any UEFA competitions so not notable Seasider91 (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable footballer. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSOCCER. RomanSpa (talk) 05:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly notable. Are we somehow saying that top flight football in Bosnia Herzegovina is somehow less worthy than top flight football in Ireland, Latvia or other countries of a similar size? Why did the nominator not just explain his/her reasons for wanting to delete the article instead of linking to lots of policies. Stop just quoting policies and use your brain instead!--ЗAНИA ^talk ^{WB talk}] 16:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Top flight players in Ireland and Latvia AREN'T notable. While this may well be an example of WP:BIAS, I'm afraid that's systemic around here. You either need to provide evidence that the league is fully professional, or significant media coverage of this particular player. Nfitz (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You say "Stop just quoting policies and use your brain instead". Actually, the reason we use policies is because they are the result of many people's brains being used in careful thought: "policy" here means "stuff that a lot of smart people have thought about carefully". I agree that in this case the policy seems odd, but the best way to deal with this would be to seek to change the policy. RomanSpa (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A policy that some of us very much don't support, and would happily change - at least for countries like Ireland, Latvia, and Bosnia ... I'm not quite sold on the top league in the Pitcairn Islands ... Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Giant Snowman 12:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not played in a fuly professional league. RRD13 (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTBALL. Number 5 7 21:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Breeders and Owners of Paso Horses in La Libertad[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, created by a now banned editor. Unusual not to see a Spanish article of this. I did a search under the Spanish name "La Asociación de Criadores y Propietarios de Caballos Peruanos de Paso" and only found very local coverage confirming it held events. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neutral: Perspective from someone active in WikiProject Equine is that a search for third-party coverage should include equine publications for the nation or publications for the horse breed (presumably Paso Fino or Peruvian Paso). Many major horse activities will still only be covered in specialized niche publications. BUT If a blank there, then likely of only local interest. Aside from GNG, my own view is that the status of the editor is irrelevant, the article topic is either notable on its own merits or not. At present, I'm leaning delete, but I could be convinced otherwise if people find solid third party sources. Mostly posting just to comment on places to look. (And I personally don't care enough about this particular article to go check it out myself, so this is all a FWIW). Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - taking into account Montanabw's comments and my own search, I don't believe this meets the requirements outlined at WP:ORGDEPTH. Stalwart111 06:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Foreign relations of Taiwan. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Kingdom of Swaziland[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable, this article merely confirms it exists. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the source relates to the relationship between the countries (which might be notable) not the building or institution in question (which would need to be independently notable per WP:ORGDEPTH or another criteria. A notable relationship does not confer notability on all of the buildings involved in maintaining that relationship. Stalwart111 06:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Foreign relations of Taiwan as new section "Swaziland". Insufficient reliable sources to make it notable enough for a standalone article. Fails WP:ORG Philg88 ^♦talk 06:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a merge of course; good suggestion. Stalwart111 06:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Foreign relations of Taiwan per Philg88 suggestion.--Staberinde (talk) 15:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farai - CCIE 42487[edit]

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

selfpromo, no indication of notability. The Banner talk 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. I see no claim of significance in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to establish notability and pretty obvious selfpromotion.--Staberinde (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:AUTOBIO WP:NOTE looks like it should go Amortias (T)(C) 14:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the creator of the article has requested deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Peracha[edit]

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

Sarah Peracha has not received significant coverage in secondary sources, so is not notable. EdwardH (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She received significant appreciation in selection of Dublin Web Summit But I might failed in research about her but I did best to cover her as since I interview her for my blog. I came to know that she has spark to courage all women back in Pakistan whom have no permission to go out from home because her company "Appease Apex" is giving opportunity to all women in Pakistan to work from her sofa at home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlottefarhan (talk • contribs) 12:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. EdwardH (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete. Creator's wish. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Bama[edit]

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

Alleged to be non notable, major contributor begs to differ. Evidence on talk page suggests he may be just notable enough to stay here, but I digress. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:MUSICBIO, lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 19:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough evidence for several claims in article, e.g. alleged "Nick Saban and Jesus" controversy is not mentioned in cited source. Sonny Bama may have been recording engineer for a "super group," but cited source does not say so. A few positive mentions in Alabama media are not yet enough to justify a Wikipedia bio. Maybe in a few years. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 15:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamia Primary School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school; ages 4-11. We don't generally have stand-alone articles for such schools, unless they are especially notable, which does not appear to be the case here. Epeefleche (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Cat Stevens. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queen's Park, London#Education where I have merged the key content. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's Park, London#Education. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has been heavily improved since nomination. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand ~~Oppose at present~~ This is a stub and should have been so noted. I disagree about its notability - it is said to be the best-known Muslim school in Britain, likely because it was founded by Cat Stevens. It is the first publicly funded Muslim school in Britain which adds to its notability. I have expanded the stub some, and believe it should not be deleted or merged at this time - the Cat Stevens article is already long and can't easily accommodate an influx of material. Tvoz/talk 05:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While most primary schools are not notable, this one is - not just as the first publicly funded Muslim school in Britain, but more for the repeated attempts over a fifteen year period before it finally obtained public funding. From memory, it got repeated national press coverage throughout that period (of which Tvoz has added one piece as a source in the article) - though searching for pre-internet news coverage online can be rather hit-and-miss. And the lengthy campaign still occasionally gets referred to in reliable sources (such as here). PWilkinson (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following substantial expansion, the article now meets WP:ORG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, nomination was in good faith and has had a good effect, article is now well sourced and demonstrates notability. Suggest speedy keep per WP:SNOW. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the first state-funded Muslim school in the UK, with the celebrity founder tie-in, this subject seems to meet the "exceptionally newsworthy" standard for inclusion of elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roberta McCain[edit]

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

Nominating this for AfD since CSD A7 was declined. She fails WP:ANYBIO, little to no assertion of significance beyond McCain relations. Also nominating because of WP:NOTNEWS, which indicates even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Since she doesn't seem to be involved in much beyond her son's presidential campaign, seems like a case of WP:BIO1E. Many reports on her are from those closely affiliated with her (i.e. her son's own writings), therefore not giving much independent coverage. Since most coverage on her pertains to her son John McCain, this article should be either redirected to that or deleted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that a CSD A7 was completely off base for this subject, I doubt the reasoning for this nomination. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One article about her husband and a news item about a head injury does not show any notability. Could be notable if husband or son was king or sultan, due to royal titles, or if she painted or did something else other than being a wife and mother (which are very important occupations in life but not enough for entering WP). --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So the nominator is fine with the notability of John Kerry's mother, but this one is a speedy delete? You must be at least convinced enough to upload a fair use photo of her. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions as it does not solely determine a subject's notability. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to see where you draw the line, I don't see much difference between the two women's notability. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:WAX is not the point of AfD's. Roberta lacks notability due to WP:NOTNEWS and since most of her coverage is from primary sources (i.e. self-written pieces, interviews, etc.) and pieces written by those closely affiliated with her (namely her son). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sorry, I'm not convinced, especially considering the apparent double standard regarding John Kerry's mother by the nominator. WP:BIO leads that the subject must be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Just a few points to that end: Jay Leno thought Roberta McCain was interesting and notable enough to spend nearly 8 minutes with her on his show even after her son's presidential campaign was over. Her comments on the appearance were enough to generate minor political news and were important enough for various media groups to comment on. A number of major newspapers in the US thought she was interesting or unusual enough to note her 100th birthday and 102nd birthday. Her wedding was interesting or unusual enough to be noted in newspapers in 1933. The New York Times thought she was interesting and unique enough to tell of her extensive travels with her twin sister and other family. When she passes, I have no doubt that she will be interesting and unique enough for major US Media organizations to publish her obituary and note her death. I think she's notable enough that an average person would expect to find an article on wikipedia about her and John McCain's article is large enough as it is without adding to it with her material. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you there is no "double standard". Remember that WP:WAX ("What about X") is still an argument to avoid for deletion discussions. So are WP:ATTP (Arguments to the person), WP:INTEREST, and WP:INTHENEWS. Note that interviews are not third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given by Dual Freq (and not finding the nom v convincing). Eustachiusz (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing if you don't find my rationale convincing, but as I told Dual Freq, WP:WAX, WP:ATTP, WP:INTEREST, and WP:INTHENEWS are arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. One thing I hadn't mentioned before is how the raw number of sources mentioning a subject is not by itself an indicator of notability per WP:MASK and WP:HITS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mother of John McCain, oldest active US politician, informative text and so on. Why despiting this hard work? Should be kept for our offspring --109.41.80.68 (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "despiting", and WP:EFFORT is an argument to avoid. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She played an active role during the political life of her husband ann her son. It is covered with reliable sources as Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and CNN. It is linked to by 72 other aticles. It was already uncontested for almost seven years. It got 129 users who edited it. Keeping it is the only possible outcome. Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is disputing that reliable sources talk about her. The problem being overlooked is how she fails WP:BIO for little to no assertion of independent notability. We don't even know what occupations she has held. The amount of users who have edited a page or how many others link to it or how long it has lasted do not solely affect a subject's notability. Most reliable sources that address her are mainly about son/husband, anyway. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator as a speedy keep. (Will propose article merger.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Wanted Nazi War Criminals according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center[edit]

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

This is a tough one. Basically the article falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY (#6). We have notable names and "non-notable" redlinked names; and we have dead Nazis, still missing Nazis, tried Nazis (Képíró, found not guilty), and innocent Nazis (Demjanjuk). Basically it is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of these people. Appropriate links for the currently missing/perviously provided lists of people should go in the Simon Wiesenthal Center. But supposing this article remains – what should we do when all of them die? Convert the list into a conglomeration of everyone who was once listed? – S. Rich (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by OP. A solution (for those who like the article) is to set up categories for the people listed. Subcategories can handle the still missing, convicted, tried but found innocent, deceased, etc. Of course the category would only contain the names for people who have WP articles. – S. Rich (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're not asking the right questions. This is about a real list that exists in the world, and yet you have said nothing about the notability of the list or its significance to the topic of the Simon Wiesenthal Center (to which this list could be merged). I don't see how NOTDIR#6 is relevant to an article about a real list (and the only classification here is "most wanted Nazi War Criminal", not any cross-categorization like "Nazi War Criminals who went to culinary school"), when that section is about trivial or unconnected (t. Nor does the inclusion of non-notable names have any relevance, as if this list is an appropriate article topic there may be informational value in making it complete (again, this is about a real list, not merely a navigational list of WP articles). As for your categorization suggestion, please read WP:OCAT and WP:BLPCAT. If we are to maintain this information here in such detail, we would do it through a list that can be annotated and directly sourced (and if this were "unencyclopedic" as a list, then it also would be as a category; our presentation format cannot change that). postdlf (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that these are real life lists (current and past reports). Part of my problem is that the Annual Status Report is actually RS to document who the bad guys are and what has happened to them since 2001/2005. But if this is an article about the list, then all of the names from past lists should be in the article. But then I think WP:NPS applies. It's like an article titled List of famous Hollywood people according to the Academy of Motion Arts & Sciences. What are your thoughts on merging it to List of Axis personnel indicted for war crimes? – S. Rich (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the Simon Wiesenthal Center list is factually accurate is a separate and perhaps irrelevant question, if its contents are nevertheless widely reported or notable as a topic. Something like United States State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations is conceptually relevant, in that whether something "is" a terrorist organization is highly politicized and controversial (as is the very label of "terrorist"), but it's obviously verifiable that the State Department has issued that list, the list is notable in that its contents are widely reported and discussed, and details of the list are noteworthy because inclusion of a particular group is of great significance and consequence. So we report here on what the State Dept. list contains regardless of whether they "got it right."

Similarly, it is verifiable that the Simon Wiesenthal Center has identified someone on their list, and in this context it is only their identification we are reporting. Regarding other claims like "last known location", attribution is likewise key (is it the Center itself that is asserting they were last seen in Germany or wherever), and maybe the Center's Report is itself considered a reliable source in the field (i.e., their investigative skills are respected), but such fine-toothed questions about what particular facts go in this article is not for this AFD to decide, but rather a matter for ordinary editing and discussion. I don't know to what degree the Center's list is notable such that it makes sense to give details of the list's contents whether as a stand-alone list or merged somewhere, so let's see what other contributors who have better subject matter familiarity have to say. Though I'm thinking at this point if you're considering the information should go somewhere you don't really have a deletion argument left. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the link to the State list. Indeed, it is similar to the "List of Proscribed Terrorist Groups: Home Office of the British government". And it illustrates a point. The State list article is not titled List of foreign terrorist organizations according to the United States Department of State. In both cases (actual and redlinked) the "List of ... according to..." title language does not lend to recognizable naming. Still you are quite right about ATD (you read my mind better than I do). I'll give this AfD a day or two for more input – depending on what we see, I'll probably propose a merger to the List of Axis personnel article and withdraw this AfD. – S. Rich (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Simon Wiesenthal Center. This is a one-fact article, really. The Center publishes the List. That's it. The names of people on the list do belong on WP, but because they are (or were) notable wanted Holocaust criminals not because they are/were on the list. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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