Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 May	21 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Punctuality Index[edit]

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

This is some kind of original research and is not quite clear what the article is about. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot understand the subject of this article. Looks like an essay to meCTAГЛИT (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Importance The subject is emerging and very important. Like UNDP created Human Development Index and World Economic Forum developed Global Competitiveness Index and World Bank is publishing Doing Business Index every year, Global Punctuality Index intends to developed measuring punctuality of different countries and rank them in ascending order on scale of 100, the most punctual country. As the subject is new, the concept is floated by Dr. Sapovadia after initial research, seek feedback from other economists and social scientists to make unique contribution to save trillions of man hour lost due to lack of punctuality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapovadia (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:OR. Article attributes idea to Dr. Vrajlal Sapovadia, and article was created by user Sapovadia. Strong likelihood that this article was created to promote original ideas: Wikipedia is not for publishing or promoting your scheme to make the world a happy place. No evidence of third parties discussing the index in reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Girlfriend from Hell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF and WP:NPOV. Passes gng though. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Finding in-depth reviews for 25-year-old "B" movies is a bit of a challenge. There's a pretty good writeup here though, and another here. I would have expected more for a movie that's supposedly attracted a cult following. Ivanvector (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are two reviews on RT and one from AllMovie, plus an article on the musical. I did remove the cult movie remark since there's really nothing to truly back that up anywhere, but there is enough here for a weak keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Joe Bob Briggs did a review. Not sure if that's enough for notability. Allmovie is really not worth much in terms of notability; they're a comprehensive guide. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JBB is definitely usable as a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the world is a slightly better place when you know that Joe Bob Briggs is still in Texas and reviewing drive-in movies. Maybe I could finally shake off this malaise if I knew that there were more planned sequels to The Toxic Avenger. And, no, a big budget, PG-13 remake doesn't count – that's an entirely different kind of abomination to film. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason I read that bit in Sam Elliot's voice ala Big Lebowski final voice-over. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good God, you're right! I can hear it now, too. If I'm subconsciously channeling cult films, maybe it's time for an intervention. I should have known that obsessively writing about cult films on Wikipedia would have this effect eventually. One the positive side, I found a few more sources: a snippet view that seems to insinuate that the film was reviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle, an interview with the star on a random blog (not very useful for notability but an interesting read), and some production details from the Los Angeles Times. All in all, not a good haul, but if someone else confirms my suspicion that the book is quoting the SF Chronicle, I guess that's enough for me to vote to keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nobody has commented, but I guess there are enough sources to keep it. There are indications that it received significant coverage in reliable sources, even if we can't quite locate them today. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, poorly received film, but the amount of coverage is good. — Cirt (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (WP:SK?) per the nominator offering in his own comment that the topic passes WP:GNG. THAT gives us a pass of WP:NF. I do not see how a film article speaking about a film's production and reception somehow violates WP:NPOV... and even were it to do so, THAT would be a matter for regular editing, and not deletion of a topic meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So WP:GNG supersedes WP:NF? --Mr. Guye (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: Yes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NF is a list of additional guidelines for films; WP:GNG is always adequate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Guye: Yes. Please refer to film notabilty's "General principles". No aspersion intended, but the other attributes are considered only when the GNG is failed, and when it is met, addressing concerns becomes a matter of regular editing. And there is no shame in a considered withdrawal. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded searches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

to include Non-English releases:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Queer theory. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queer literary interpretation[edit]

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

Original research. Article is advocating personal opinions, and reads like an essay. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queer theory as Sadads suggests below. ~~Delete per WP:NOTESSAY.~~ This looks like someone's homework. I feel it's highly likely this is actually an academic field of study with a broad spectrum of works, but then I'm expecting that there would be a very obvious merge target on the encyclopedia already, ~~and I haven't found any. Maybe redirect to Homosexuality~~. Ivanvector (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest redirect. Valid topic, not just opinion, but should be covered at Queer theory, which is what the field is called usually. Sadads (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! That's the merge target I was looking for. I agree, and have updated my comment. Ivanvector (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either a merge' or redirect is fine. The topic is covered in Queer theory, but can always be improved. See WP:CHEAP, and pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queer Theory which is the proper term for the theorization and analysis of cultural objects through the lens of queer studies.--Theredproject (talk) 15:41, 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 merge. (non-admin closure) Clear consensus to merge, so I don't see any reason to drag on the discussion. JDDJS (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Ramsey (Wikipedian)[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT JDDJS (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Arxiloxos (see below). Delete per WP:BLP1E. Now, I'm not saying that Ramsey's contribution to Wikipedia was not significant. He wrote a bot that nearly doubled the size of the encyclopedia, many years ago. It's a step forward that's important to us as Wikipedians, but so what? It's just really not notable at all outside of our community here. You can look up a few books about Wikipedia that mention him but they don't come close to significant coverage. Our systemic bias as editors naturally leads us to consider things that are important to us (as individuals or as a community) as being important to everyone, but if there aren't sources to reflect our view then it's just not there. This is one of those cases. Ivanvector (talk) 23:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I meant to add: the few sources I found which were books about Wikipedia used Ramsey as an example to show how average people (i.e. Ramsey) could make significant contributions to the project. This does more to suggest that he's not notable per our standards. Ivanvector (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. I sometimes see a systematic bias at work against detailed coverage of Wikipedia topics, perhaps derived from a community ethos that discourages "navel-gazing". Anyway, at a minimum, this content should be merged and redirected to History of Wikipedia (where Ramsey's bot is already mentioned, but without the sources), not deleted. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems fair. Changed my !vote. Ivanvector (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Sure, sounds fine. We could just copy and paste the reference right now, you know. But I'll play along. I'd have just copied the reference manually and then nominated the article for bio for deletion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 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 01:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shermer's last law[edit]

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

There are zero secondary sources in the article to establish notability. There is only one citation in the article, and it is one of Michael Shermre's columns, which is a primary source Nightscream (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Nightscream (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Michael Shermer. Mentioned in:

~~SCEPTIC magazine (article)~~

~~The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience (book)~~

~~ABC Science (editorial)~~

~~50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists (book)~~

~~Grave New World: Security Challenges in the 21st Century (book)~~

~~Plus, of course, numerous blogs[1][2][3], popular books by Sherman himself[4][5] and the original Scientific American column[6][7][8]. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Changed !vote per SPACKlick's analysis below. This does not change the fact that, Nightscream's arguments notwithstanding, Wikipedia:Notability (the standard for inclusion in an article) says that reliable third-party sources are needed, not reliable secondary sources. or that WP:GNG (the standard for having a standalone article) says that significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is needed, nor does it change the fact that "secondary" and "third-party" are unrelated concepts. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This does not change the fact that, Nightscream's arguments notwithstanding, Wikipedia:Notability (the standard for inclusion in an article) says that reliable third-party sources are needed, not reliable secondary sources." Wrong. As I pointed out below in my 12:21, 21 May 2014, the General Notability Guideline flat-out states: "'Sources' should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." Unless you've decided not to read other people's messages, or have forgotten what you've read, this statement of yours is a knowing and deliberate lie on your part.

"...nor does it change the fact that "secondary" and "third-party" are unrelated concepts." You seem to be operating under the delusion that if someone falsifies your statements, that you can just ignore the falsification and keep repeating the falsehood in order to make it "true". As I pointed out below, the assertion for this claim is derived solely from a couple of essays you cited. Not policies, and not guidelines.

Stop splitting hairs, Guy. You were proven wrong in this discussion, and now be a man, and stop embarrassing yourself by trying to salvage some vestige of righteousness in order to avoid having to admit that fact. Nightscream (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility, anger and aggression than other people."

"These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary, they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image."

Source: Roy F. Baumeister, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty page 149

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know, Guy, before I just figured that you were a well-meaning but somewhat inexperienced editor, owing to the fact that you don't edit that frequently (and there's nothing wrong with that). I see now that you're an abject narcissist, and practice deliberate deceit in order to avoid having to admit when you're wrong. You were not bullied, you were criticized for your behavior, which included deliberate deception, ignoring counterarguments that falsified your position, and for lacking the courage to admit it. Being criticized for such behavior is not "bullying", nor is any other legitimate criticism for questionable behavior. There are many legitimate reasons for "hostility" that have nothing to do with bullying, so stop falsely playing the part of the victim by jumping on the anti-bullying bandwagon. All you're doing is digging yourself a deeper hole by confirming that you're of poor character, and exploiting a quite legitimate movement and its real victims in the process. You asserted that secondary sources were not needed for notability, while holding up a distinction between secondary and third-party sources, and after I falsified this by pointing out a policy page that indeed indicated the former, and that the latter was derived from mere essays, you went made that claim again. You did that knowingly, and you did it deliberately. If you can falsify this by virtue of evidence or reason, then do so. If you can't, then stop making it worse for yourself by persisting in this narcissistic refusal to admit when you're wrong. Nightscream (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, every day, a troll goes hungry. These are not trolls in some third-world country, but right here at home. The growing rate of trolls is alarming. In the United States alone, the number of hungry trolls is expanding at a rate of 1 troll for every 15 global warming flamewars.

For example, take little Nightscream here. On the comments section of his local blog, he does not even gain enough responses to fill an entire Tweet on Twitter. He has been forced to go into Yahoo! chat rooms and post about gun control or abortion just for enough troll food to last the night.

Sponsoring a troll is easy. For the cost of sending just one flame or other response, your contribution (along with others) can keep a troll fed for a month. If you include your email address, you can get weekly or even daily letters from your troll. Try explaining the difference between "secondary" and "third-party" and watch him dial up the aggression in a show of gratitude. Think of what one post from you could mean to a hungry troll.

Please. Feed a troll today. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you were not trolled. You were criticized, quite legitimately, for your behavior. That has nothing to do with what trolling is. "Trolling" refers to the act of intentionally attempting to provoke emotional reactions in others or sow discord, which is not a practice I've ever engaged in during my 9+ years on Wikipedia, or anywhere else on the Net. I don't have a blog, a Twitter account, nor have I ever gone into Yahoo! chat rooms. One more time: You were provided evidence that unambiguously falsified your claims, and then you engaged in deliberate deception by brazenly repeating those claims again, because you were not man enough to accept this (and when you really weren't required to day anything). You were criticized for this, and then started to whine that you were "bullied", revealing yourself to be a narcissistic child, a fact you've bolstered further with this sorry "troll" accusation. I've confined my messages to providing evidence and reason for my position, even when criticizing you, which is hardly the inflammatory behavior defined by the word "troll". By contrast, you've adopted the behavior of a petulant child who cannot admit when he is wrong, and then lashes out at others for pointing this out, which conforms far more closely to that definition (and violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA, for that matter) than anything that I've said. Nightscream (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I've confined my messages to providing evidence and reason for my position" and "'Trolling' refers to the act of intentionally attempting to provoke emotional reactions in others or sow discord, which is not a practice I've ever engaged in during my 9+ years on Wikipedia, or anywhere else on the Net.", let's examine the record, shall we?

I called you:

hostile,

bully,

troll.

You called me:

a knowing and deliberate liar,

under a delusion,

repeating falsehoods,

splitting hairs,

not a man,

abject narcissist,

deliberatly decieving,

lacking courage,

of poor character,

narcissistic,

not man enough,

whining,

a petulant child,

hair splitting,

suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Most of which you called me previous to my finally responding by calling you the bully you are.

I did find your "confining my messages to providing evidence and reason for my position" claim to be enormously entertaining, given the above rather blatant trolling and bullying.

And now a word from TUAD:

An open letter to the internet from Trolls United Against Defamation:

First an introduction - what I'd like to talk about are "Trolls" - we've been much maligned over the years but we've decided to come out from under our 'bridges' and once again take our rightful place in society.

Many of you older readers may remember the friendly little man who lived under the courthouse steps in your home town, he was a well-liked and respected member of the community, your parents approved of his occupation and understood that "it was a tough job, but someone had to do it". In small town America in the '50s no one questioned the valuable place your local trolls played in society.

Readers who grew up in the '60s may remember being distraught by Oppie's special friend Max's sudden disappearance from Mayberry after the actor who played him was blacklisted following the McCarthy hearings.

Let me try and explain the whole sordid story as briefly as possible. It all started with what we trolls commonly refer to as "that goat incident". Back in the spring of 1964 there were wild press reports from Eastern Europe about a poor hungry troll eating some goats who woke him up while sleeping under a bridge - naturally the press blew it way out of proportion, someone noticed that not only were there trolls behind the iron curtain, but here in the US too - Joe McCarthy (a lawyer!) came out of retirement and started up 'HURT' the 'House Unamerican Reaction to Trolls' - Trolls were subpoenaed, question, publicly vilified and driven from their occupations all across the country, in the south trolls were driven from town by the KKK on horseback. Those trolls whom survived moved to the wilder parts of the country to hide out, some even moved north to Canada.

At the time our knowledge of ecology and ecosystems was not great enough for anybody to predict the horrible results this would cause. As the Soviets were finding out by the '60s if you take away it's usual prey a predator will turn elsewhere. They banned lawyers in most communist countries, which of course explains the plight of that poor hungry troll under that bridge that started this whole mess.

After banning Trolls the US is now suffering from a most horrible scourge. Just like removing the wolves from Yellowstone resulted in Elk herds that multiplied out of control and devastated the grazing for all other species, taking your local troll out from his usual place below the courthouse steps has resulted in lawyers multiplying completely out of control with dire consequences to all parts of society.

We intend to once again become the respected useful members of society our parents and grandparents were. And after much soul-searching we realized that we would need good legal council. As you might imagine this was hard to come by, so we decided that we needed to train some of our own people in the law. I, and my colleagues, worked our way through law school, it was hard, we suffered under much discrimination from the faculty, we spent long nights suffering working through the law books, and days resisting temptation in class. In the end we graduated top of our class - in fact in that year we were the only ones who surv^H^H^H^Hgraduated.

We moved into private practice as "Troll, Troll, Troll and Bandicoot" mostly doing civil rights law for other trolls. Recently you may have heard of the very substantial out of court settlement we received from the Tolkien estate in our libel case. We intend to use this money to fund future legal work for our clients.

Which brings me to the main purpose of this letter .... it has come to our attention that some people on the internet have been using the name 'troll' in a negative, derogatory manner. This must stop immediately. Along with our co-litigants the Spam Industry Council we are today serving a class action suit, on behalf of all trolls everywhere, on all people who have participated in the practice of 'trolling'.

We were lucky that the law firm of Canter&Siegel after some initial reluctance were yum^H^H^H able to help us in searching the Usenet archives to discover the perpetrators and to electronically serve all those who were found responsible.

I hope that this will be the end of this matter.

Thank you for your attention

Timothy T. Troll

Attorney at Law

Troll, Troll, Troll, and Bandicoot

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every criticism I have leveled against you has been derived directly from the evidence of your behavior. Did you not lie when you repeated your false arguments about sourcing, even after I falsified them, because you simply lacked the courage or the manhood to just admit that you were wrong? Yes, you did. Did you not react to this by narcisistically whining that any time someone criticizes you for this, that it makes t hem a bully? Yes, you did. Did you not -- either by ignorance of the definition or the word "troll", or by deliberate misusing it -- pretend that I had engaged in trolling, when the actual definition of that concept has nothing to do with anything I've said or done? Yes, you did. Isn't this behavior of poor character? Yes, it is. Are you now claiming that being accused of splitting hairs is somehow bullying or trolling? Apparently you are. All of this is reasonably argued by virtue of what these words and phrases mean, and how you exhibited these various behaviors on this page. If this were not true, then you'd have falsified it with counterarguments. You haven't, because you can't.

By contrast, can you provide a definition of "bully" or troll" under which any of my behavior can be fit, except in your imagination? I doubt it.

Try to find some maturity, admit that you were not only wrong, but persisted in your false statements even after I falsified them, or else explain how this is not true. If you can't do either one, then try moving on. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Skeptic magazine article is written by Shermer, making it a primary source. Ditto for the The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, the ABC Science article, and the essay in 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. In the book Grave New World, it appears solely in a footnote which cites the column in which Shermer coined the phrase. Ditto for the "numerous blogs, popular books by Sherman himself and the original Scientific American column." Those are all primary sources. To establish notability for a topic to get its own Wikipedia article, you need secondary sources. You've racked up close to 18,000 edits since 2006, Guy, so you should know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 02:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to consider the possibility that, in your haste to lecture me in an area where you believe that I am wrong, you might not have fully considered the possibility that it is you yourself who are wrong.

Question: does Wikipedia:Notability actually say "if no reliable secondary sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" or does it say "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article"?

You are aware that Wikipedia:Third-party sources says that "This concept is contrasted with the unrelated concept of a secondary source...", right?

The reason the distinction is important is because of the nature of establishing notability of something like Shermer's last law.

Let's say I come up with a pithy saying -- "You took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans" -- and put it up at http://www.GuyMacon.com/flame.html. Does that establish notability? No, because GuyMacon.com in not an independent source; I control it. Note that I didn't say whether it is a secondary source (it isn't), because that is not a factor in establishing notability.

Now assume that I expand on the idea and The New York Times puts my words on the editorial page. That would be an independent third-party (I don't own the NYT or decide what it publishes) publishing my words, which would still be a primary source. Now assume that the US Park Service carves my saying into the base of the Washington Monument. Again, independent third-party, again primary. If those two things happened, then "You took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans" would be considered by Wikipedia to be notable, because the rule requires independent third-party sources, not, as you claimed above, secondary sources.

Just to be complete, the above would only establish that I said that you took your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans and that my saying so was notable. If we wanted toe establish that you actually did take your last vacation in the Islets of Langerhans, now we would need some reliable secondary sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree that if lots of people discussed that Shermer Said and publicised that Shermer said his third law, it may establish notability, however, what we have is a scant few reprints of his article, it doesn't compare to the carving on the Washington Monument now does it? Especially since most of Shermer's articles are reprinted verbatim in various sources. And they are reprinted mostly not for the ideas being noteworthy but because Shermer is noteworthy. SPACKlick (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPACKlick, I agree. The carving on the Washington Monument example was to show Nightscream a clearcut example of something that is notable without being secondary. As you correctly pointed out, this just proves that some things can be primary and notable, but doesn't prove that Shermer's last law in particular is notable. Good analysis.

Your comment "...not for the ideas being noteworthy but because Shermer is noteworthy" brings up an interesting question. Would "I have a Dream" be noteworthy if Martin Luther King wasn't? Upon refection, I don't think Shermer's last law is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article, but it certainly is notable enough for a sentence or two in our Michael Shermer article. Again, good thinking on your part. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I have no problem considering that I may be wrong. I've been wrong many times, as I am only human. But if you want to convince me of this, then you have to provide a lucid counterargument with commensurate counterevidence or counterreasoning that compels me to arrive at that resolution, and if the above is what you've got, then that's not likely to happen, buddy. It's not haste that informs my above posts; just Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

You asked above, "Does Wikipedia:Notability actually say 'if no reliable secondary sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article' or does it say 'if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article'? Well, Wikipedia:Notability says lots of things. And if you read the entire page, and related pages, and make an effort to understand the wisdom behind those policies and the manner in which the community tends to interpret them (which requires that you not exhibit "haste"), then you'll see that it says, among other things:

"'Sources' should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

In short, that page, and related ones (such as Wikipedia:Independent sources) treat the phrases "third-party sources" and "secondary sources" as synonymous by definition. Unless you can demonstrate how they are treated different by policy, your false either/or argument above is just hair-splitting. Nightscream (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you read

"This concept [the concept of third party sources] is contrasted with the unrelated concept of a secondary source"

in Wikipedia:Independent sources and get

"treat[s] the phrases 'third-party sources' and 'secondary sources' as synonymous by definition."

out of that? How is my pointing out that "unrelated" and "synonymous" do not mean the same thing hair splitting?

Perhaps our essay on Wikipedia:Party and person will help you to understand why we make this distinction. look at the part starting with "'Secondary' does not mean 'independent' or 'uninvolved'." (emphasis in original),

Also, please explain how your claim that

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it"

would apply in my made up Washington Monument example. The words are mine (primary source), but published by the US Park Service (independent third-party). Likewise, Scientific American published Shermer's words (primary source), but Scientific American is an independent third-party. Your quoting

"'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent"

makes me think that you still are not quite getting the difference. SCEPTIC magazine, The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, ABC Science, 50 Voices of Disbelief and Grave New World are all independent third-parties publishing a primary source. They are not produced by the article's subject or by someone affiliated with it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"How do you read 'This concept [the concept of third party sources] is contrasted with the unrelated concept of a secondary source' in Wikipedia:Independent sources..." I don't. Wikipedia:Independent sources is an essay. Not a policy. Not a guideline.

"Perhaps our essay on Wikipedia:Party and person will help you to understand why we make this distinction..." Perhaps if you read the banner at the very top of that page, you'll see that Wikipedia:Party and person is also an essay. Not a policy. Not a guideline.

"Also, please explain how your claim that 'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it'...." That isn't a claim of mine. It's the directly quoted text from the General Notability Guideline from Wikipedia:Notability, which I made explicitly clear above. It's amazing to me that you quote passages from essays as if they're policies or guidelines, but when I quote a relevant portion of a page that is a guideline, you refer to it as "my claim". LOL.

"...would apply in my made up Washington Monument example." That would be an independent and secondary source, and would indeed go to notability. It is not a primary source, as you stated above.

"Likewise, Scientific American published Shermer's words (primary source), but Scientific American is an independent third-party." Wrong. The fact that it is a column by Shermer makes it a primary source, period. The venue in which he published it is irrelevant.

Hell, even the essays you cite back me up: Wikipedia:Party and person, for example, states that "Secondary sourced material is based on primary sourced material, and may include synthesis, but not novel conclusions." A column by Shermer in Scientific American is not "based" on primary material, because it is primary material. Wikipedia:Independent sources states that "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective." Neither Shermer, his column, nor the magazine that published it is "independent" of Shermer's Law, as both the author and the magazine have a vested interest in its publication: Both Shermer and Scientific American are interested in promoting those ideas and profiting from publication of them. A secondary and independent source would be one that has nothing to do with the column or its publication, but is in some way reacting to it, by way of commentary, rebuttal, analysis, etc.

Bottom line: For you to argue that the books and columns in which Shermer's promotes Shermer's Last Law are either secondary sources or "independent" of Shermer's Last Law, clearly shows that it is you who "are not quite getting" it when it comes to notability, just as your citation of essays as policy or guideline (and dismissal of a guideline as another editors "claim") shows that you don't seem to understand how policies and guidelines work.

And by the way, the name of Shermer's magazine is Skeptic. Not SCEPTIC. American spelling. Not British. Nightscream (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I think is worth noting here is that a straight reprinting/republishing of an article is a very different thing re: notability than a comment on, discussion of or even introduced reprint (by which I mean an author saying "here's a thing I thought you should all read"). However let's move away from personal feelings to Guidelines. Starting at WP:GNG

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. ... Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included.

Well, this isn't met. There's been limited coverage (which boils down to a single source) but nothing addresses the topic in detail beyond the article itself. The entirety of the coverage was produced by Michael Shermer himself, even though it's been published in multiple locations. The guideline syas with respect to including it in the Michael Shermer article

Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

These provide limited guidelines for content inclusion. However they make it clear content should be featured in similar weight to the coverage. This article by shermer was published in a handful of sources and commented on basically nowhere outside the blogosphere and not ubiquitously even there. Vote below changed slightly. SPACKlick (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A long-standing cliche known long before Schermer. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to List of eponymous laws or Delete. Not really notable. Could also be mentioned as a footnote in Clarke's law or Shermer's bio, I guess. I think we need to cut down on the vast number of eponymous "laws" that we document here. Too many of them are obviously non-notable. The aforementioned list could be a useful place to redirect/merge them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article as not notable ~~[and at most footnote on Shermer's page]~~. Having spent a fair amount of time researching this area I've not come across anybody discussing Shermer's last law other than Shermer and a subsection of the blogosphere. It doesn't get much traction or notability. SPACKlick (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to wikiquote. No independent notability for this catchphrase has been demonstrated. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 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 01:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Administration Music Publishing[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY due to a lack of reliably sourced content that would indicate notability. The top contributor looks to be COI account and the list of artists in the lead is obviously a hoax. Claims to have published music by 2Pac in the last year when he has been dead since 1996, among listing many other very notable recording artists that have known publishing deals with real corporations (Jay-Z, Eminem, Kanye West, Dr. Dre, Justin Bieber, Snoop Dogg, Maroon 5, 50 Cent, Chris Brown), that would not be a part of a company that was founded last year and supposedly has one single employee. STATic message me! 20:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That publishing company does in fact publish songs released by those artists. It does not claim to publish Jay-Z or 2Pac directly. The clients listed below, and signed to the company, have written and/or produced songs that Jay Z, 2Pac, Eminem, etc have released. The company now publishes their shares of the songs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickvelo (talk • contribs) 20:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It looks like they are just trying to promote their non notable company. Koala15 (talk) 00:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with above. The article relies on a single primary source (it's own site) and there are no reliable sources which indicate it's notable so it fails WP:COMPANY. 2Flows (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely non-notable. Even if they actually have published music by their long list of "clients" (or "their shares of the songs" whatever that means), it doesn't help the company's notability because of WP:NOTINHERIT. --MelanieN (talk) 17:07, 27 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 nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Amin (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:32, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanesian mythology[edit]

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

Article has no content. It is supposed to be about myths but doesn't mention any Bhny (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it also says the term is meaningless. Bearian (talk) 15:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A drive-by critic overwrote the original stub with this negative opinion. The page was created as part of a set on the mythology of Oceania as the navigation template indicates. Please do not take such unsupported criticism at face-value in deletion discussions lest hostile editors and vandals lead us astray. Andrew (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The stubby nature of the current draft is insufficient reason to delete. It is easy to find other reference works with entries for this topic such as Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology, and Legend and The Oxford Companion to World Mythology. Andrew (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything specifically about "Melanesian mythology". Even the article says that the term is useless. Bhny (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and that statement in the current draft is not supported by a citation. Andrew (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But my question was- Is there anything specifically [in any reference] about "Melanesian mythology". Is this even a topic? At the moment it seems like two words jammed together. Bhny (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided two sources and there are plenty more out there. Please see WP:BEFORE which explains the due diligence required for nominations. Andrew (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes I see this now. Bhny (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listing the mythology of any group of people is encyclopedic. The article needs to have some actual content though. I Googled and found two websites talking about them, [9] and [10]. Not sure if either would be considered a reliable source. The information in them can be run through Google book search, or Google for any website ending in .edu or .gov, to find reliable sources there. Dream Focus 00:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The second of those sources is a good catch, being an extensive account by the Harvard professor Roland Burrage Dixon. This will provide a good foundation for the topic — well done. Andrew (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andrew added public domain text. I'm not sure how accurate this 100 year old information is, aspects of racism and colonialism need to be considered. But it shows it's possible to create an in-depth article on the topic. -- GreenC 19:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even though English language sourcing seems limited, this is quite clearly an encyclopedic topic.--Staberinde (talk) 16:08, 27 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diocese of Birobidzhan and Kuldur[edit]

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

promo. Organisation is notable, but this is an advertisement, including fax number. WP:TNT should be applied. The Banner talk 17:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wouldn't object if large chunks of this were edited out, but I don't see anything in this article that is so bad as to demand deleting the whole article and wiping out its edit history. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even the nomination says this organization is notable. --do ncr am 01:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:TNT shouldn't apply when a stub is a plausible alternative, and the first two sections seem unproblematic enough, even were everything else removed. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:12, 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 merge to Cappies. Support included merging a *limited* amount of information to Cappies j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's Capital Cappies[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete One specific region's cappies is not enough for its own article. Some of the essential information, howenver, could be merged to Cappies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staglit (talk • contribs) 23:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cappies (but not the exhaustive listings). No need to delete. Pburka (talk) 01:27, 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 merge to Ranilug Municipality. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of education in Ranilug municipality[edit]

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

Unsourced article about non-notable schools, nothing to indicate this subject merits an article Jac16888 ^Talk 16:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ranilug Municipality. I probably should have done this first, but I wanted someone to check my translation.--Auric talk 20:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely unsourced. Non-notability itself is reason for deletion. If we merge this content somewhere else it will continue to be problematic and becomes WP:UNDUE in the article about the municipality. Articles like this make me feel like a deletionist and I started out as a proud inclusionist. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the main elements of this article into Ranilug Municipality. IJA (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ranilug Municipality, and leave a redirect; without prejudice to somebody later creating an article if they do gather some secondary sources. bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. We have often merged education articles into the locality's article. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To those suggesting merge, merge what exactly? A block of unsourced content about a non-notable subject that is as much a detriment to Wikipedia as a section in one article as it is on it's own?--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article on Ranilug Municipality has a load of issues. Compared to the article in Serbian it appears the English article has the wrong coordinates! Any 'History of...' articles about Ranilug will suffer due to the fact that Ranilug has only existed as a separate municipality since the UN carved it out of the adjoining municipality to make a Serbian majority municipality (from the German and Serbian Wikipedias). Serbian wiki has different population figures from the others. In principle the 'History of education' in an area where written records go back 2000 years (Ranilug is about half way between Greece and Rome) should be notable but it looks hard to salvage much useful info from this ungrammatical block of text. What can be salvaged should be added to the Ranilug article with the option of breaking it out in the future if it grows. filceolaire (talk) 22:25, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eelco Visser[edit]

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

Dutch professor without any prizes or rewards, being that important that even the Dutch Wikipedia has no article about him. With 23k Google hits of doubtable notability The Banner talk 16:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And an h-index of "only" 37... See his GS profile. --Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep by WP:Prof#1 at least. Nominator is advised to carry put WP:Before before making further AfD nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- You are right, I should have looked better at this article. Then I would have seen that it was a BLP without sources and had prodded it... The Banner talk 23:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without sources? I can find 5375 sources with one click. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Until someone added one, there were none in the article... And I don't assume that the sources are there, I want to see them. BTW, a prod for no sources was there before, but was removed. The Banner talk 00:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BEFORE. AfD is not for cleanup, and lack of sources when they exist elsewhere is a cleanup problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Nominators who make mistaken AfD nominations ~~often~~ sometimes have the grace to withdraw them to save trouble for other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. His named professorship is (from the sources) aimed at younger faculty, so may not be enough by itself to count for WP:PROF#C5. But I think that putting it together with the citation record makes the case clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 22 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 01:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Kincannon[edit]

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

I feel that, despite the NUMBER of sources, this does not meet WP:BLP standards for notability. the subject seems to be of only local notability. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. He's not of "local notability" in that he made national news with his extremely crude and sexist remarks about Texas senatorial candidate Wendy Davis ("It proves that you can still call a whore a whore"; "Wendy Davis stimulates the kneepad economy"). He's sort of a national champion of American misogyny. Chisme (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and that falls under WP:BLP1E, assuming that there are not other major things he's been involved with. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 17:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that Kincannon's most important formal position, as former executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party, was deleted from the article (with an inaccurate edit summary) in January. [11] His name does come up in other contexts, including his Twitter attacks on Trayvon Martin [12][13][14][15] and his activities in opposition to expanded voting stations [16][17]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored that to the article. Chisme (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - besides passing bare notability, he easily passes my strict standards for lawyers: Order of the Barristers, officer of a statewide committee of a major political party, elections commissioner, expert in an area of law, etc. WP:BLP1E does not apply, because he has repeatedly made controversial statements in public. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think there is a BLP issue that disqualifies Kincannon from having an article. James500 (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There very much is a BLP issue here, actually. When I looked at the article a few minutes ago, the exact wording of its introduction was Todd Kincannon is misogynistic, rude and arrogant. It's no wonder that the GOP has problems trying to appeal to women and minorities when this hateful man is what they have to offer. He is married to a woman ("Ashely" [yes, that's apparently how it is spelt]) who is evidently blinded against her own husbands deep hatred of women, or as he would refer to them, "whores". Kincannon is also under the impression that he is "unbeatable" and that he "owns the media". — a blatant WP:NPOV violation no matter how unsavory his comments may have been. I've put it under "pending changes" protection for the time being. There's probably a good argument to be made that the media coverage that he's generated for making explosively controversial comments is enough to put him over the wikinotability bar even if the actual offices he's held don't do so by themselves, but we still have to monitor the article to ensure that it remains compliant with NPOV and doesn't lapse into opinion commentary about what a horrible human being he is. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That text was not in the article when I read it. I have reworded my comments so that they hopefully can't be misunderstood.The last time I checked our policy was that we do not delete articles just because they attract vandalism and soapboxing. We have other ways to deal with that. If need be the page could be fully protected. James500 (talk) 07:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons already stated above. Klortho (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Kincannon is back in the news today, pontificating on the subject of the 2014 Isla Vista killings. As reported by Time magazine online: "I'm sorry a liberal shot some innocent people in a Blue State. Learn to defend yourselves instead of taking guns from law-abiding citizens" and "Dear Liberals: Threatening to kill me and rape my wife every five minutes is not a very good way to get me on board with gun control." As reported by Forward Progressives (a blog): "No idea how my son will die, but I know it won’t be cowering like a bitch at UC Santa Barbara. Any son of mine would have been shooting back." 16:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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 00:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Parma (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Similar reason for my request to delete Typhoon Pepeng (disambiguation). This is about creating a disambiguation page with 2 entries and one of two is a primary topic. You may refer to my previous request. j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 13:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - once cleaned up per WP:MOSDAB it's clear that it would be eligible as speedy G6. PamD 13:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS. A disambiguation page is merely a navigational device, one that is not needed where this navigation can be provided in a hatnote. bd2412 T 13:05, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Asian Youth Girls Volleyball Championship[edit]

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

Unsourced article consisting mostly of tables of countries and flags. No evidence of notability. - Mr X 11:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MergeDefinetly WP:TOOSOON as its not scheduled to happen until October 2014, also most likely WP:NOTE, could quite happily be merged with Asian_Youth_Volleyball_Championship Amortias (T)(C) 21:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft: namespace until after the event, when it's likely to get the refs and be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL, this regular international sporting event is almost certain to take place within five months. WP:TOOSOON is a bogus criterion here because not only is that a non-authoritative essay, it only covers biographies and films, not events. Dl2000 (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An event that will take place and is notable, so no crystal. Kante4 (talk) 17:47, 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 keep. Whether this article should be moved to Trial of Cecily McMillan is a topic for the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cecily McMillan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE; also WP:ONEEVENT. M. Caecilius (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:ONEEVENT really apply where the article subject has sought attention for herself by giving media interviews about the event for which she is allegedly notable? Scratching my head on that one. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this comment. Does this imply that the subject is really non-notable and only became the subject of media coverage through efforts at media manipulation? Or that giving media interviews on the same case somehow takes an individual to notability beyond the case itself? Scratching my head too on your comment. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a case of some guy showing up in the police blotter because he blew a DUI or propositioned an undercover cop. Should be pretty obvious that this is not a "person is arrested, shows up in newspaper" scenario. She is notable because of the public debate surrounding her case. We have a super super long article on Mumia Abu-Jamal, and all he did was murder a cop, right?

Heck... the leading example of BLP1E people who have their own articles is about some poor sap who accidentally caught an in-play baseball pitched by the crappiest team in history. By contrast, this young woman is trying her own case in the media and attempting to brand herself as some sort of anti-"brutality" crusader in the public eye.Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely absurd to compare McMillan and Abu-Jamal at this point, since Abu-Jamal's long-term notability is testified to by sustained media coverage and repeated reference in reliable sources even after his case left the news cycle. To envision that McMillan's case would have similar impact is patently consulting the WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Honestly, looking at the magnitude of media coverage and the nature that they are routine coverages of an interesting ongoing court case, there is no reason why we can't make McMillan's case a section in Occupy Wall Street. If there shall arise in the future a cult following of hers which elevates her to icon status like Abu-Jamal, as you seem to be convinced there will be, then I shall have little problem with a Wikipedia page. M. Caecilius (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be changing the subject. I didn't say she was as notable as Abu-Jamal. I said that we don't dismiss article subjects simply because all they have done is commit a crime and be convicted of it. In any event it would seem McMillan is already notable enough for her own article, due to the public debate surrounding her arrest and conviction. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable criminal. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think "non-notable criminal" will wash. The case has recieved coverage outside the United States. Whether this is worth a stand-alone article is another matter. She has yet to be setanced & if sent to jail there will doubtless be an appeal, so there will be more coverage. At very least this should be merged to Occupy Wall Street TheLongTone (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not only is McMillian's case being discussed prominently by national voices which focus only on "notable" issues (e.g. John Stewart: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/daily-show-takes-on-financial-crisis-cases), simple searches uncover numerous international publications covering the case. It is notable because it is the first case brought against a member of OWS, which was notable as well. One of the main underlying issues connected with OWS was the use of law as a tool to quiet the voices of would-be protesters. This case is apropos of that issue --Grahammorehead (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is, unfortunately, often the case in deletion discussions, that some editor would wholly ignore all efforts by the nominator in citing relevant guidelines, such as WP:ONEEVENT. I will also overlook the risible statement that John Stewart "focuses only on 'notable' issues", and also the fact that the link which is furnished provide nothing but a one-line reference to the news that Ms McMillan was arrested, and not even to Ms McMillan herself. Still, there is zero argument given on whether the subject has enough long-term notability to warrant coverage outside of the one event of her arrest. The "numerous international publications", as is noted, cover this one case, bringing the article wholly within the auspices of the guideline on individuals notable for only one event. Why such zealous crusading is directed at keeping this article standalone, instead of providing coverage on the Occupy Wall Street movement, I will never understand. M. Caecilius (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of framing Occupy Wall Street in legal history, this is an interesting and historical case and I think Cecily's case will stand the test of history. Also, it has been written about by most major American News publications at this point so it already counts as much more relevant than many other Wikipedia articles. OR drohowa (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a WP:CRYSTALBALL argument here about assumed future notability. Also WP:CRIME is pretty clear about this matter: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. Assaulting a police officer is quite common and ordinary crime so any news reporting it is WP:DOGBITESMAN, unless somehow connected to larger topic like Occupy movement in this case, where this otherwise routine news coverage should be merged. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 06:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment above. This is clearly not the type of case envisioned by WP:CRIME. It also clearly falls under "Perpetrator" scenario #2 in the list of exceptions, namely that the motivation for the crime is unusual and has been considered noteworthy. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Have you looked into the WP:CRYSTALBALL and seen that the case shall have (per WP:CRIME, perpetrator #2)

sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.

Given that current coverage is pretty much contemporaneous (since the case is still in trial and all the news reports stem from that), I'm not sure how you have made such a remarkable assertion about the future without consulting the proverbial crystal ball. M. Caecilius (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the hostility and sarcasm are helping things. I also wonder whether you've ever actually read WP:CRYSTALBALL, or do you just name-drop WP policies that sound catchy? Could you direct me to some language that suggests that guideline is relevant in some way? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)

(talk) (contribs) 16:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absurd response. All I'm saying is that if you think that the person herself named in the article satisfies WP:CRIME, then you are necessarily making a prediction about the person's long-term notability on the same level as other criminal suspects which we have articles for, and this is a prediction that you must realize not all editors share. That is exactly the purpose of the project guideline. M. Caecilius (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Absurd response"? If you have any objections that are directly supported by actual WP policy and not just your unstructured feelings about stuff, please let us all know now. And it wouldn't hurt to reference some actual policy language. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motivation for the alleged crime is certainly of most ordinary kind. Left-wing (and right-wing and green-wing and almost every other party) activists and demonstrators have physically assulted police perhaps hundreds of thousands of times during past century in almost every country of this planet. The Occupation movement and their motivations are not special in any way. Violent altercation with the police like McMahon murders are independently notable, just punching a random police officer to face by some non-notable person is WP:DOGBITESMAN that happens daily in every major city. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 05:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:I strongly agree with User:Factchecker_atyourservice when they say, "This is clearly not the type of case envisioned by WP:CRIME. It also clearly falls under "Perpetrator" scenario #2 in the list of exceptions, namely that the motivation for the crime is unusual and has been considered noteworthy," and strongly disagree with User:jni. We can not judge notability by the size of the altercation but by the impact of the situation and series of events on the media, its coverage on news, and its referential qualities. The Cecily McMillan case stands out as one of the most covered legal cases coming out of Occupy Wall Street, a moment in political history that was covered by almost every major and minor publication in the U.S. and beyond. The article has already reached notability because it has been written about in most major U.S. publications. This is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL claim. The notability of this article has already been sedimented by its far-ranging coverage. And to answer questions about why this article can't be merged with the Occupy Article- one of the reasons we have bio articles is to create referential sources for researchers looking up names in the media/history. I think this article serves this purpose. Beyond that, the trial and details of the case have been covered as a separate event and situation than the Occupy Wall Street events, which ended last year. The focus has been on the trial, and less on Occupy, and that is one of the many reasons it should be its own article.OR drohowa (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JNI: political protest is hardly an ordinary motivation for a crime of violence. The fact that you can find numerous examples of it really only shows that the world is a very large place filled with billions of people. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (see my revised opinion below in the relisted conversation) There are currently 1660 news articles. How is that not evidence of notability. You don't need to look into a WP:CRYSTALBALL to see that. Furthermore, we need to turn down the political rhetoric: it is clear that different editors have different viewpoints on OWS; this is besides the point. I would in no way argue that the Cliven Bundy situation wasn't notable: it is hugely notable. If we need to move Cecily McMillian from Cecily McMillan to Cecily McMillan trial then so be it. That is fine. But this is bigger than should be folded back into one OWS page.--Theredproject (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Theredproject. Subject's notability is without question. Moving the entry to Cecily McMillan trial seems like a good solution. --Failedprojects (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Theredproject and Failedprojects. Subject's notability is without question; the trial appears in not only in domestic but but also international news, and touches on not only OWS but also important on-going conversations around police brutality and violence against women.--Siankevans (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I would have preferred moving the content into Occupy Wall Street, if the discussion is closed as keep or no consensus, I consent to this as the best compromise. I therefore move that, if the AfD is not closed as delete, I would rename the page to "Trial of Cecily McMillan" or something similar, if we can reach agreement on that. M. Caecilius (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. Accounts

Theredproject (talk · contribs)

Failedprojects (talk · contribs)

Siankevans (talk · contribs)

did not stumble into this AfD by accident and they have a shared editing history relating to a certain gender-POV Wikipedia meetup. The fact that both Failedprojects and Siankevans decided to do their first edit in over two months to this AfD page within few minutes of each other is clear indication that they received an off-wiki invitation to do so. Since they both have less than ten edits to main encyclopedia, it looks like they could be WP:NOTHERE single-purpose accounts. Suggest discarding their keep votes and monitoring sockpuppet/meatpuppet issues carefully here. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And OR drohowa (talk · contribs), who wrote some of the unsigned passages above, seems to be also associated with the Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism_2014 crew just like the above three accounts. This AfD would need uninvolved editors. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 20:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how being involved in the Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism_2014 disqualifies me from being able to comment on this page. The article is not about topics in art and feminism. Just because I like to write articles about women doesn't mean I should be disqualified in an AfD involving a woman. OR drohowa (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I see no problem with a group of editors that have organized IRL meetups together to notify each other of an AfD related to a topic of interest to everyone and then each contribute. AfDs are open to anyone regardless of who has already spoken- isn't that the point? Further, plenty of groups already do this re: WikiProjects. I have no reason to believe that myself or the other 3 editors is out of line here. Thanks. OR drohowa (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can comment here, I just pointed out that you have edited a similar set of pages than the other three users, and perhaps share a same POV. It is not a random accident that four users from a marginal Wikiproject/meetup/organization/association, that most wikipedians have never heard about, come here within timespan of few hours. The closing admin can then evaluate that information I provided and weight it whatever way she thinks is appropriate. What you and your associates have done is in fact prohibited. Please read WP:MEAT to understand how this can affect AfD closure. Note that I did not exactly group you with the other accounts as you have way more edits so labeling you as potential single-purpose user would have been unfair and incorrect. (But please remember to sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~.) jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with OR drohowa that a group of editors that have organized IRL meetups together to notify each other of an AfD related to a topic of interest to everyone and then each contribute. Take a look at Wikipedia:Meat_puppetry a little closer: "What is not meatpuppetry: Communicating outside of Wikipedia with other editors." --Theredproject (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, jni, please consider the guidelines on Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry which states that "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy. Because of the processes above, it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute." Which is exactly what happened.--Theredproject (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that one of these users has total of three edits to main encyclopedia and other total seven, they triggered my sockpuppet alarm. For all I or any other outside observer can tell, they both could be just sockpuppet accounts operated by you. For purposes of communicating outside of Wikipedia with other editors, editors with minimal to non-existent participation to actual encyclopedia project risk being identified as meatpuppets. After all the difference between WP:MEAT and WP:CANVAS is not that great. What you and your friends (or sockpuppets) are doing is vote stacking in this AfD and it is clear that the closing admin should compensate for that. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 06:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I was not aware of WP:CANVASS and did notify several other editors about this AfD because I thought they might be interested. Now that I understand the policy, I realize my err here. That said, I am not sure I wholly agree with WP:CANVASS as in this case, I think the other editors were genuinely interested in the article and I believe that they did and can thoughtfully reasonably contribute to the conversation and I did not ask them to take a particular side. Thanks all. Let's keep this friendly and thoughtful- now back to the article.. OR drohowa (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few days in to this evolving deletion campaign, I still have yet to hear anything that sounds like a serious objection rooted in policy. In fact the most substantial thing on this page is some OMG DRAMA about alleged sockpuppets. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is a serious objection rooted in policy. Just because you disagree does not mean other editors did not make your opposite view seriously. Let's tone down the offensive rhetoric which you sustained throughout and maybe learn how to make a point without demeaning the contribution of other editors. M. Caecilius (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have so far responded to my dry policy arguments with exasperation and sarcasm. You have questioned the sincerity and motivations of other editors. Now you're accusing me of dishing out "offensive rhetoric" and "demeaning the contributions of other editors", without even the slightest attempt to substantiate that claim. Kindly quote me regarding that subject, or quote WP policy regarding the subject of this AFD, or else stop talking. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you had me confused with some other user, such as User:jni, since I had never questioned the "sincerity and motivation" of any other editor, was not responsible for the, and I quote, "OMG DRAMA", and so far as I can see have always tried to assume good faith on the part of all editors. I don't have to and I cannot, I should like to remind you, take responsibility for any comment of other editors who have but in common with me their viewpoint on this one article. Since this thread has so far descended into incivility, do please excuse me for refusing to answer any further provocation on your part. If you think that I have acted contrary to any policy or guideline on editor behaviour, I invite you to lodge a complaint with any administrator, make a formal request that I be sanctioned, or by any other process you please, instead of attacking my conduct in this deletion nomination. M. Caecilius (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably; my editing skills are rusty, but she was the campaign manager for a Congressional in 2012; mentioned in this Village Voice article. Perhaps that meams something? Again, I've been out of AfD's for a loooooong while. Abeg92contribs 15:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

without making any more general comment or !vote, that particular position has almost never been considered here to show sufficient importance for an article. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep McMillan has just been sentenced to three months & is appealing against the verdict: this case is going to generate more coverage. Whether the article should be moved to Trial of Cecily McMillan is another matter.TheLongTone (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Fifteen minutes of fame do not make someone notable. Wikipedia should not be used as a public relations tool, nor should its articles be maintained by someone's fan club. --173.79.76.211 (talk) 20:08, 19 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on ongoing coverage. Recall that notability guidelines counsel us to ask whether there is "sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

She's on the front page of the New York section in today's WSJ. The article focuses on McMillan's case and singles it out as noteworthy compared to the thousands of other cases arising out of OWS.

Quote: "The trial drew renewed attention to the group, and Ms. McMillan's case became a cause celebre, propelled by activists who saw a chance to highlight what they saw as police repression of Occupy Wall Street. Some City Council members, among others, called for leniency. During Monday's hearing, [the prosecutor] said the proceedings 'weren't "a referendum on a large social cause or movement."'

I continue to think that all these NOTNEWSPAPER type objections are way, way off base. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and maybe rename. The person doesn't seem amazingly notable, but the event surely is. There's enough commentary on Google News to fill up a featured article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Trial of Cecily McMillan. Given the persistent coverage, there is clear notability for the event. Given that almost every section on the Occupy_Wall_Street page has its own main article, it seems appropriate to have a separate article for this event. I agree with Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) that the WP:NOTNEWS objections are off base. The key section states:

For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

This event and its coverage make it clear this is not "announcements, sports, or celebrities." Nor is a journalism focused WP:NOR objection appropriate. The coverage has been sustained, international, and will continue.--Theredproject (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not "routine news reporting", I concur with the arguments clearly stated above by Theredproject. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some more coverage of a court appearance on an unrelated(?) charge of trying to obstruct an OWS arrest and falsely claiming to be the suspect's lawyer. The article lightly discredits her argument that she was groped and lashed out in self-defense. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Occupy Wall Street – The subject is notable for one event (Occupy Wall Street, and her subsequent arrest), so the article should be redirected to the OWS article. Epicgenius (talk)
Delete or redirect. A crystal-clear case of WP:ROUTINE WP:ONEEVENT (yes, both). Conflicts with police officers are pretty much a routine content of political demonstrations, and I don't see how the event has any lasting significance – the article does not even try to assert it; yeah, there is some hand-waving around the case, but pretty much all the fuss is because of general media frenzy aruond Occupy Wall Street movement. Having read the article as a total outsider, all I could say is: meh. No such user (talk) 13:19, 30 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 00:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loona Luxx[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as has not won any awards but merely has numerous nominations. An internet search found no coverage to suggest she would pass WP:GNG. Her article on French Wikipedia has nothing which indicates notability.https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loona_Luxx Finnegas (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Both the article and WP:PORNBIO have remained largely the same since the last time you nominated this for deletion. In fact, minor improvements have been made to the article since then. Since nothing has degraded, I see no reason for the final decision to change. So, keep is my vote due to all of the reasons previously stated in the first nomination. Dismas|^(talk) 09:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. PORNBIO was changed since the first AfD discussion to exclude award nominations. At first glance, this article falls short of the revised guideline. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see now that I must have missed that change. My opinion remains unchanged though. Dismas|^(talk) 15:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's accurate analysis. The prior AFD turned entirely on the now-deprecated nomination criterion; with that rejected, there is no basis for retaining a BLP with negligible reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Hullaballoo Wolfowitz - Non notable person fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blps require better sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 25 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 17:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahae[edit]

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

No ascertain of notability beyond being rich and a photographer, which when coupled with the dubious nature of some of the citations makes me suspicious about the article, all the more so since it is a biography. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be better to just trim out the promotional stuff, and keep in the newsworthy parts? This guy is very deeply connected with the biggest ongoing news story in Korea. I think the number of articles about his role in the Sewol sinking speak more than adequately to his notability. Junganghansik (talk) 08:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep because of the reasons explained by Junganghansik, and what makes me suspicious is the sudden interest in deleting everything about this man and his suicide cult, erased today too. MaeseLeon (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a rich businessman turned photographer who has had his photos exhibited in some classy places, according to the sources paid by his sons to celebrate his 70-year birthday. I am not so sure subject would meet WP:ARTIST, but I could be wrong. What is very sure is that as a businessman with connections to the Sinking of the MV Sewol he has recently received abundant coverage in reliable sources, and I am fairly convinced he meets at least WP:BASIC. It would likely make more sense to move the article from his pseudonym to a transliteration of his birthname. Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's only the biggest story in Korea PeterDaley72 (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Ellif (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Keep - inevitable that the scale of the sinking incident will propel what are currently newspaper names into more reliable print sources as the dust settles. However expect this WP:BLP to be a magnet for IPs, socks, and a battleground between apologists for the church vs witch-hunters. Great. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The SPA editing, screendumps and history analysis included, has been mentioned by the media, e.g. Salvation sect mounts disinformation drive, as well as in Korean language news outlets, e.g. here, here, and here. I hope the crappy Google translation reading "Wikipedia is a tragedy regardless Yu Byeong-eon" is ... a crappy translation. Suggesting nom withdraw the nomination and close the discussion. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator, let me make one thing clear: I never withdraw a nomination I place unless I and I alone feel that it was done so in error. I don;t care if the entire community votes against me, I refuse to have anything withdrawn on grounds that I feel it to be unfair to all parties involved that a due process under a given policy or guideline was cut short for whatever reason the people deem to give in a circumstance. Accordingly, then, this is going to stay here until it either expires and is closed as it would be for any other afd, or until someone else shuts it down on SNOW grounds, which I am loathe to endorse but accept as a matter of due process — albeit with consequences. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is aleady renamed "Yu Byeong-on" and the Korean spelling "유병언" is the highest ranked story in Korean media. And Ahae is already just A link to the page. [검색결과 약 16,800,000개(about 16,800,000 result)] You can find the name straight in these weeks' articles from South Korea. --Carl Daniels (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I've tried my best to improve this article and would hate to see all that effort go to waste, I agree with TomStar81 that the subject probably lacks the notability to be included in the English language Wikipedia. If this were an article in Korean, I would vote to keep. But, as it is not, I vote for delete. TeamLFB (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)— TeamLFB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Notability is unquestionable, and it was before. And we don't vote. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sam's right, this is not, nor has it ever been, a vote. We are looking for consensus, which is obtained in a round table like discussion among editors — both veteran and new — as to how we should approach the issue. Consensus never involves a vote, it involves a speech and debate like approach whereupon the argument to achieve the most backing is agreed to be the consensus and is thus implemented with regards to the point being discussed (in this case, deletion). In this specific case, the consensus is that the article has notability under the existing guidelines and policies for a BLP related article, despite my argument that the articles lacks notability. In lew of this, it will likely remain here unless the closing admin picks up on something we've all missed and deletes the article on a point no one here has taken into consideration (like copyright infringement), and I'll note for the record that such a dramatic twist in these discussions is astronomically rare. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, thanks to Sam for the link to before, though it took me a few seconds to figure out I was actually supposed to read "Before commenting in a deletion discussion." Having done so, I found the link to WP policies and guidelines and, perusing the list, I see that WP:NTEMP is far more appropriate in this case than what I wrote before. Now obviously, I don't know what the future holds; but I believe it possible that this person could revert to being a low-profile individual after these events have passed. Not that I believe this to be likely, but it is certainly within in the realm of possibility. As such, I feel that the subject's notability is not to the degree of being unquestionable and this AfD discussion is entirely appropriate, if Wikipedia is indeed a "lagging indicator of notability." Also, while the article itself doesn't fall afoul of WP:LIBEL, I've noticed that a lot of the references cited in the article would fall short of US standards. It appears that the ROK has different standards for defamatory speech than what I am used to. I guess my concern is that this issue with the news coverage could later cause the article to skew towards failing WP:NOTSCANDAL. I suppose this concern of mine could be putting the cart before the horse; but as the AfD process (for the most part) runs its course in a set amount of time, I felt I should raise the issue now while discussion is still open. TeamLFB (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sam Sailor, the artist meets WP:ARTIST. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 09:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he may not be as well known outside of Korea, the man is public enemy #1 in Korea. ₪RicknAsia₪ 00:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any attempt to delete this article looks suspicious about motives behind it now. I agree with TeamLFB in that the AfD discussion itself is appropriate. However, we cannot predict the future, can we? Robobeg (talk) 12:42, 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. (non-admin closure) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Better Know[edit]

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

WP:TNT. Laun chba ller 08:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus at the last AFD to keep the article. It was shorter then, but better sourced; it was expanded in 2012 but the references were removed. WP:TNT is an essay for use "if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history)..." which isn't the situation here. Peter James (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I am withdrawing this nomination and reverting to a pre-vandalism state.--Laun chba ller 16:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good reason not to be heavy-handed with Twinkle.--Laun chba ller 19:14, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G7 (one author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prefix:User talk:Rukn950/May 2014[edit]

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

I myself have created this page for archive but by mistake wrong page was created. Rukn950 (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No need for an AfD. Just blank the page or put {{db-author}} on it to request Speedy deletion. I've done it for you. :-) --220 of ^Borg 07:58, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Revolutionary Socialist Party candidates in the Indian general election, 2014[edit]

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

Revolutionary Socialist Party (India) is a state level party. It had only fielded 6 candidates in the elections. Previously the list of AAP candidates was also deleted, though it had fielded large number of candidates.Skr15081997 (talk) 07:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. RSP is a recognized state party, with national presence. I would oppose using the AAP deletion argument here, the AAP deletion was done in a different context, with a lot of cyberwarriors trying to push an agenda to portray AAP as a contender for government. This article could possibly be renamed to "RSP in the Indian general election, 2014" or something similar, but I named it to be in line with other articles of parties contesting the election. The RSP definately attracted attention in the election, especially around the controversy of moving from LDF to UDF in Kerala. --Soman (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't see any notability in the list. Whatever little useful info; that is basically stats of wins/losses can be added in Revolutionary_Socialist_Party_(India)#Lok_Sabha_election_results. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- RSP gathered 1.6 million votes in the 2014 election, so to say that it's intervention in the 2014 election lacks notability becomes a bit odd. Also, the article could now be expanded with the results, which were not available when the article was created. --Soman (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats 0.3% and one person of the six fielded won a seat out of 543. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have many countries with a smaller population than 1.6 million. Notability is not only measured towards the Indian national polity. --Soman (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is always a comparative measure and what you compare it with is important. Above that, quantity of votes or quantity of candidates that won or even the quantity of candidates that stood up doesn't matter. You would have to convince us on how a list of these candidates (which actually is not even a list as of now) should be an independent article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the recording of parties' candidates is a valid encyclopaedic task, this particular article has several problems. For a start, it is misnmaed - it is not a list but an article. As a pure list - six names, in one electio - it's pointless and better merged as a list into Revolutionary Socialist Party (India). But, as it stands, it is not sufficiently important to warrant an article. I can see a place for an article Revolutionary Socialist Party election results or similar, covering the full history of the party and clearly linked as a branch from the main article - such pages exist for many other parties - but a page detailing just six candidates in one elction is too much. Emeraude (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely out of principle - this is not a list.--Laun chba ller 09:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article is now moved (no longer containing the word 'list' in the title). The article is expanded, and the electoral participation of a parliamentary party is clearly notable. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Emeraude article is well sourced enough, but a relatively minor party doesn't warrant an independent article any more than similar Libertarian candidates do. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 11:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, @User:Solarra, first of all, US and Indian politics differ. RSP is a party that has had national parliamentary representation for decades and participated in many state-level cabinets, thus the comparison with the U.S. Libertarian Party doesn't hold. In this particular election the party got a very weak result, compared its history, but it is not an irrelevant actor in Indian politics. And for what it's worth, we actually do have some articles on U.S. Liberatarian presidential campaigns. Wikipedia isn't paper and our key problem here isn't that it is flooded with well-sourced material from the global south. The 2014 Indian general election was the largest election in human history, it would be quite natural to have plenty of different articles about the role of the different parties in the fray. --Soman (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, @Soman: I understand the fundamental differences here, but they are still a minority party. That being said, the material in the article certainly warrants a place on Wikipedia, just not in its own article, but as part of a broad overview of the elections themselves. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 12:27, 31 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 Michael I of Romania. No real notability apart from her father. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Maria of Romania[edit]

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

Not notable, deposed monarchy cruft, contested prod.

This person is not and never has been a real princess, as she was born after Romania became a republic. The article content is mostly trivia. The general precedent is that we do not treat alleged princesses in deposed royal families as inherently notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chantal, Princess of Hanover and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monika Princess of Hanover. PatGallacher (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - actually, as I posted on the nominator's page, the past outcomes for these cases are not easy to categorize, and I am grateful that this nomination will give the community a chance to discuss the matter more fully. About five years ago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Adelgunde of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen ended in "no consensus". I'd like to get a new consensus to merge such articles to their parent's article, whomever is the heir apparent or the one pretender to the throne who is most recongnized by reliable sources. A deletion would remove blue links and some information valuable to our readership. Keeping such trivia clutters our files and risks BLP violations and fights of competing pretenders and favourites (No, Princess Lucinda, Countess of Rhedy is the fourth in line to the Duchy of Grand Fenwick and her cousin Prince Oscar, Duke of Oldenburg, is fifth in line to the throne!!!). As HRH Jimbo, Prince of Wales, has stated, "There is usefulness in having a compete set of entries on hereditary peers, even if some peers are less prominent or noteworthy than others, even when the article must of necessity remain something of a stub. Considering these articles in isolation, i.e. not noting that they are part of a wider series, is mistaken...." (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gordon, 7th Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair). Jimbo was referring to peers of Great Britain, not disposed monarchs, but I think an analogy is appropriate. I am not advocating keeping such stubs, however. A merger is a nice compromise in the cases of hereditary ("fake") princelings; this AfD would make an excellent precedent, every lawyer's dream of an easy case, so to do. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo speaketh in agreement. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "Clutters our files" means here. (We have over 660,000 BLPs so a few dozen for deposed royals won't make much difference.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC).

That is a classic example of an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, see WP:NOHARM. Also, there is more here than a few dozen articles of doubtful notability, there is a degree of monarchist bias by treating members of deposed royal families as having the same notability as if they had not been deposed. PatGallacher (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I think this person might have received some coverage from reliable sources [18]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rename if necessary Firstly everyone is a real princess (or prince - or frog), that is a given. Secondly there appears to be Wikipedia notability. Thirdly there is the option to merge to a sensible target. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC).
Merge per WP:NOTINHERITED: her only claim to notability appears to be that she's the youngest daughter of a deposed monarch. --Carnildo (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to merge here, article had virtually no meaningful sourced content anyway. Obviously non-notable (the only thing that's sourced about her is that "Order" she got recently, which isn't a "national honour" as the article presented it, but a private family-internal matter. Article says nothing about her having ever done anything in particular, let alone anything that would make her notable. Biographic trivia content was entirely unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I am not strongly opposed to this being reduced to a redirect to her father, ex-king Michael of Romania. However in the previous cases listed by Bearia I think there was a fairly consistent outcome, we do treat princesses etc. in actually reigning royal families as notable, but supposed princesses in deposed royal families are not notable. The Hohenzollern Princess Maria mentioned was a slightly contentious borderline case, but with her the articles defenders were arguing that there were some factors which made her slightly more notable than most deposed monarchy cruft. PatGallacher (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see the arguments for deleting, but I think there is level of notability.--Codrin.B (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Please, especially if you vote keep, provide an extensive argumentation. So far there are more keep votes but the delete argumentation is stronger.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ... as per which pieces of significant, detailed and non-trivial biographical coverage, in which multiple reliable sources exactly? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Many of the pages here on historical nobility and royalty include a Family or Marriages and Children section which is used to comprehensively list the children of the noble or royal individual. Those who are notable in their own right get their pages linked there, others are just a name in a list. I see no reason why this should be any different. The limited data about this individual that I see on the page could easily be included in her parent's page. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no chance at passing WP:BIO with the sources now cited in the article, which amount to a passing mention in a local American newspaper and nothing else recognizable as a reliable source. Inherent notability as an office-holder is out of the question, because the office attributed to her does not exist, given that Romania is no longer a monarchy. Sandstein 19:06, 30 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert and Buckley[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, a few mentions in local press and blogs only. Theroadislong (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article on company, article on founder and company, article on one of founders and the company, introduction of company and interview with founder Lots of coverage. Keep Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said "local" coverage, hardly mainstream press.Theroadislong (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said "a few mentions in local press and blogs only." In fact, there are many articles entirely about the company in several media sources. Article is well referenced and the subject is clearly notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you list them or add them? Theroadislong (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I listed several and there are many already in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ludlow advertiser, Bath Chronicle and Canterbury Times are local newspapers are you saying they count as reliable sources?Theroadislong (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP states "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." Theroadislong (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's discussion about this "local/regional" divide here. If all the coverage was a single small paper then deletion would definitely seem sensible, but I'm inclined to say that the coverage from quite a few (admittedly small) outfits suggests the company is just about notable for Wikipedia. (NB: I haven't extensively reviewed the criteria of notability.) -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 16:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 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) 03:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. meets WP:GNG. Peter James (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm inclined to agree with Peter James. I believe it meets WP:GNG... just barely. Nickmalik (talk) 20:27, 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 redirect to Rough Trade (band). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons (Rough Trade album)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG by article's own admission. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a very brief AllMusic review[19]. And possibly there are sources in 1980s Canadian print music magazines. But right now, no evidence of notability. It's not even listed on Weapon (disambiguation). Show me some in-depth reviews, and we can reconsider. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Rough Trade are certainly a notable band, and I find it difficult to believe that there aren't printed reviews and the like out there, which aren't available on the Internet due to the time period they would have come out. Wouldn't oppose a merge to a Rough Trade discography article though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to the article, but it's clearly not enough by itself. I searched the ProQuest databases for both the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail, and while I found plenty of articles about the band which made passing mention of this album itself, I found almost no coverage whatsoever of the album in its own right (unless you count its appearance in some advertisements for record stores, which I don't.) The fact that a band is notable does not mean that every album they recorded automatically needs to have its own independent article (notability is not inherited and all of that), and both of the albums that came after this one have never actually had articles at all — so while I agree that it could be a valid article topic in principle if the sources are there, there's not much value in keeping it in a poorly-referenced state just because better referencing might eventually be possible. Redirect to Rough Trade (band); no prejudice against future recreation if somebody can actually locate solid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 26 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 00:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

God (Spawn)[edit]

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

Alongside the likes of Freak Force this article should be deleted it has no reliable third person sources to demonstrate its notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 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, czar ♔ 15:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, no claim to notability, and written entirely from an in-universe perspective. While I have no particularly strong objection a redirect, "God (Spawn)" seem at best a highly unlikely search term. To begin with, "God" is a very generic name, and so even if someone were to be looking for an article on the character, they probably wouldn't expect to find anything under that term. Also, the article lists both Spawn #158 and 163 under "first appearance", which suggests to me that those are the character's only two appearances, so the odds of anyone looking him up are small anyway.--NukeofEarl (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with NukeofEarl above. This is a very unlikely search term. If there were any out-of-universe information, it could be merged to an appropriate "cultural depictions" articles, but there really isn't anything to merge. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Pepeng (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Creating a disambiguation article with two choices? Is it acceptable? According to this guideline that:

"If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but neither one is the primary topic, or if both topics are obscure, then it is appropriate to have a disambiguation page at the base name."
"If a disambiguation page is needed, but one of the other topics is of particular interest, then it may be appropriate to link to it explicitly as well as linking to the disambiguation page."
"If a disambiguation page does not appear to be needed because there are only two topics for the ambiguous title and one of them is the primary topic, but there could reasonably be other topics ambiguous with the title on Wikipedia now or in the future"

You may refer the provided link above. Also, "Pepeng" cannot be used by PAGASA because of the casualty of the 2009 Typhoon Pepeng, so Typhoon Pepeng is a primary topic. An "Redirect" template must be used for it.

Please refer to my related request to delete Typhoon Parma (disambiguation). j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 11:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and use a hatnote to second article on the primary, per WP:TWODABS. Boleyn (talk) 13:07, 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, czar ♔ 05:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: eligible for speedy G6. PamD 13:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS. A disambiguation page is merely a navigational device, one that is not needed where this navigation can be provided in a hatnote. bd2412 T 13:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I support the deletion of this page per the reasons given above. I also have to note though that there are several more disambiguation pages, like this where there are currently only two possible options for example Tropical Storm Jangmi where the name is likely to be reused within a few years. I have also wondered for a few years why we cant just use the disambiguation page Amanda rather than Tropical Storm Amanda for example.Jason Rees (talk) 23:55, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TheSquareFoot[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. All sources are either primary sources or press-releases, hence do not help to establish notability of the subject. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Not to mention-the corp has an "amazing" 7 employees! Wgolf (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMost of the references are not primary sources. TechCrunch, VentureBeat, Houston Chronicle, are all press organizations covering the company. Given the tech boom and insane amount of fundings, in NYC, I think these companies should be covered and documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.239.168 (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:28, 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, czar ♔ 05:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approve There is plenty of coverage of this company via independent relaiable sources. If the Houston Chronicle is not reliable and independent, what is? 03:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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. Without prejudice to articles for other parts of the company. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BH North America[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Unreferenced (except for the company website) since 2009, when it was created by an SPA; no significant editing since then. In a search I could find nothing significant about this company, or its other name BH Fitness, or its parent company BH Group. Tagged for the past five years for references, notability, and orphan status. I'm surprised this article lasted so long. MelanieN (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found tons of independent reviews of BH bikes, which is a part of this conglomerate, but oddly not mentioned in the article. Here is a sampling of the industry news I found: [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], [[23]]. It seems like you could make the argument for the bike part of the company to be notable, but I've struck out finding any mentions of the corporation as a whole. Not sure what to do with that information, if anything. EBstrunk18 (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your research. The references suggest that the bikes are made by a Spanish branch of the company; this article is about the North American branch. Possibly an article could be written about the BH Group as a whole, but this article isn't it - and, like you, I couldn't find any information giving an overview of the company. If we had that info we could use it to expand and rename this article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN! I apologize for not being more precise. I completely agree and have started trying to find resources for the Beistegui Hermanos article. EBstrunk18 (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking coverage, without prejudice to an article being written about a different part of the company. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 05:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and as Stuartyeates suggests, without prejudice to other parts of the company. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:59, 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 No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vellakkuppayam[edit]

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

Too soon? seems like it is not yet started filming, none of the cast or crew even have a page on here. Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It started Filming at Wynad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeertk (talk • contribs) 06:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable for building articles on non-English films. Please take a gander at WP:INDAFD. And in expanding and building an encyclopedia, it is to be expected that not all Malayalam film stars will have articles in the English Wikipedia. See WP:DELREASON. That lack is a valid reason to build new articles, not delete existing ones because those other topics have not yer been included. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Use WP:INDAFD

Comment: I will await input from Wikipedians able to read the Malayalam-language sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-well yes that is true-but from what I could tell it didn't look like anything was that much known about it-and I really hope we can get some input from there. Wgolf (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find a decent online Malayalam > English translator. Folks with access to hard-copy Malayalam news sources or translation skills for what's online would be a boon. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah when it comes to translating languages and then translating them back to English-they almost seem better for comical purposes then any reliable purposes. Wgolf (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:59, 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 No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valerian Shalikashvili[edit]

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

Looks like he might of been successful in live theater in the early 20th century-yet I can find very few sources about him. Maybe a merge or a userfy if not deleted. Wgolf (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books for "Валериан Шаликашвили": [24]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Ha thanks, I guess since I was only searching in English has something to do with it. Maybe a userfy would be nice. Wgolf (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an except from the Encyclopedia of Theatre: [25]. And this looks like a copy of the whole article from the book: [26]. If he's famous enough to be included, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Well I don't know Russian, but thank you! Wgolf (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about Georgian? :) I have found him on the Georgian Wikipedia and connected through Wikidata: "ვალერიან შალიკაშვილი". --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only speak English ;) so yeah any help you can get be great. Wgolf (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:59, 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 delete. If and when an article for DeWitt L. Freeman is created and someone wants to merge part of this page into it, it could be undeleted at that point. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew C. Freeman[edit]

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

While the death of youth in war is tragic, it is especially tragic to loved ones. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial. The subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG. The only coverage about him is related to his death. EricSerge (talk) 02:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator has said it all. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Repurpose- To DeWitt L. Freeman, notable USN rear admiral, [27] [28], where CPT Freeman would deserve brief mention. Dru of Id (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is possible that the Matthew Freeman Project (mentioned under Legacy) could be notable, but the subject himself is not. Nickmalik (talk) 20:35, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Joseph Houston[edit]

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

While the death of anyone is obviously tragic to loved ones, Wikipedia is not a memorial. The subject of this article does not meet WP:GNG. The only coverage about him is related to his untimely death. EricSerge (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. EricSerge (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I hope we don't have to Afd the other 31 people discussed in In the Shadow of Greatness (see the next AfD above). Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nickmalik (talk) 20:38, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Brewer[edit]

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

This election candidate lacks notability. It is sourced either to local publications or to his own campaign website and is about a guy running for election who's two claims to fame, firstly that he was a Assistant United States Attorney back in the 1980's and helped to prosecute a spy and secondly married to retired former federal judge. The article is promotional in nature, reading like a campaign resume written by SPA to aid this person's election. LGA _talk^edits 01:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a local attorney who is running for local office. No notability there. When he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney he prosecuted some notable defendants; however, he rates barely a mention in the coverage of the trials. No notability there. And being the spouse of a judge does not make a person notable - not even enough for a redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Non-notable.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While he might certainly qualify for an article if he wins the election (I don't actually think we automatically extend a presumption of notability to every individual county DA in the United States, but San Diego is a major media market whose DA would garner substantial reliable source coverage), per WP:POLITICIAN a person is not automatically entitled to an article on Wikipedia just for running in an election he hasn't won yet. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:12, 27 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. WP:SNOW j⚛e decker ^talk 15:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mary P. Koss[edit]

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

New article that although likely a good faith article, it may have been intended to promote feminism. Though it tried to be neutral, it seems to have inappropriate external links. The article has few sources and sourced material, but its main claims to notability are not one of them. This article is definitely biased and I don't really think it meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Mr. Guye (talk) 00:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:PROF. We deal with NPOV problems by editing. I see no particular promotional intent--it does need the removal of a few adjectives and some duplication (I did a start at this) , and might need a check for copyvio also. But if it isn;t copyvio, I see no basis for bringing it here. I'll fix any faculty article for someone who clearly meets WP:PROF that's called to my attention and needs justy a quick routine adjustment to our style--just ask me. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regent's Professor is "the highest of faculty ranks" at Arizona [29] and clearly passes WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly exceeds the Average Professor Test WP:PROF and has had an impact on society outside of academics. The article can be improved through editing. Nickmalik (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a GS h-index of 70! What does the nominator think he is doing? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It needs more sources, but this is a valid biography of a notable academic. The original article alternated between attacking and praising the subject in some bizarre attempt at NPOV, but it's starting to look better now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Misguided nomination. Please withdraw. --Randykitty (talk) 12:54, 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 01:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live Session (Alessi's Ark)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 13:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 12. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 115 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found to establish that this release might satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 06:05, 27 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 no consensus. No prejudice against a renomination which includes all the years. Per Bearcat, it would only make sense to keep all or redirect all, but his suggestion came too late in this discussion to produce a consensus either way. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International Queen 2012[edit]

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

Non-notable running of event. No independent refs. Googling finds no independent refs with in depth coverage. Merge and redirect to Miss International Queen possible to avoid 404'ing links. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 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 02:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Mabalu (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this isn't an isolated case; there's already a separate article about every individual year's pageant from 2004 all the way to 2014 (the sole exception being 2008, when no contest was held), and every one of them has the same sourcing problem as this one, namely that they rely exclusively on the organization's own website and Facebook page, and cite not a whit of non-primary source coverage at all. I'm certainly not opposed redirection in principle, but do not agree that this one should be treated differently than any of the others. Miss International Queen 2004, Miss International Queen 2005, Miss International Queen 2006, Miss International Queen 2007, Miss International Queen 2009, Miss International Queen 2010, Miss International Queen 2011, Miss International Queen 2012, Miss International Queen 2013 and Miss International Queen 2014 are all subject to the same notability and sourcing problems, and thus all need to be treated the same way. Either we keep them all or we redirect them all — redirecting this one in isolation, while leaving all of the other ten in place, is not an option. Given the lack of reliable sourcing I do prefer redirection, but it's all or none and not any number in between. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 27 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 17:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exo: The Lost Planet[edit]

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

Nothing in the way of sourcing to indicate this is notable one way or another and deserves an article. Please see WP:NCONCERT. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 7 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 02:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Received coverage from multiple observers. OccultZone (Talk) 06:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as OccultZone says. —SMALL JIM 11:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, adequate sourcing (some English sources, but mostly Korean) to be notable enough for a concert. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:39, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erakart[edit]

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

Not notable. Lack of sources on a quick search online. Created by a conflict of interest user who is now blocked. JUST not quite promotional enough to make a speedy appropriate, and makes a (slightly weak) claim to significance, hence bringing to discussion. Mabalu (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable org. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete - Does not meet notability requirements for a company. No reliable third party sources WP:CORP Nickmalik (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:35, 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 redirect to X-Faktor#Season 5 (2014). (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X-Faktor (series 5)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL recreate after the show actually airs. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to X-Faktor#Season 5 (2014), which has the exact same information for this way-too-soon article. (They don't even have judges yet.) — Wylie pedia 15:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above; it seems too soon for a standalone article at this time. Gongshow talk 08:17, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of place names in Vermont[edit]

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

The article is a list of places is Vermont taken from here. Many of them appear to be small areas of towns with no obvious notability and of the dozen or so that I checked, none had their own articles. Any larger places (town, cities) are included in List of cities in Vermont or List of towns in Vermont, making this list redundant. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessarily duplicative. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:03, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Gonzáles[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As runner-up at the 2005 U.S. amateur championships, I believe he meets WP:NBOX. I added a source for this claim to the article. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Technically meets WP:NBOX, but barely.Jakejr (talk) 22:27, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roorkee College of Engineering[edit]

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

This article seems to be more of an promotional or advertisement. Some contents in the article such as gallery is violating terms of wikipedia D Mi^™ 19:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Institute of higher education, with proven physical existence. Meets WP:NSCHOOL.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The college is reputed and well known. The not so necessary gallery content should be removed.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The promotional material should be removed but sources appear sufficient to meet notability. Nickmalik (talk) 21:02, 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 speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 00:48, 14 May 2014 Alexf (talk | contribs) deleted page Pozzintheazz (G3: Vandalism) czar ♔ 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pozzintheazz[edit]

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

Vandalism Tatafornowalligator (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:08, 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 Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom does not put forth an argument for deletion and there are no other !votes for deletion. I read what you're looking for (not deletion), but AfD is for deletion discussions only. Do try another venue. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine[edit]

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

This subject has repeatedly been redirected to Cuisine of Hawaii. I would like to get community input on whether it should exist as a stand-alone articleand any other ideas for how best to handle the subject and subject matter. Thank you for your kind consideration and input. Please allow this discussion to run its course so that we can garner input from as wide a slice of the community as possible. Thanks! Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. Wrong venue. Article is actually titled User:Candleabracadabra/Native Hawaiian cuisine, and now exists as a redirect created by a move from user to main space. User can request deletion by tagging it as a {{db-u1}}. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. There is confusion because articles were moved around, but no one intends to delete the redirect from User:Candelabracadabra's personal pages. The intended deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native cuisine of Hawaii. This discussion of deletion of a redirect should simply be closed. If Candleabracadabra wants it deleted they can simply request it using {{db}}. --do ncr am 00:21, 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 Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom does not put forth an argument for deletion and there are no other calls for deletion (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beheshtabad, Semnan[edit]

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

Reason S (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No rationale for deletion given. Settlements are considered notable per editor consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:01, 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.