Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 May	22 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 speedy delete. Deleted as a blatant hoax per WP:CSD#G3 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths on its Way[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an upcoming film. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:NFF. - Mr X 23:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 23:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even verify a single fact made in the article. Maybe this is an amateur film production? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: note the same editor's Night of the Demons (2014 Flim). PamD 10:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I've tagged both articles as a hoax. I'm a huge NotD fan and I've heard nothing about a new sequel apart from the After Party movie, which is by all accounts in development hell due to a lack of funding. It's not quite dead, but it's not really moving that much either. I can't find anything about this and it looks to be a fairly blatant hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Video DownloadHelper[edit]

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

No notability as far as I can see. Gaba ^(talk) 22:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's got extensive coverage in reliable sources: Best Firefox Extensions from PC Magazine, profile from Business Insider, review from PC World, review from TechRadar, review from CNET, and a French review from Clubic, and a German review from Chip.de. My French and German are not very good, but they look reliable. There's a bit more coverage from PC World and other computing websites, including various top ten lists and such. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it looks like the TechRadar content is licensed from Chip.de. I should have looked more closely at that. Anyway, I added a reception section. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since i am the original author of this extension, i don't feel like i am the best person to advocate for keeping this article online, but here are some data about this Add-on (Mozilla):
- it has been for 6 years in the top 2 most popular Firefox addons
- as of today, it has 6,322,246 daily users (average over the last 7 days), over twice more than the third most popular (Firebug (software) with 2,821,688 users)
- the total number of installations to date is 168,218,636, with 1,755,411 installs in the last 30 days
- a Google search for "Video DownloadHelper" (with the double quotes) returns over 1 million results
- YouTube lists over 10 000 tutorial videos about how to install or use DownloadHelper
- the Wikipedia List of Firefox extensions page lists 40 add-ons. If Video DownloadHelper is to be removed from Wikipedia for notability reasons, what about the other 38 that are less used ? Migut (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes the notability threshold with widespread coverage in reliable sources Philg88 ^♦talk 09:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 04:01, 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. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boeing customer codes[edit]

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

A previous AfD for this page focused on the fact that it was then unreferenced. That was addressed, and the article was kept. But the topic itself fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as there's no indication of notability to what essentially amounts to trivia or business codes. We have one source, what appears to be one book's appendix. Can you imagine this being covered in another encyclopedia? I can't. BDD (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an encyclopedic topic. Pburka (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure in what way this list article lacks discrimination. If anything it is highly discriminating. It doesn't seem to come under any of the four categories in WP:INDISCRIMINATE and, if these categories are meant as examplars, it doesn't seem to suffer the ills that these categories are supposed to lead us into. If I was to want to take a pot shot I would suggest WP:NOTDIRECTORY, in particular "an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings". Perhaps that can wait until the next AFD. Now, as it happens, I'm simply not interested in this topic but I can see why it is helpful encyclopedically. The Malasia Airways aircraft that vanished was a Boeing 777-2H6ER and I now can tell from the H6 that it was originally sold to this airline. That may be just what I was wanting to know. If this is not included in other encyclopedias, that would seem to strengthen the case here, not weaken it. As for it not being an encyclopedic topic, well, I think it is encyclopedic. I think a case could well be made for removing from the list airlines that do not have articles and codes that do not have references. Thincat (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This information is actually of importance to hobbyists / planespotters who are interested in the heritage of a given airliner. As the article says, these customer codes are assigned by Boeing according to the original customer. Each airline used to make numerous "customized" configuration choices when they ordered a new airliner. (This happens less now than in the past.) Boeing's unique codes allowed anyone to understand which configuration applied for a given airliner. i found this site tonight because I wanted to see who originally flew the Google 767. This is a 767-238, which means its a 767-200 originally sold to Qantas. This is likely to be seen as useless trivia to most, but I was interested in finding out and was disappointed to see that someone wanted to delete this page. If it is redundant within Wikipedia, then that is another story. My two cents. Pilotneil2 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotneil2 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I considered merging to the articles on the different planes, because this article describes variants on the different models, which are already partly covered in e.g. Boeing 777#Variants, and it's usual to include some description of variants of vehicles, planes, etc, in their articles. But a number of the codes seem to refer to multiple planes. I still wouldn't necessarily oppose merging if it can be done neatly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Thincat and Pilotneil. These is no 'natural' home elsewhere on WP for this information, so a merge is not an option. These are not model codes, a 767-200 is a 767-200. But a 767-238 delivered to Qantas is not the same as a 767-277 delivered to Australian airline Ansett, the customer code specification may include such things as number and manufacturer of passenger seats; avionics fitment; and number, position and layout of galleys; and Ansett's five 767-277s were the only 767s with flight engineer stations. There are many Wikipedia articles which mention specific codes, this list can only be helpful for lay readers of these articles. YSSYguy (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't see how it fails Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. --JetBlast (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful list for readers for example to understand codes that appear in wider press coverage of accidents and incidents. MilborneOne (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ali Fazal (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Boeing has assigned unique customer codes to each plane (excluding the Dreamliners) for every 7x7 built, this helps to track the specific plane in accidents and incidents. This is in addition to reasons posted as per Thincat and Pilotneil. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AFAIK, Boeing was unique in assigning these customer codes. The list explains why BOAC Flight 712 was a 707-465, not a 707-436. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep I would consider this unencyclopdic shite but yet it's somewhat interesting, I would say tho improve sources!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:26, 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 speedy delete WP:G12, unambiguous copyright infringement of EvidenceBasedBirth.com. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Failure to Progress[edit]

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

Clearly won't become an article. JustBerry (talk) 21:36, 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} 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Monsters Ate My Condo[edit]

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

This is about a non notable game. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the fact that it relies on one (unreliable) source and is written in a slightly promotional style. G S Palmer (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think what keeps me coming back to AfD are these little gems that you look at and say, "What the fuck is this shit" and start penning the deletion argument in your head... until you hit the search. This game has a whole lot of coverage that undeniably meets the GNG:

Moral of the story? Don't judge an AfD by its current sourcing. czar ♔ 19:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@G S Palmer and Vanjagenije, did you see the new sources? czar ♔ 04:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Czar. The game was reviewed by TouchArcade, 148apps, GameZebo, and Pocket Gamer, and there are many news articles covering the game. Meets the WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Czar. Jimqode (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I edited the article to reflect NPOV and to include a few of Czar's sources. Andrew³²⁷ 03:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Asset Management Inc.[edit]

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

Seems like a promotional article. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by a WP:SPA account and as the nominator says, consists of material more suited to the company's own site where they are at liberty to promote their fund range. Searches turn up routine fund announcements but I can see nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 05:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've continued to edit the page to increase neutrality - anything further I can do to improve it? *ManonTR (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources cited in article are mostly press releases and self-reported financial information. Company still does not meet notability requirements. Andrew³²⁷ 04:16, 29 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 under criterion G11 as admitted blatant self-promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Akporaro[edit]

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

No verifiable indication that a politician of this name is active in Nigeria. Sources provided do not mention Akporaro, and no sources can be found that do. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is obviously a case of WP:Autobiography. There are no reliable sources for this person, so he fails WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the following comment, made at Talk:Otimenyi Adams by BlackBoxRecorder (talk · contribs) (the author of the article presently under discussion) is relevant:

I (BlackBoxRecorder[ Samuel Akporaro]) am very desperate for Political Fame and Power now that I am fatherless and I will do anything to get it just to end the insult and mockery me and my mum are receiving and that is why I may be constituting nuisance on the Wiki Project.

Note: this comment, made at this version of the talk page, is likely to be deleted soon as the page in question is tagged for speedy deletion.

Based on BlackBoxRecorder's comment, I move for speedy deletion of this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:35, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2011 (Arctic Monkeys EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:44, 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 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 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 14:58, 21 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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew³²⁷ 05:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chengdu UFO incident[edit]

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

WP:NFRINGE applies here and, unfortunately, I think this article clearly fails. The one mainstream sources is an instance from a "News of the Weird"-type article in the Chinese sensationalist press. Simply not notable enough for an article because independent sources commenting on this "incident" are not forthcoming. jps (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Someone found a box and they aren't sure what it is. Bhny (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just when I think ufology can't get any more untrustworthy, up bubbles this bit of fakelore, oft repeated on fringe forums and conspiracy sites, but ultimately untraceable to any reliable source. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments above. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. No coverage in reliable sources, only in blogs and UFO fansites Philg88 ^♦talk 14:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I'll take care of it in new page for less reliable sightings to List of minor UFO sightings, to restore when ready. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:14, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Lack of reliable sources. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable fringe event. Andrew³²⁷ 06:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeh Incident[edit]

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

WP:NFRINGE applies here and, unfortunately, I think this article clearly fails. The one mainstream sources is an instance from a "News of the Weird"-type article in the Daily Telegraph. Simply not notable enough for an article because independent sources commenting on this "incident" are not forthcoming. jps (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The sources are a photo from the weird section of a newspaper and a fringe site which has just the same photo and some speculation. Neither's a reliable source and a search turns up nothing better.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG as non-notable fringe incident. Chinese Wikipedia article has no additional sources (Telegraph article only per the English version). A search in Chinese turns up nothing of use as a reliable source. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: source fail. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I'll take care of it in new page for less reliable sightings to List of minor UFO sightings, to restore when ready. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There already is a List of reported UFO sightings which includes this; breaking out the 'less reliable' sightings into a new list makes little sense: reliability is pretty subjective and you can argue they're all unreliable in that few people would say they constitute evidence of the existence of UFOs.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's more that the cultural impact of the sighting is less than that of other, more notable, UFO 'sightings'. Alas I cannot find anything that would allow for this to be included in such a list. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This pains me to my very core Delete - notable in fringe circles but definitely does not meet WP notability. I can't find any non-fringe sources to back up any claims, nor anything to bolster the article. I would be fine with userfication though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe and non-notable. Andrew³²⁷ 06:09, 29 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. Consensus here is clear for article retention. Regarding a potential page move, page split, etc., discussion of such can continue on the article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Roadways[edit]

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

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

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

NOMINATE FOR DELETION This article is not about the product or concept. This article amounts to nothing more than an extended free advert for Solar Roadways Inc. The article contains only unsourced marketing claims along with links to a crowd-funding site and the company's website. The company is non-notable. GornDD (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC) — GornDD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I think that it should not be deleted. There does need to be clarity on whether the article refers to the solar roadways, the company and their specific design, or to solar roadways in general, and the various forms they take. Some of these are touched on in the following document: Energy Saving Design and Materials in Road Transport — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyltong (talk • contribs) 12:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the external link to the company's crowd-funding page as it served no article-related purpose other that to raise funds for the private company. GornDD (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started improving the article by removing content related to the private company [1]. I think that this article can be saved. If it is kept, it should be moved to Solar roadways or Solar roads. — goethean 19:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per goethean. I think this can be rewritten as a more general article on the various smart highway (that is the name I would use for the article) proposals under consideration - including Solar Roadways Inc in one section. filceolaire (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is, per nom - as it stands it is "nothing more than an extended free advert for Solar Roadways Inc." On the other hand, if filceolaire and/or others go ahead and create a new smart highway article, then some material may be salvaged from this and merged into that. --Nigelj (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Move to Solar roads ~~I concur fully with the nominator's reasoning and with User:Nigelj's reasoning.~~ If the article survives this AfD, ~~however,~~ move the article to Solar roads. Make it about the concept, not the company. Safiel (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google search comes up with plenty of RS, but the article will need to maintain NPOV and not serve as an ad for the one company. PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stand by my original nom to Delete this particular article as it is primarily an advert for Solar Roadways Inc. I have no opposition to the article being rewritten and moved to Solar roadways or Solar roads, or possibly being included as a proposed road type in an article on smart roads. However, after a thorough Google search, I was only able to find articles all eventually leading back to one single company making unsourced marketing claims for the purpose of seeking funds to move past the prototype stage. As such, the technology itself seems nothing more than a non-notable panacea - applied phlebotinum, if you will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GornDD (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting. If there's nothing really going on in the real world, apart from this one small company spreading hype to raise funds, there's not much more to do. --Nigelj (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my comment on the article talk page I listed 4 other topics that could be included, with Solar Roadways Inc., in a smart roads article. I'm sure there are more but that was all I found in 10 minutes. I agree that only Solar Roadways seems to be proposing using roads for solar power generation. The others have other approaches. filceolaire (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per user:Nigelj. No prejudice on creating smart roads. Beagel (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per goethean & filceolaire. → Aethralis 20:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least move - at least some people are using this article to justify a circular argument that this "technology" is valid and legitimate despite there being no evidence of such (it's on Wikipedia therefore it's real). (I can cite myself as evidence of this, having been linked here by someone trying to prove this story is true, rather than commercial propaganda ;)) --N7n (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the company's claim to have received a $750,000 grant from the Federal Highwy Administration is true, that might make them notable, but I don't see any third party corroboration of that. Also, regardless of the decision to keep or delete, I think the current redirct of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_road to this page is not reasonable. The concept has been in fiction for 50+ years and there are already existing implementations that pre-date this particular company. For example: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/OIPP/pages/inn_solarhighway.aspx It makes no sense to redirect a thing that's been around for a while to this particular organization. 68.228.89.42 (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am new to this, but I found the SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) link to their grant awards (http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/355952). I will add it to the article. Duronx (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is no consensus to delete but if you think there is then could the current article be moved to the WP:draft namespace where we can work on rewriting it? filceolaire (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of reliable sources in quick google search. Wholesomegood (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update I added some references to this article from both CNet and the Washington Post. News.[2] Wholesomegood (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The CNet article you cited is basically nothing more than a puff piece which encourages people to donate to the company's crowd-funding page and only cites Solar Roadways Inc's company website. So, now what we basically have is a free advert (WP) that cites another free advert (CNet), which is really just a fundraising ad. All of the other sections in the WP article remain unsourced marketing claims that should be removed unless independent sources can be cited. While the FHA grants and awards and nominations from GE, the World Technology Award, Google and the IEEE Ace Awards, etc... might make the company notable (I will leave that to consensus to decide), what we are left with is really more appropriately mentioned in a section of a general article on smart roads. The vast majority of the Google results I researched all ultimately refer back to the company's website, or cite other sources which only cite the company's website. It's basically a walled-garden of sources all leading back to a single source - Solar Roadways Inc. GornDD (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wired magazine has an article about it [3] as do others. It easily passes WP:GNG. Any problems with the article should be discussed on its talk page and dealt with through normal editing practices. Dream Focus 11:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately, the Wired article you mention, like the CNet article above, cites no other sources besides Solar Roadways Inc itself (and, once again refers to the company's crowd-funding page). WP:GNG usually requires reliable secondary sources, meaning original sources other than the company itself. CNet, Wired, and other publications have thus far not cited any sources (secondary or otherwise) other than the original source - Solar Roadways Inc - which has a clear COI when it comes to the material. They are understandably trying to raise funds to move beyond a prototype. But this WP article, as well as the other articles cited are nothing more than an advert for Solar Roadways Inc. Once they move beyond a prototype and actually start selling a RW product, presumably sources other than themselves will arise. But, as it stands, all source branches trace back to one company trying to promote a product and raise funds. GornDD (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are a new user with no edits except about this article you are trying to destroy. [4] I have been on Wikipedia for over seven years now, with tens of thousands of edits to my name. I know how the WP:GNG works, and this clearly meets the requirements. Dream Focus 04:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've "been on Wikipedia for over seven years" and your first response when someone has a differing opinion than you is to bash the noob? Not, "The guidelines say this..."? Instead you go with, "You're a noob, get lost..."? Congrats, you set set a great example and really encourage new editors! Were ALL of those "tens of thousands of edits" writing free adverts with unsourced marketing claims for companies seeking crowd-funding as well? GornDD (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You tried correcting me as though I didn't know, and I pointed out it is you who is clueless. Go read WP:NOTABILITY if you don't understand how things. Wired magazine and others are what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. If they cover something then it makes it notable under the general notability guidelines. If they state something as a fact, then we can reference that information to them. Dream Focus 23:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to "correct" you, I was just offering a different opinion than yours. The trouble with all the media coverage, is that virtually all of them say "Solar Roadways says..." or "Solar Roadways claims..." without citing any secondary sources. Just because I announce that I own a company that will be making phlebotinum, and a bunch of media sites write articles saying, "GornDD has a plan to make phlebotinum and he needs funds" doesn't suddenly make phlebotinum (or me) notable. There might be an argument that the *media coverage* of my claim is notable, but I don't see how an announcement of a future product that doesn't even exist yet is notable. None of those sources say something is a fact. They all say "Solar Roadways says it's a fact." GornDD (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs rewritten, to focus more on the concept, rather than the company, right now, maybe. Though, if it takes off like everyone hopes, we will need a separate page for the company eventually.--VikÞor | Talk 15:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the article, as written, seems to serve primarily as an advert for the company that produces the prototype. Nevertheless, I believe that the idea is important enough that its deletion would be socially irresponsible. The article does need to be re-written however, to conform to Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, and perhaps with an eye towards a critical examination - by somebody who's qualified - of the claims of potential total power generation. ScouterMick (talk) 04:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has been mentioned on dozens of news websites and has two contracts with the US federal government. As with nearly any page, it could use additional work. MatthewM (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am curious to know what other source, besides the company in question, could be available to comment on the performance of any un-released prototype technology? Any third party testing/certification group would not have access to the device yet. I do believe someone should find awarder-side (as opposed to awardee-side) proof of the various awards and grants they have received. Ch4terbu9 (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ch4terbu9; Only the company itself, as you have pointed out, could be the sources for info on proposed products. Wikipedia policy in those cases is to limit the space devoted to vaporware products until they are actually available (see WP:Crystal) and, where info from the company is included, to frame it as "Solar Roadways Inc. claim that their product will be able to..." rather than presenting such claims as facts. My interpretation of WP policy is that there is probably is enough articles about Solar Roadways Inc. to justify an article about the company but an article on the general topic of smart highways would probably be more useful. An article (like this one) that pretends to be about the general topic but is really just a puff piece for the company needs rewriting. At least that is my interpretation of our policies. filceolaire (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The concept and the company are the same thing. All coverage is for what Solar Roadways the company has done. All the awards and grants go to them. http://www.solarroadways.com/intro.shtml Kindly stop removing information about them. You can not find coverage of anyone else doing this. Dream Focus 09:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The company has been covered in multiple reliable sources. The sources are top-tier like Washington Post and Wired with international scope. -- GreenC 13:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage over an extended period of time (2009-2014):

Christian Science Monitor (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sources are not expected to cite their own sources. 2. How and where a company raises capital is normal business news. -- GreenC 00:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same reply above for the rest. -- GreenC 00:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Post (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc). NOTE: It does cite the CNN article listed below, which in turn, cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page. GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News (2014)

Comment - This article is actually video resembling a marketing video and cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HNGN (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc). NOTE: It does cite the CNet article mentioned previously as well as a CityLab, which in turn, cite no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refer people to the company's crowd-funding page. GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider (Australia) (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Business Standard (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNN (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page. GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outside (2014)
NBC (WBIR) (2014)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Der Spiegel (2013)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) and refers people to the company's crowd-funding page GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The West Australian (2013)

Comment - This article cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today (2013)

Comment - This article is primarily about various road maintenance techniques, but does give a one-paragraph mention to Solar Roadways Inc, and quotes the owner as saying he hopes to begin manufacturing in 2014. It cites no secondary sources (sources other than Solar Roadways Inc) regarding the technology. GornDD (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Globe and Mail (2012)
Smithsonian (2011)
Wall Street Journal (2011)
New York Times (2011)
CNN (2011)
Fox News (2011)
Discovery Channel (2011)
Popular Science (2010)
Fast Company (2010)
Popular Science (2009)
Scientific American (2009)

-- GreenC 13:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that this article was renamed to be about the Idaho company by name on 12 May, the same day that their press release was published in Business Standard, CNN etc above. Their Indiegogo fundraising campaign is due to finish at the end of the month. They say that "Due to our Indiegogo campaign, we are getting absolutely overwhelmed with emails and there is not enough time in the day to respond to everyone. We're really backed up and we're sorry for the inconvenience!" I guess if this AfD goes on for another week, the renamed article will have served its purpose. --Nigelj (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It says (Chadlupkes moved page Solar roadway to Solar Roadways: Solar Roadways is a company in Idaho, and most of the content is about that company.) The article started as a redirect then was edited to be about that company starting back in 2009‎. On May 21st 2014 Goethean removed information about the company with the edit summary (rm content related to private company) [5] I put some of that information back in. I find no information about anyone else doing any work on this. Does anyone ever use the term "solar roadway" when talking about anything other than what these two created? Dream Focus 18:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article did start as a redirect, but it was called Solar roadway. For a long time it was about the general concept, e.g. [6] and [7], apart from a few occasions when it became overloaded with information about this company, e.g. [8] and [9] Regarding other projects in similar fields, an IP editor above has provided a link to work in Oregon and I just turned up this UK project. I don't know what the threshold for WP:N coverage of a small private company is, but I doubt if having consumed two grants totalling less than $1m over several years, with no other known turnover, makes it. Equally, if these other projects are now moribund, and there really is no other organisation in the world known to be working on anything like this, then again we have an argument for a non-notable concept. --Nigelj (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both of your links to the old article mention Solar Roadways in them. The longer one mentions the government grants going to them, and is clearly all about their work. The link to the Oregon page you provide is about something totally unrelated called a solar highway, it just regular solar cells along side the internet state, not actually ontop of a road. The second thing you link to is about gathering heat from a material put over the roads, not about making electricity from solar cells. Dream Focus 11:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. In the case of this product, this company has never produced anything beyond a single prototype. Virtually every single claim about the product in the article is nothing more than unsourced marketing claims produced by Solar Roadways Inc itself. If all the unsourced "facts" are removed, the article is then nothing more than a one paragraph article about a non-notable company that has never actually produced a product.

To be clear - I have no objection to the article being rewritten and saved. I just don't want to see a free advert for this company to raise funds and un-encyclopedic content. If there are any reliable secondary sources that can verify the content, then it is a simple matter to rewrite the article and add references. Despite having spent hours searching the Interwebs, I haven't found a single reliable secondary source to reference that don't simply rely on Solar Roadways Inc's website or founders for their info. GornDD (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe every newspaper and magazine covering them somehow got their information wrong? That those giving them grants and awards didn't verify their claims first? Dream Focus 23:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of thinking they got anything "wrong", it's just that every article basically amounts to nothing more than an advert for one single private company seeking funds for a product that it admits it "hopes" to manufacture sometime in the future. Virtually every article can be summarized as saying, "Hey here's this amazing future technology that this company needs funds to make! Isn't it amazing?!" Every claim about this future technology in the WP article is unsourced and unreferenced with no secondary sources. I have already acknowledged that because they did get a grant that *may* make the company notable. But the WP article should sound less like a free advert and have a more NPOV with reliable secondary sources. This whole thing STARTED with me researching this technology and not finding a single reliable secondary source that doesn't rely on the company's unverified marketing claims. Believe me, I wish there were... GornDD (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Comment As a regular Wiki user, I was looking for a balanced summary about generic "Solar Roadways" and this article indeed gave me a balanced view of it. A company probably wouldn't want it mentioned that their product required more maintenance. Didn't seem like an ad for one company to me. Genepoz (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am a student and I was looking for reliable information about this technology for an upcoming assignment. Without this article, I might have received biased and/or unreliable information, which would have greatly hindered my project. Plus, I was interested in the details of solar roadways as it is because it's an amazing leap forward and I wanted to familiarize myself with it in order to spread the word... This was a short but valuable article, and instead of deleting it, it should be expanded as the industry grows. Not having sources available for reading could hinder the advancement of the technology. Furthermore, the people who said that it seemed like an extended advert for the company forget that having a page for a product like this is informative and most certainly will advertise, intentionally or not, and it doesn't have to be a bad thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.215.242 (talk) 09:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as advertising goes, policy says otherwise. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not advertising. Look at any the thousands of articles for companies for example of what they are suppose to look like. Dream Focus 11:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and don't see anything at the end of the articles that says "press release" or "this article sponsored by" or "paid advertisement" - they are legitimate news sources. -- GreenC 14:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This, in journalism terms, is called a "puff piece" or "vanity piece". GornDD (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. This is legitimate professional coverage of a company and its technology. Dream Focus 17:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly coverage of a company and its vaporware. Professional? No. Professional coverage would have included references to sources other than the company itself and links to their crowd-funding page. Call it what it was - an advocacy piece, with nothing more than unproven marketing claims. GornDD (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs work to be NPOV and well referenced. This is about good idea, a potentially transformational technology, of unproven feasibility and practicality. The technology needs a road-test, and the Wikipedia entry needs editing, not deletion to be genericized to keep the inventors' corporate footprint off the content and perspective of the entry in Wikipedia. There's enough promotional material that can be identified as that & linked, that the entry itself can be edited into a useful resource of a notable idea in the development and application phase of introduction. Look at the SUT page, which changed from an idea, and a company-centred entry, to a proper Wikipedia entry over time. BCameron54 10:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete — All of the many stories in the press are traceable back to claims made by the company. They haven't released any real numbers and don't have a product. This is all just hype. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have guidelines that say a company has to "have numbers" or "have a product" before they are notable (and they do have a product). Notability is determined by the press (sources). Of course the information reported by the press is the same given by the company, that's normal business news. There is also information in the sources not reported by the company, original journalism. -- GreenC 14:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has been substantially improved with references and a better NPOV since I initially nominated this article for deletion. I would also venture that the fact that they have received multiple Federal grants, most likely makes them notable and deserving of a *brief* NPOV article (probably, more suitably, a small section regarding the grants and solar roads in an article on smart roads). I admire your fervor in promoting this company and it's technology, however I would like to disagree with some of your assertions. First Wikipedia DOES have guidelines regarding whether or not a company that has never produced a product is notable. Wikipedia policy in those cases is to limit the space devoted to vaporware products (a product that is announced months or years before its release, and for which public development details are lacking) until they are actually available (see WP:Crystal). In this case, the company is still crowd-funding to even BEGIN producing the product, and itself admittedly "HOPES" to begin production this year (assuming they receive the required crowd-funding). Furthermore, this company offers only one single future vaporware product. This is not about Apple (a notable company with many notable products) announcing a future product, this is about an (otherwise) non-notable startup company seeking crowd-funding for a single future product. As a second point, I read many of the articles mentioned above (the ones I commented on) and didn't see much, if any, "original journalism", they mostly were essentially "Solar Roadways Inc says..." or "Scott Brusaw claims..." and included no other sources than the company's website and/or a link to their crowd-funding page. The problem with this article as it was originally written is that no sources or references were listed for the many unsourced "facts" in the article. Information should not be listed as "facts" unless there are reliable secondary sources (not just the company's claim) to verify it. When the only source is the company itself, the article shouldn't read, "Solar roads can produce 3.5 times the annual energy usage of the United States." Rather, it should read, "Solar Roadways Inc claims that its solar roads can produce...", with an appropriate reference. Additionally, referencing (for example) Wired Magazine as a source for that claim, when the magazine article simply says, "Solar Roadways Inc says..." without reliable secondary sources, amounts to nothing more than company hype. GornDD (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do find it interesting that the same users who, on this article's talk page, say, "You don't have any information about solar roadways that isn't connected to this company.", then turn around and, on this page, contend that there is apparently voluminous information from many reliable sources about this vaporware technology that is notable and verifiable. I'm looking at you Dream Focus. GornDD (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Out of context. In the discussion for the name of the article, I pointed out there is nowhere that mentions "solar roadway" as solar cells as a road that isn't talking about this company and what they are doing. So there is no confusion about the articles name. And if it was vaporware, it wouldn't have gotten government grants. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states a subject is suitable for a Wikipedia article if it passes the general notability guidelines, which this one clearly does, as it gets significant coverage in reliable sources. Kindly read that and WP:RS. Dream Focus 18:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Vaporware" is a product that is announced months or years before its release, and for which public development details are lacking and/or never actually released. By your own admission, this product has never been released (never even made it past the prototype stage in 7 years of "development" and federal funding) and very limited details have been released. GornDD (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: allthough this research is in its infancy, global warming is one of the most important issues of our time. deleting this article now would be like deleting articles about electric cars 15 years ago because the idea is impractical. Saverbox (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to an extent. I think the best solution is an article on the proposed technology of smart roads with limited mention of Smart Roadways Inc as one of the companies hoping to develop this technology (assuming enough independent sources can be gleaned to put together an article of the topic). In the alternative, a "smart roads" subsection in an article on smart roads, subject to those same standards.

Seeing that Smart Roadways Inc has received a small amount of Federal funding to develop the technology and some notability in the press, it probably deserves a *brief* NPOV entry of its own. HOWEVER - Seeing that in the 7 years since this company has been founded and received Federal grants, it has yet to move past the prototype stage, its worthiness as its own WP entry is tenuous at best. By the company's admission on its own website, it hasn't even "completed our evaluation of prototyping costs, but will be doing so in July, 2014". It's vaporware at best, at this point. GornDD (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, the company got all the ****ing money they were spamming for, http://betabeat.com/2014/05/solar-roadways-reaches-full-funding-to-transform-america-into-tron/ so those here purely for that purpose can lay off. In any event, I would continue to prefer an article about the concept, with minimal references, at least for now, to the company. Safiel (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no concept that isn't connected to this company. Can you find even one reliable source talking about it? All previous search results for "solar roadway" were for either this company, or something totally unrelated such as roads heated by the sun, or solar cells on the side of interstates, as discussed previously in this AFD. Dream Focus 20:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, if that's the case, and there really is no other company in the world known to be working on anything like this, then again we have an argument for a non-notable concept that (at this point anyway) amounts to nothing more than vaporware. GornDD (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please read WP:NOTABILITY already? The coverage the company gets means it passes the WP:GNG, and therefore is notable by Wikipedia standards of inclusion. Dream Focus 21:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Several times. I especially enjoy the part where it says, "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article.". The vast majority of the cited coverage amounts to nothing more than product placement in promotional articles with links to a crowd-funding site. (Congrats on raising your needed funds, BTW). I assume you yourself have read the parts of WP:ORG where it says things like, "Coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and WP:SOAP, where it says, "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable."

You are still left with the fact that a otherwise non-notable, two-person company that is so obscure that editors are unable to even verify if it is incorporated or not, has in seven years, despite receiving federal funding, has not moved past the prototype stage of it's one single vaporware product that is only associated with that one single non-notable company. Virtually every article written about is either (a) a non-verifiable promotional piece seeking crowd-funding, whose only source is the company itself or, (b) somebody skeptical of said claims due to (a). Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Just because a few places wrote promotional articles seeking crowd-funding for this non-notable company's vaporware product does not make it notable. GornDD (talk) 21:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quoting something out of context. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. Bolding the part you seem to be left out, when quoting the bit before it. It wasn't trivial coverage, but detailed information in those news articles. And more than a "few" places wrote articles about them, and these were not promotional articles. As for your selective quoting of WP:ORG, it actually states An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.. You took part of a sentence totally out of context. Dream Focus 04:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm from the UK and came to wikipedia looking for information on solar panels used as road surfaces. This article was very useful, so should be keep and allowed to be updated and improved over time. It seems I'm far from the only one looking for wikipedia articles on this topic, so it suggests it's got potential as being a really useful and relevant article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.239.251 (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL TO Dream Focus - You and I clearly have different opinions and are unlikely to change each other's minds and come to an agreement. Seeing as we have rehashed the same arguments several times, how about we each agree that, barring some inherent need or new information, to refrain for further debate so as to allow OTHERS to add to the discussion and hopefully reach a consensus? Does this work for you? GornDD (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. You respond to something I say, I'm going to respond back. Especially when you quote things out of context, and keep stating incorrect information constantly. Dream Focus 03:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are just incapable of editing without a bias. YOU and ONE OTHER PERSON does not constitute a "consensus". I was trying to avoid this becoming just a prolonged, lengthy debate, and allow others to comment without rehashing the same useless argument that we will never agree on. PLEASE DON'T EDIT WAR. GornDD (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article about the company because sufficient RS exist. Ideas on how to improve the article belong on its own talk page, not here. --В²C ☎ 23:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came to this article in order to verify or discredit information in a sensationalist video promoting Solar Roadways. I think that an article providing objective information on this topic is useful, and there are few other sources on the internet to which someone can look for it. 76.242.155.53 (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles / fork as needed - both subjects pass WP:GNG, work out any WP:COI issues on article talk pages please. As with any new technology which is not limited to 1 company (as this in broad picture isn't) we require two articles, one on Solar Roadways and one on solar road panels. It may well be that some of the sources such as Public Roads 2011 Volume 75 - Page 10 "An ongoing SBIR project with a small business located in Idaho is developing a prototype for solar road panels. The idea is to create a driving surface built out of solar panels that collect the sun's energy and generate electricity. This project ..." may end up in both articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a potential for this article to go too much NPOV if not written correctly (this article, for example, could use a section on its "reception" or some type of sourced advantage/disadvantage section from third-parties, to separate that all out from first-party), but the topic is definitely notable and widely covered. Note that unless there's other companies making/planning "solar road panels" that article should not exist but be a redirect to this one until such a time there are multiple such products out there. --MASEM (t) 05:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Masem I'd agree except solar paving has been around for 10 years already in Europe. I presume the photovoltaic technology used on Dutch bicycle paths and pedestrian precincts is more conventional than what this Idaho company is proposing, but this US company isn't first or only. I can't see the substantial difference between paving a Walmart car park and a Dutch bicycle track, in generic terms it's the same thing. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, solar paving is a redlink? The amount of bytes in this discussion on the Idaho company could have produced a decent stub for the Dutch projects already. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if that's the case (that Europe's done it, which comes as no surprise), then yes, the topic of solar paving is likely a potential article on its own, in addition to this specific venture's article. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Split (1) Instead of "solar paving" suggested above per WP:NOUN split part to Solar pavement which is broad enough to cover parking areas, sidewalks, patios, and of course roads. The concept is in enough RS to easily pass WP:NOTABILITY test. (2) Also create Solar Roads, Inc and let advocates for that article take another crack at establishing that the company is notable, after the split has happened. Do not confuse objectionable promo/advert complaints with the notability test. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is "Solar Roads, Inc."? Never heard of that, is that another company? What is "solar pavement"? Is that a term used? -- GreenC 15:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you haven't heard of the company, then you haven't studied the article (at least at the time the AFD was filed) and have not read the RSs cited by it.~~ Make that [[solar Roadways, Inc]]. My bad. And yes, "solar pavement" is in use, for example "Walkable solar pavement debuts at George Washington University"NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would have problems with "solar pavement" in that the term pavement means radically different things around the world. —Phil | Talk 15:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with ignoring WP:NOUN and using Solar paving for the time being. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the kind of AFD which embarrasses Wikipedia: when people want to look up information on something which is hitting the news, we want them to be able to come here and get a balanced account. I am also having trouble ignoring the fact that the nominating account appears to be a recently-arrived single-purpose account: first edit was 6 days ago creating this nomination. —Phil | Talk 15:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes I am "recently arrived". It probably got lost somewhere in the mish-mash above, but I clearly stated that this whole saga started when I was researching the concept of solar roads. Coming here I found the solar roads article to actually be just an advert for Solar Roadways Inc - certainly not a "balanced account". It consisted of: a very nice biography of the Brusaws, a lot of amazing unsourced claims about the wonders of their (vaporware) invention, and a link to their crowd-funding site. (Admittedly, the article has been much improved since my nomination). I was bothered so much by WP being used for the purpose of free advertising for this vaporware that I took the time to actually register with WP and nominate the article for deletion. Since that time, I have begun editing the article in the hopes of achieving NPOV and reliable sources. I am still convinced this is "vaporware" - a future product that was announced 7-8 years ago, but despite years of "development", federal grants, and a crowd-funding campaign, this company has never moved past the prototype stage. Obviously, I can't say with any certainty that this is really just a way for the Brusaws to collect money (I am assuming good faith), but considering that this is their only product and they haven't started manufacturing it yet (haven't even finished the prototype stage), I didn't see how the company was notable, despite multiple articles in RS promoting their crowd-funding page.

All that being said, if WP feels this vaporware company is notable, so be it. But the article should be more than just a free advert for a private company. Unfortunately, certain editors have made it their cause to inextricably link this technology to this company and have continually attempted to edit out anything that might sound skeptical or critical of the company or the feasibility of the technology. GornDD (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When there is objectionable material in an article on a notable subject, the correct procedure is to delete the objectionable material. Since you are researching the subject instead of wasting the article via AFD, how about editing the article to give good coverage of this notable general topic? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) As I stated above, that's what I have been doing, which resulted in an edit war with certain editors advocating for this company. (2) When the objectionable material was deleted, there wasn't much left. (3) I am still not 100% convinced this product is anything but vaporware and a means for the "company" to raise money.GornDD (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, Solar Roadways Inc is not the only company working on this technology. The technology is called SolaRoad and was developed by the Dutch firm TNO. (http://inhabitat.com/the-netherlands-to-pave-roads-with-solaroad-solar-panels/) Additionally, students at the Solar Institute at George Washington University installed a solar panel walking path desinged by Onyx Solar, something they call solar pavement. (http://inhabitat.com/students-install-the-worlds-first-solar-pavement-panels-in-virginia/).

I think there is certainly enough to warrant a disambiguation between solar roads, solar pavement, SolaRoad, and Solar Roadways Inc GornDD (talk) 16:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. -- GreenC 16:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. Maybe in 5-10 years. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, are you advocating that solar road or solar roads should redirect to Solar Roadways the company, despite the existence of "SolaRoad" and the non-photovoltaic variant of "solar roads" in Holland...? Or are you suggesting a stub on solar roads that includes both the Solar Roadways and Dutch variants? GornDD (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, we should have a general article about the topic Solar pavement, which some others prefer to name Solar paving and despite WP:NOUN, I said I could live with the "solar paving" name. Eds who think Solar Roadways, Inc deserve an article about the company (divorced from the general topic) should have a chance to work on that. I'm not sure it will pass notability or not but am willing to reserve judgment to see what they come up with, once they're focused on an article about the company instead of mishmashing the company article and the general topic article all up as one. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification. I Concur with your reasoning. GornDD (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, another Dutch company called Ooms Avenhorn Holding AV installed a variant of a "solar road" that doesn't use photovoltaic cells. Ooms installed the system in Avenhorn, a village in northern Holland. (http://www.ecmag.com/section/miscellaneous/dutch-company-drives-new-solar-power). The term solar road is not exclusive to the single company that certain editors seem to be advocating for. Disambiguate GornDD (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this looks like it will survive AFD I have gone ahead and created a new article Smart Highway including a section on the general Solar roads concept as well as other related topics and I have posted a proposal for rewriting the Solar Roadways article to concentrate on the company on the Talk:Solar Roadways page for editors to comment on. filceolaire (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) the article for the company, assuming we have one, should be Solar Roadways (company) (which is now a redir to the article under AFD discussion). Under Smart highway since as you say there are various attributes of such things, it is most appro to have a summary paragraph about solar pavement and use Template:Main article to point to Solar paving, where that aspect of smart highways should be developed in full. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to revise my prior comments because I only just learned about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). Wherever I said we should give people a chance to develope Solar Roadyways Inc please change that to Solar Roadways (company) (which is now a redir to "solar roadways").NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies) states to add (company), corporation, Inc,, etc, only when a WP:disambiguation is needed, otherwise the common name is preferred. It gives clear examples there. Apple (disambiguation), Oracle (disambiguation), Border_(disambiguation), etc. That isn't a case here. If you create an article for solar roads, just have a hatnote up top, as I mentioned on the talk page already for the renaming discussion. There is no disambiguation page for solar roadways or anything similar, since you need three or more items to have that. Dream Focus 02:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Disambig (or other wikilawyer technical term) via distinct, clear article titles is needed. On the one hand "Solar Roadways" the proper noun is a company name. On the other hand, sources are using the same term as a common noun, e.g., This website states that "A solar roadway is a proposed road made from a series of glass panels intended to replace asphalt streets while reducing energy costs and assisting drivers." Let's not get into a stupid debate about the significance of the "s" on the end of the company name. Disambig between the proper and common nouns is necessary.

(2) Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(companies) does allow disambig via addition of "Inc" (or whatever) but the guideline also states that the humble "(company)" is the preferred diambig technique. Absent a reason to do the less-preferred thing, we should follow established preferred naming convention by adding "(company)". I have an open mind to reasons why we should do something different. Is there such a reason? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you link to is about the company's products. Its starts off saying "A solar roadway is a proposed road" and then later mentions the company doing this as Solar Roadways. So no confusion there. Unless you have people likely to search for solar roadways for something other than what this company has made, then its not really an issue. And I don't know why you believe the preferred naming convention has (company) added to it, since the guidelines are quite clear here, company names never have company, inc, etc added to them unless the specific condition for it has been met. It even says "Whenever possible, common usage is preferred" and gives you clear examples. Dream Focus 20:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re part A) My mistake! I must have misread the guideline earlier. Inc or (company), makes no difference to me. Thanks for getting me to take another look at that guideline.

Re part B) We're all nuts if we think a hot potentially global technology like solar pavement/roadway/sidewalk/patio/etc will remain forever under the roof of just a single US company for very long, and in my view, NPOV means splitting the article about the concept from the article about this company, even if they are a leader of the pack. If we imply the product and company are synonymous, in an admittedly small way, wikipedia would be helping erect barriers to competition. We're supposed to try no to take sides, even accidentally. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT ABOUT ARTICLE NAME While this article has been discussed for deletion, it has gone through several iterations and versions. Its name has been changed several times "Solar Roadways", "Solar Roadways (Company)", etc... "Solar roads" now directs here. Can we please start by coming to a consensus as to whether this article should be about the company Solar Roadways Inc (assuming anyone can determine if they are, in fact, incorporated), the concept of solar roads, or whatever, and decide on an appropriate title?

Does Solar Roadways Inc deserve its own article?
Does solar roads deserve its own article?
Should solar roads be included as it's own section on smart roads?

GornDD (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If this article is about the company, then keep it for that reason alone. We have lots of articles about companies all over this encyclopedia. But, since this article is also about a novel concept, we should also keep it for that reason. Just because it seems like marketing for a new product/service, doesn't mean it's an automatic delete. Seems simple enough to me. Hires an editor (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is useful as a short article about a small company. It links to another short article on the smart highway concept, which is a helpful distinction. Either article can grow if needed. The smart highway article in turn mentions several other creators of paths made of solar cells, using products of a Spanish company, so the industry is likely to have a future. Kim9988 (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the above is all now rather theoretical since the other projects (including the 1.5 million Euros for the 2014 Dutch solar bicycle path), are now forked off into smart highway (working title) and yet there is still more than enough sourced WP:GNG for the Idaho company. If there is anyone who still thinks the Idaho company doesn't pass WP:GNG please ping below. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Really interesting. I hope they get at least 50% market share. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whether or not they're a viable company with a viable product is irrelevant at this point. They've created so much hype and raised so much money that that's notable enough by itself. At the very least they should be a subsection of a general article on solar roads. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:50, 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 delete. WP:SNOW close in view of the excessive heat produced by this debate, the strength of evident consensus, the possibility of a WP:CSD#G4 applying, and the consensus of the preceding first AfD. Note about procedural history: during the course of this AfD, the article was first speedy-deleted under CSD#G4 by admin User:RHaworth; then this AfD was SNOW-closed by me, then RHaworth reverted his own deletion but also re-opened this without consultation, so it's all in a bit of a procedural mess now, but it doesn't seem that anybody has doubted the validity of the SNOW close on its merits, so I feel it's safe to reinstate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jabari Parker's high school career[edit]

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

This article was already deleted at AFD on March 19, a deletion that was endorsed at DR on May 13. Less than a week after that DR closed, the article's author TonyTheTiger restored his user copy anyway. discospinster G4 deleted it, but Tony asked that this be overturned on the argument that G4 no longer applies. I don't necessarily agree with this. While Tony did remove some redundant sections, the core of this article is substantially unchanged from the deleted copy.

But more to the point, Tony is attempting an end-run around the last AFD and DR by making what amounts to cosmetic changes in a bid to overcome to one argument against this article without resolving any other issues. As such, every argument against this article raised at both the first AFD and the DR still applies. Even with the cosmetic reduction in article size, this remains an unnecessary fork full of trivial bloat. I will reiterate Axolotl Nr.733's argument in the first AFD:

If I'm not completely mistaken, the article on Jabari Parker already is the largest one on any basketball player we have, which is quite surprising (to say the least) considering he's an 18 years old currently playing his first college season. It seems this guy couldn't even stumble over his own feet without his "biographer" devoting a new section on Parker's improved shoe tieing techniques afterwards. Now, with the establishment of this fork article intended to cover just his high school career, things are getting just too messy. So, this is me waiving a big stop sign. If an article gets too detailed, it needs to be trimmed, not split. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The DR was unanimous in its endorsement, with only Hobit really expressing any level of doubt that Wikipedia does not need such a fork. In my own words, this article "covers what will become an increasingly trivial aspect of Parker's overall career in excruciatingly tedious detail." What is truly notable about Parker's high school career can easily fit into his main article. The rest of this page is trivia. Given Tony seems insistent on being Parker's "biographer", it stands to reason that if this article remains, there will be similarly meticulous forks for his college career, pro career, etc. Tony is using Wikipedia as a free web host, and much of what is written here falls into the category of indiscriminate information. I would suggest that Tony set up a Wordpress account or something if he wants to cover Parker in this manner. This is a level of obsession that exceeds Wikipedia's scope. Reso lute 16:08, 21 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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview comparisons

Name	2012-13 pageviews
Jabari Parker	747,535
2014 NBA All-Stars
Roy Hibbert	796,956
Damian Lillard¹	792,706
Joe Johnson	699,128
LaMarcus Aldridge²	478,392
DeMar DeRozan	313,570
Paul Millsap	168,986
2013 NBA All-Stars
Zach Randolph	606,977
Jrue Holiday	521,046
David Lee	493,024
LaMarcus Aldridge²	478,392

¹2012–13 NBA Rookie of the Year

²2013 & 2014 All-star

Yes he is completely mistaken. Jabari Parker is not the largest one of any basketball player.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore note that the prior AFD and DRV were about a 49 KB version of the article. I have streamlined the article down to a 33KB version without a lot of bloat and with a lot of new content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, please do not interject your responses into the middle of my nomination statement. Thanks, Reso lute 16:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4 (times two) and salt. Thorough consensus was established that this article should be deleted, not because of its unusual size but because of the inappropriateness of this level of detail for this athlete. That reason has not changed. Deletion was further endorsed via thorough consensus upon review. TonyTheTiger ignored this consensus and recreated the article anyway. The page should be deleted immediately and prevented from recreation, and the user should be sanctioned for this blatant and obvious AfD run-around. Ivanvector (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read and understand WP:G4. It is not for greatly revised versions.--19:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete or speedy delete. Good gravy, this is longer than the entire article of a slightly more scrutinized player. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, that's not an accurate characterization of my comment. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST refers to whether an article should exist or not. My rationale is that this is an over-the-top level of detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still a completely unnecessary fork. It is borderline disruptive that the article was created right after the deletion review was endorsed. What is most bizarre is that the article contains information about Parker's early life and college career, which have nothing to do with his high school career. This represents a ridiculous amount of detail and sets a bad precedent. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Necessary per WP:PRESERVE. Obviously a lot of people wanted to read about his high school career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Why would you say his decision about which high school to go to is irrelevant to his high school career.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments in favor of keeping are as follows.

Regarding the table above, most 2012 and 2013 viewers were likely seeking his history, which was then mostly high school. He is a rare athlete whose high school career has been chronicled in a Sports Illustrated cover story. This information that so many people have sought should be WP:PRESERVEd. Parker’s high school career seems to be as important to the reader as the entire biography of many NBA All-Star Game reserves.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current 33208 character article is not redundant with the 8233 character section in the main article and it is a streamlined version of the formerly deleted forked article that was 49260.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article satisfies WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:ATH and it is chock full of high caliber WP:RS; Sports Illustrated did a cover story on this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forks or lack thereof for other athletes are irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some hinted that this page would make Jabari Parker's career seem more notable than other stars' like LeBron James', even though James had a feature length film (More Than a Game) about his high school career. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant. E.g., Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2013) and List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama are not evaluated based on whether George Washington or Abraham Lincoln had the same forks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I'm not real thrilled with what I view as a run-around of the AfD/DRV. But judged on its merits, this meets WP:N and while it's more detail than I'd ever want, it's clearly got a ton of coverage in the real world. Further, it seems very likely there is interest in this material. What is overly detailed to one person with little interest in the topic can be darn interesting to another. We're going to see books that spend a chapter or two on this topic, I don't see why we couldn't have a full page. I endorsed the AfD at DRV and still feel it was the correct reading of the consensus. But I don't see how deleting this helps the encyclopedia or is in line with our content guidelines. The delete !votes feel like a variation of IDONTLIKEIT. I agree that it's possible to cover something in too much detail, but I think that should be generally judged by sources, not by our own personal opinions. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As an editor with a dozen formerly deleted articles now at WP:GA, I do not feel i did a runaround AFD/DRV. This was an attempt to improve the encyclopedia just like my other 12 formerly deleted GAs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets take that last point to its logical extreme: One could write articles on every individual game played in a major sports league - and most minor leagues as well. For the NHL or NBA, that's over 1200 articles for each regular season alone. Nearly 2500 for Major League Baseball. Even at the individual player level, how far do we allow this to go? Jabari Parker's freshman college season? There comes a point where we go beyond encyclopedic coverage and slam right into IINFO and NOTNEWS. And yes, Jabari Parker does get a lot of coverage. That is why he was one of the very few high school athletes to merit an article. But article sets at this level of depth are both unencyclopedic (even by Wikipedia's standards) and fails numerous aspects of WP:NOT. That's my primary argument. Resolute 20:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's a fair question where to draw the line. And it may well be we get consensus that this is below the line. It's just that this article is better sourced than literally 99% of all of our articles. I feel that's a very good sign that this isn't below the line. I really don't understand how deleting well-sourced material is to the benefit of the encyclopedia. Would one article per pro game be too much? For baseball certainly. For NFL football? It's more detail than I'd like, but not outrageous. I think the season article per team are probably the right line 95% of the time (with exceptional games having an article perhaps)Hobit (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed there, and I think we have reached the right balance from a team season perspective with those general guidelines (give or take junk like this). I don't really want to get into multiple back and forths regarding the level of coverage this article proposes though. I can only hope that if consensus once again goes against Tony, he will finally accept it and drop the stick. Reso lute 04:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: TonyTheTiger asked me to clarify an edit I made to this AfD (see [10]). I hid the table of pageviews that he posted to this AfD as I felt it was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but if he feels it's important to his argument then that's fine. It's still irrelevant, though. The first AfD on this resulted in a thorough consensus that the content fork was unnecessary and improper, not because it was too long but because it existed at all. Several editors noted that there is an unencyclopedic level of trivial details included not just in the subject article but in the main article as well, and that a content fork for an athlete's high school career is WP:UNDUE detail, regardless of coverage. At deletion review, editors again noted that the fork presented an excruciating level of detail not necessary to cover for an athlete at this stage of their career, and the deletion was thoroughly endorsed. TonyTheTiger simply recreated the fork anyway, ignoring the consensus of both discussions. He argues that this is not WP:G4 because he's shortened the article, but that's beside the point. He recreated an article that was deleted per two discussions, and although he made some changes to it, the reasons for deletion are identical, and still apply to the recreated article. If it's not G4 then it's a snowball - the community already concluded this should be deleted. Twice. Ivanvector (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your user page suggests that you are quite a veteran of WP, whereas your argument sound like you are a newbie. The prior version of the main page and the fork at issue here were very different. At one time the main article was 46 KB and the fork was 49 KB. Arguments about the fork being unnecessary were largely based on redundancy. With a 22 KB main article (including 8KB high school section) and 33 KB fork those arguments may or may not be valid but at least need to be reconsidered. WP:G4 policy explicitly states that "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." You have to be sort of simpleminded to say a 49KB version and a 33KB version are substantially identical. I have obviously trimmed out a lot of the fluff. Regardless of consensus regarding the 49 KB version at AFD and DRV, that was about a different format of the encyclopedic content. Note that I did do extensive streamlining in Userspace to improve the article as suggested at G4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think you understand. The consensus at the last AFD was that the article in general was unencyclopedic and unnecessary. You can trim it down all you like, but it still presents the same fundamental problem. The article still violates Notnews because it covers the minutiae of Parker's life. Less minutiae, but still unimportant. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that earlier versions have been deleted is not relevant to this consideration. I have taken 12 formerly deleted (some multiple times) articles to WP:GA. You need to evaluate why more people were reading this article than many All-star reserves and determine what portion of that content needs to be WP:PRESERVEd.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you really going to trot out the "I've taken 12 unrelated articles to GA" as a defence right after arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in response to other people's comments? Also, interesting rebuttal to Ivanvector. I'm not really seeing argumentum ad hominem as an effective debate tactic, but ymmv. Also, only a couple arguments about the fork being unnecessary were due to size. The majority, as Ivanvector notes, opposed on the argument that the entire page is UNDUE and unnecessary. Reso lute 22:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        This isn't an argument to keep or delete based on other stuff existing or not existing. I was providing proof that deleted articles are not necessarily deleted forever. The fact that I have taken 12 formerly deleted articles (including 2 basketball players) to GA is proof of that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        So you were rebutting an argument that was never made? An issue here isn't that some articles might be recreated later, but that you performed an end-run around AFD and DR using a shady argument that can hardly be viewed as good faith. Reso lute 01:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Shady? I have enumerated my four reasons above, which of those is shady?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I've already explained your sub-optimal behaviour in my opening statement. However, your "four reasons" are bunk. Point 1: You are making an unsupported assumption. You can't prove that readers were looking for a specific part of Parker's career, only that they were looking for information on Parker himself. Point 2: Adding 40k of bloat does not make the article less redundant. Nor does trimming some of that fat (then disingenuously claiming that resolved the issues that led to deletion and endorsement). A pig caked in 10 lbs of mud is still a pig. Point 3: That Parker's high school play gained coverage is not in and of itself a justification of a separate article. It only justified the existence of an article at Jabari Parker. Wayne Gretzky was national news in Canada by age 10, but it would be asinine to write an article on Wayne Gretzky's youth hockey career for similar reasons. Point 4: Irrelevant as an argument for keeping this page. Not a single point you have raised overcomes the multiple breaches of WP:NOT. Reso lute 04:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Personally, I'd like to read about Gretzky's youth career, Lebron's high school career, O.J.'s college career, Pete Maravich's college career, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict)On the contrary, the fact that earlier versions were deleted is the only relevant consideration here. You continue to miss the point that two prior and recent discussions determined that Parker's high school career does not merit a separate article and should not have been forked in the first place. The size and quality of the fork is not at issue here. Ivanvector (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You continue to make the WP:G4 argument when it has already been overruled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right, and I'm continuing to make it now. FTR, I disagree with Discospinster's decision to overturn the G4. The user was right to have speedied the article, for reasons I've noted above. Ivanvector (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'll let some other admin click the magic buttons and see if this qualifies for G4. As for this current version of the article, I believe this is an excruciating amount of detail that is wholly unnecessary for an encyclopedia, despite the fact that we're not made out of paper. This level of detail is unnecessary and illegible, and the fact that the player was so closely followed by the media that we could have this kind of article doesn't mean that all those factoids (since, in the grand scheme of things, they are factoids) should be reproduced here. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This detail is too finite and concise for a high schooler's career (not withstanding only one mention of the subject's academic progress, which would probably be more paramount than every move the scouting sites made regarding their status). How many pictures do you need of a subject in an article? This belongs somewhere, but not here; the usual few paragraphs summing up their achievements seen in most pro player articles should suffice. Nate • (chatter) 05:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Very clearly a recreation of an already deleted article. The article has only cosmetic changes since it was last deleted. And beyond that it is still a very trivial fork. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This smells like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT since it is not possible to look at the 33KB version and 49KB version and deem them substantially identical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - a. non sequitur, b. it probably is possible. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It certainly is possible, if the info added is the same sort of info that caused it to be deleted in the first place and that all that was done was trim a few sentences here and there without fixing the reason for the deletion then yes G4 applies. The whole idea behind G4 is that whatever issue that caused it to be deleted in the first place was fixed. In this case your changes didn't even remotely address the issues in the original discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About that G4 remark--I compared the two versions, and how anyone could say the newer version (the one Tony moved from his sandbox) is "not substantially identical to the deleted version" defies belief. So a section on international play and a "personal" section were added (the latter full of the kind of trivia that probably got the article deleted in the first place), but the rest is, give or take a few dozen sentences that were either trimmed or added, and a few copyedits, exactly the same. So I endorse G4 deletion. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you are comparing the version at issue in FAC2 and the version that was deleted based on FAC1. Are you comparing a 49.2KB version versus a 33.2 KB version? "international play and a "personal" section were added" is not correct. You must be looking at the wrong versions. this is the diff between the 49.2KB and 33.2KB versions that you consider identical.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal

Delete: I really don't care how long the parent article gets myself. But I don't think we should start any precedent of having articles about the "high school career" of any athlete. As far as I can tell, this has been the first (e.g., I can find no other "high school career" articles nor deletion discussions about such). We faced a similar, though wider spreading, dilemma in July 2012, when the "Famous person on twitter" articles started. We have to take care before creating subdivision articles on people, and I don't see a case here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Milowent, The Twitter issue was vastly different. The version that I am preserving is the bulk of what was in the main Jabari Parker article 6 months ago when there was nothing else to include in the article. There was never a point at which you could go to Ashton Kutcher's or Barack Obama's article and see only content about his twitter persona and there was never a point in Kutcher's or Obama's life when the summary of the notable elements of their life is what was in their twitter article. This is an attempt to WP:PRESERVE what was formerly the bulk of the main article that was being read by 1000 people a day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, I have no problem personally with preserving the content, but it should go into the subject's article. What content should be in his article is an editorial debate, not an AfD issue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the current version of the Jabari Parker is fine. We don't need to add factoids like "Parker trimmed his list of schools to three" because no one (except TonyTheTiger will care about that in 7 years. The facts are that he attended Simeon, played one year at Duke, and joined the NBA. For instance, we have an article on Bill Gates, but we don't need to mention things like "Gates was at a meeting on May 16, 1987" in the main article, even if it is well-sourced. On a related note, Jahlil Okafor's article is becoming unmanageable large as well, and he's younger than Parker. Is High school career of Jahlil Okafor in the works next? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we all know you are bullshitting on the fact that no one but me would care. The page would not have zero readers. The readership would be small. (say 200-500 viewers a month, which is in the order of magnitude of forks like Electoral history of Theodore Roosevelt, List of places named for George S. Patton, Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2012) or Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak). Unless you believe that I am the equivalent of 200-500 people you should stop saying no one but me would care. Sure that is a small fraction of the readers for the broader article, but a fork is for the small fraction of readers who care about details. Furthermore, any argument based on readership is really not very logical. Do you really mean to say we don't want the page because it would only have the same level of interest as Electoral history of Theodore Roosevelt, List of places named for George S. Patton, Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2012), or Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak, which is what a truthful assessment of its likely readership would be.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is not so much based on readership, but more on the triviality of much of the information. Indeed, you are the one that is pushing the readership statistics, which have been refuted time and again as irrelevant. Just because people want to read about Parker does not mean that they care about him participating in a workout for Bill Self. Have you considered that the spike in readership for this article has been because of the AfDs? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He did not have a workout with Bill Self, which would be trivial. The only workout that I mention is an astoundingly unusual one in which he announced he was hosting an open gym workout and 42 schools attended. Did you ever play high school basketball? Imagine that you say you are having an open gym and Coach K arrives in a limo with assistant coaches in tow. Then 41 other schools send coaches. Among the small fraction of readers who might click through to the article for his high school career, this is not a trivial story. I am not talking about the spike in readership due to the AFD, I do not believe the readership would be zero if the article were kept based on viewership data I have given you a long run estimate. P.S. you might be astounded at how many people are voting on this AFD without even reading the article. Look at the hourly stats. Many of the delete votes are coming with no one having read the article for 6 or 8 hours prior. Don't you think it is wrong to vote because someone told you to come here and vote delete or just because you saw an old version of the article several months ago. Look at all the WP:HOCKEY voters here who didn't even read the article because Resolute told them to. Very recently on a non-HOCKEY issue she led the charge with a HOCKEY posse to take a vote against my editing on a subject that had previously been 8–2 in my favor. A vote that the article has trivial facts means nothing if you have not read the article. There are no votes here about it being trivial that even mention trivial facts from the article. If all the high school content is trivial, it should have been deleted when he was in high school.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you are still glossing over the fact that the entire article was already deleted for being needlessly trivial, and that deletion was endorsed on review. Those are the proper processes for determining whether information should be WP:PRESERVEd or not. You went out of process to recreate the article against consensus, and now you're bludgeoning this AfD to try to show in any way you can that those earlier discussions were invalid. This is not productive behaviour for a Wikipedia editor, and making personal attacks against the many editors here who disagree with you is not helping your case. Ivanvector (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is SOP for Tony when he doesn't get his way. He starts pouting, makes assumptions of bad faith and starts attacking people because he has no other recourse. He knows, and has been told more than once, than I am not a "she", but Tony refers to me by the wrong gender in a bid to be deliberately offensive. It's childish and amusing, but little else. That said, don't be surprised if he starts calling people racist for disagreeing with him at some point. Reso lute 15:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute and your WP:CANVASSing of WP:HOCKEY member is SOP. It will show up in the data if you deny it. I have been watching hourly page views and know your Canadian friends have been voting without reading the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only other WP:HOCKEY regular to comment here is Djsasso, and in all probability, it was your own post at my talk page that brought him here. I realize by your change in tactics toward casting aspersions that you believe you aren't likely 'winning' this debate, but good lord man, at least carry yourself with some dignity. Reso lute 15:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of Canadian flags on user pages of the Delete voters for me to believe that only one HOCKEY member has voted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahaha! You got me. Ivanvector is a WP:HOCKEY editor acting in stealth. We spent nearly five years from the point that he joined Wikipedia planning for this very moment. We tried to fool you by having Ivan routinely participate in many other AFDs while also not editing hockey articles. But you, Tony, you weren't fooled. {evil mastermind voice}Curses! Foiled again.{/evil mastermind voice}. I'm too lazy to be equally snarky with respect to Clarityfiend, so please re-read my previous sentence but swap names. Thanks, Reso lute 16:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you made a statement on why people are voting without reading the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you stopped beating your wife? Reso lute 18:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as a confession to having CANVASSED.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah cause me reading your rather heated comment on his talk page couldn't possibly have peaked my interest in what was going on at this Afd. If anyone is to "blame" for me being here its you. -DJSasso (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting off the rails, but I'll bite. The article is about Jabari Parker's high school career, yes? I inferred that from the title, Jabari Parker's high school career. We already agreed as a community twice that we don't need a separate page (any separate page) on Jabari Parker's high school career. Therefore, since this is a page on Jabari Parker's high school career, and the community agreed to delete the page already, twice, I !voted delete. I expect that most people can follow this logic without needing to cook up conspiracy theories about all Canadians being hockey-fan meatpuppets. I am indeed Canadian, and a fan of the great game of hockey, and if you think that makes me a meatpuppet then I cordially invite you to open a case at WP:SPI and we'll see who the real hosers are! *evil laugh, eh?* Then again, if I'm somehow mistaken and the article is not about Jabari Parker's high school career, then let me know right away so I can change my !vote to a renaming of some sort, though I will puzzle about why a page which has as a title Jabari Parker's high school career is a page about anything other than Jabari Parker's high school career, which as we've already covered is a subject which does not warrant a separate page, per community consensus. Ivanvector (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - come on, this discussion was had and finished. There is a ridiculous level of detail in the Parker article as it is - real encyclopedias have editors for a reason. Re-creating an article because one didn't like the deletion result seems to go against the spirit of WP. Rikster2 (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2, Recreation is not a matter of creating an article that covers the same topic, if there are significant differences in the versions, it is not considered a recreation. This has far less detail than the prior version. A third of the content was removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Tony, but that's BS. This subject isn't worth it's own article and that was a central theme of the first AfD. A well fleshed out account of Parker's HS career should be able to fit as a section of Parker's article. Writing about every minute detail of Parker's HS career simply makes this stuff too dense for readers to wade through and get at what is actually important. You clearly are trying to end-run the AfD process here IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rikster2, Having recreated 12 formerly deleted articles that are now WP:GAs, I consider this a normal attempt to refine content in keeping with the prior AFD as opposed to an end run. If you say something is unnecessarily detailed and I remove 1/3rd of it as I did in this case, that is clearly an attempt to respond to your complaint. There are widely varying amounts of detail sought from the encyclopedia and the purpose of forks is to provide a higher level of detail than might be appropriate for a main article. Look at my current WP:FAC nomination for example. Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak is a subject that can be easily summarized in a section of a main biography, but for some extensive detail provides a more desirable presentation of content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Weren't you the one who said WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS wasn't a good argument? Who says the Hershiser article should exist either? Two wrongs don't make a right. What is currently in the Parker article about his HS career is sufficient. Rikster2 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also worth noting that you are the creator of Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak, so of course you think both articles are necessary. Rikster2 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if it is my current FAC, I was involved. It is no surprise that I am the creator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Rikster2, What do you mean by sufficient? Sufficient for all or sufficient for most? Surely, you don't believe it would get zero hits per day. I am guessing in the long run it might get the same number of hits lots of commonly forked content such as Electoral history of Theodore Roosevelt or List of places named for George S. Patton (or Orel Hershiser's scoreless innings streak, for that matter). I am not saying it should be kept because they are kept, I am saying that there is a non-zero number of viewers who would like to read it regardless of what else is kept. It is common to fork content that provides a level of detail beyond that which is sufficient for most readers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If there is a small subset of readers who care so much about Parker's HS career that they want a gnat's ass level of detail why should the encyclopedia cater to that if that is not what the vast majoriy of readers are looking for? It's an encyclopedia, not an index of biographies. Just like the difference you'd see in a paper encyclopedia vs. a biography of an individual. Also funny you'd compare Parker to Theodore Roosevelt (I won't discuss a list article being compared to this prose article - a forked list of Parker's awards would be fine once it is long enough to warrant an article, like Michael Jordan). None of this changes the fact that you've re-created (with fairly minor changes IMO) an article that has been AfD'd and that AfD was upheld after review - that is trying to end run around WP intent and policies. You clearly have a lot of energy around this and will debate the topic long after the rest of us will want to - it is my hope the closing admin will recognize this when they evaluate the final discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Rikster2, since when is removing a third of the readable prose of an article considered minor changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Since when did this subject suddenly become a needed fork? The main thrust of the AfD was that it shouldn't exist. Changing the prose on a subject not worth of an article does not substantiate re-creating it because you didn't like the result of the AfD or review. And STOP paging me to this article. I will check back if I want to, but I do not wish to receive alerts when you respond to what I write. Rikster2 (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Consensus at the first AFD was that this article should not exist in any form, so any changes to the prose, significant or minor, are irrelevant. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect against recreation, and consider sanctions against TonyTheTiger if he continues to recreate it after being rebuffed repeatedly. (I also would endorse Discospinster's G4 if this were at DRV.) TTT wrote that he split this article from Jabari Parker. I did not see any indication that content has been merged back in the relevant history. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In case you have not been following along the nominator has virtually confessed to CANVASSING so this whole discussion is polluted. Also, merging this back in is not appropriate. When I split this out people subsequently pared down the main article to its current state.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have got to be kidding me! You know damn well people like me, EDDY and JWeiss were not in any way canvassed to this discussion and you have no idea about anyone else. This is getting ridiculous ... Rikster2 (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I noted above, Tony often resorts to accusations of bad faith when he is balked. Usually he is the only one acting in bad faith. I've seen it many times and am used to it. Of course, we all know why he hasn't gone to ANI about my supposed canvassing - the high probability of a WP:BOOMERANG. But I do agree with Tony on one thing - much of this should not be merged back into the main article. Wikipedia exists to write encyclopedia articles, not entire books. Resolute 14:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not too thrilled personally about being repeatedly accused of canvassing. If this is Tony's pattern then it needs to stop. I have posted a request for review at WP:AN/I. Ivanvector (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per many of the arguments above and per the fact that this was delete before and endorsed properly. I'm sure this can be handled appropriately in the main article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We are here to summarize, and that means avoiding undue weight. While the player's high school athleticism is on the map, there is simply far too much detail for an encyclopedia to be including here, given how much of this is written as a time line and not an attempt to capture the high points as to why his pre-college career was important. Argubably, with as much is written about sports compared to any other topic , any major player could have their high school career, and their college career, all documented to this great of a degree, but we don't do that being a tertiary, summary source. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from endorsing the procedural deletions beforehand, I largely agree with Masem's summary. This is four years of a player's career that's just starting. The sources are there, but that doesn't mean that we ignore prescriptions to be a general encyclopedia that avoids excessive and trivial details. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I declined the G4 placed on the article, because I do not see consensus to use it. SNOW would be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; it's just reams of trivia, which fails the GNG. I have no doubt that the author has some good reason for repeatedly pushing this into article-space and then bickering with all those who disagree, but whatever that reason is, it's certainly not a net benefit to readers. bobrayner (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. As Tarc (talk · contribs) said when proposing speedy deletion: "Screw AfD, this is a straight-up G4. This article was deleted because the very premise was rejected, not the content. Trimming does not make it different from the previous version." — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A gross misuse of notability policy, let alone anything else. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for obsessive trivia, believe it or not, and shouldn't be used as some kind of playground for editors as it clearly is here. The article has no merit doktorb _words^deeds 10:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is auditioning for the upcoming season of The Walking Dead, apparently. This could have been dealt with via either G4 or a snow close (the only keeps are the author and a misguided sympathy vote), but if we have to play the process out, this is just mind-numbingly excruciating detail for a teenage boy's basketball career. It's more a of a sad commentary on the 21st century media that they have written this much to this extend on an athlete who hasn't even gone pro yet. The project is going to have to be more on guard in the future against this sort of thing lest it becomes drowned in minutiae and statistics. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. This exercise in time-wasting is so execrable that I just had to call a university professor to tell me what phrase I should use to describe it. The previous attempt to have it G4d was correct and I am questioning Parker's notability.--Laun chba ller 13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin(s): please be aware that the last time Tony asked for this to be userfied after it was G4'd, it was to run around AfD and DRV and to recreate the article against the consensus that it was unfit in its entirety, resulting in the current discussion. It should not be userfied, it should be expunged. If you have 49 rotten apples, you don't just throw out 16 of them and use the rest in a pie. The problem is not the content, it's the subject. Tony has demonstrated that he does not understand this. Apologies all around for assuming bad faith, however he has already asked again. Ivanvector (talk) 14:40, 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 15:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMarket Inc.[edit]

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

Continues to fail notability standard WP:COMPANY because OpenMarket has not been the subject of sustained coverage in independent sources. This re-creation of the article after the previous deletion is based on "new information" but what it consists of is more press releases, and a large number of non-notable awards. The way we know these awards are non-notable is the total lack of coverage of the awards in reputable, mainstream sources. Instead, the awards are announced in press releases and obscure blogs. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say this article quotes obscure blogs is a massive overstatement. It references some of the key mobile industry publications all of which have independent editorial teams. Mobile Entertainment has a monthly readership of 100,000 unique views, Mobile Marketing has 40,000 unique views per month and Mobile Marketer as 17,000 page views per day. The industry awards OpenMarket has received are well known in the mobile industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchelljamesfox (talk • contribs) 17:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is this press release.
This is this press release
This is a quick paraphrase of this press release.
Etc. ad nauseam.
WP:ROUTINE defines virtually every link. Routine coverage, in the form of 50 to 100 word blog posts that are direct transcriptions of company announcements, is not substantive coverage. It fails to establish notability. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All or virtually all of the sourcing is to press reports, or to coverage either in Mobile Entertainment or Mobile Marketing, neither one of which I've ever heard of, even as a computer professional. If Mobile Entertainment or Mobile Marketing passed the sniff test at WP:RSN I'd withdraw this !vote. — Brianhe (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Andrew³²⁷ 07:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 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. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 01:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. LaPrade[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Person not noteworthy and reads like advertisement Quod erat demonstrandum 3.14159 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources seem noteworthy and reliable enough. There are a few weasel words but nothing that couldn't be simply removed to make it sound better. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, sources can be noteworthy enough, but having lots of sources doesn't make a someone noteworthy. Lots of professionals are authors, researchers, editors, and heads of committees and associations, what distinguishes this one as notable enough for a WP page? Quod erat demonstrandum 3.14159 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:A7 and Notability Guidelines. Quod erat demonstrandum 3.14159 (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 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 delete. Number 5 7 14:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Andrée Beauchemin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO. all I could find is one line mentions of her. Those wanting to keep should not just say "ambassadors of major countries are generally notable" but actually find sources to demonstrate WP:BASIC. LibStar (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons I raised the last time this editor nominated this biography for deletion: Like most permanent ambassadors, she attracted significant coverage in reliable sources due to her prestigious and influential position.[11] In 2000 she caused a minor controversy in Cairo when she painted her official residence (a former palace) pink, an event which was was reported on by the Cairo Times. The coverage doesn't appear to be on-line, but is described here. Several sources, including that one, describe her important role in the Omar Khadr affair when she was High Commissioner to Pakistan. She's also published scholarly articles about international relations.[12]. Pburka (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the first source you provide contains small mentions of the ambassadors, the article is more about the work of various Canadian organizations and not the actual ambassador. And how many articles has she published? LibStar (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable person. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:32, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It wasn't particularly difficult to find a copy of an article from the Cairo Times about the pink embassy: [13]. It was also possible to find secondary references to her role in the Omar Khadr affair, and odd references to embassy parties, conferences, etc.. However, careful work would be required to disentangle her scholarly publications from those of a Canadian doctor of the same name. What I would like to say, though, is that even if she is not notable purely as an ambassador she would probably gain slight notability in Commonwealth countries, where there is probably marginally more prestige to being a High Commissioner. The jobs are in practical terms identical, but certainly in the UK, and probably for other Commonwealth countries, a High Commissioner posting is at the top end of the diplomatic scale, on a par the very top ambassadorships. Still, it is surprising how little evidence there is for this person's notability. RomanSpa (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Painting your house a strong colour doesn't make you notable. If the pink house situation was a big deal then it should get it's own article, but it still wouldn't transfer notability to the person who chose to paint it pink. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Macktheknifeau ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 11:49, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Remixes (Coldplay EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:46, 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 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 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 14:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Coldplay = not notable, some futsal club 5 people care about = "clearly notable" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.146.12 (talk) 21:24, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 03:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: London 2011 (Coldplay EP)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:45, 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 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 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 14:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to having significant coverage, coverage in The Times is not independent. --Bejnar (talk) 23:43, 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 The arguments for deletion are stronger and more persuasive than the arguments for retention of the article. There's no question that Joseph is bordering on being notable, but the arguments that he doesn't quite meet the requirements of our notability policy are clear and articulate, they make sense and are coherent. The arguments of those who have arrived on Wikipedia purely to support the retention of the article aren't to be completely ignored, but simply don't carry the same amount of weight as comments made by long term contributors with a proven knowledge of relevant notability and deletion policies, such as DGG. I'm not entirely convinced that the arguments made for retention by a number of editors below are entirely based on a firm and proven understanding of relevant policy and previous application. Nick (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Steinberg[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Very promotional article on sub- borderline notable subject. As for promotionalism, I think any article calling someone notable as a "thought leader" is puffery, and saying so in the lede sentence and the infobox is utter puffery. The claims in the article are exaggerated. He has published one-quarter of a book, not four books. His actual co-authored book is SSL VPN: Understanding, Evaluating and Planning Secure, Web-Based Remote Access , and he's not one of rwo coauthors, as claimed in this article, but one of four, as given authoritatively in WorldCat [14] The 1st one listed is not yet published and is in any case just a revised edition. The 3rd is a French translation of the same book. The 4th is a total of seven pages in a book edited by someone else.

Aside from that, he has contributed to the usual conferences and "gatherings", and written on "a variety of other topics" The many references are him being quoted, almost always alongwith other people, in a number of publications. All of it together doesn't make him a thought leader, even if the term were meaningful (I translate it as authoritative pioneer, for which there is not the least evidence.

However, his book is in a good number of libraries (544 a/c Worldcat), so he might become notable if he writes another. Not just a revised edition. I'll write the article myself if he does and it gets major reviews. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm not sure how different the current article is compared to the previously deleted ones (if substantially similar then speedy deletion might apply), but I certainly don't think that the notability issues have been resolved. If kept, the cornucopia of peacock terms should at least be addressed. M. Caecilius (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I saw Steinberg on television in Canada not that long ago and he is widely quoted about security matters in the security, business, and mainstream press per the links in the article (and a Google search). I agree with Dkriegls: per WP:Creative which definitely applies since Steinberg is known primarily for his writing and for creating new technology: Based on the number of his peers who quote him, and other respected journalists who quote him, Steinberg is clearly “regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers.” Even more true since his patents are also cited by many of his peers. The links on Steinberg’s Google’s scholar page show besides many security companies citing his patents, some of those citing him are from other major computer companies like Microsoft so clearly Steinberg is also notable for “originating a significant new concept, theory or technique” as well as “widely cited by peers.” I also believe the other point Dkriegls made about Steinberg playing a major role in co-creating a significant work applies for the reason that he mentioned above. Steinberg meets criteria 1, 2, and 3. Definitely notable. 99.226.47.28 (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)— 99.226.47.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep 1. I was working on the peacock when you nominated the article. Please improve. 2. He may not have been notable in 2006 and 2007 when the original deletions were made, but today he certainly is. Since 2012 he writes a Forbes column that gets a large number of readers and shares, is quoted all over the place (I put a reference to one example article with over 1,000 quotes from it), and has influenced various issues - see the references cited in the article. 3. Vis-à-vis the books - the information in nom is not correct. Steinberg was the primary author of the SSL VPN book, Speed was the secondary and only other author. No others. You can look at the actual cover and inside the book at [15] and all of this is obvious. The other two people listed in Worldcat are listed in the book as the indexer and technical editor, not authors. Steinberg's name appears large on the cover and see Speed's thank yous. I fixed the translation book. Regarding The ISC2 book - checking their website [16] shows that they changed the curriculum and hence needed a new book for a second edition. 4. His innovations have been cited in almost 70 patents/scholarly articles since 2009. Nearly all the citations listed in Google scholar are after the prior Wikipedia deletions. Old article could not have looked like this one. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not entirely relevant, as writing for a magazine doesn't establish notability in and of itself, but since the lede states that Steinberg writes for Forbes, it should be noted that writing for the magazine post-2010 (when they switched to a digital content model) is of no real significance. There are more than 1,300 contributors and, to quote USA Today, "(Forbes) is not a magazine or editorial operation at all. It is just, in effect, a user comment site that allows commenters the pretense of saying they have written for Forbes. Or, even, for paid promoters to write laudatory articles for Forbes..." JSFarman (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What creates notability for a writer is not the writing, but how well read the pieces are and how well they are shared and discussed. As I wrote in the article (with citations) he has been syndicated, translated, and widely quoted. You can also check the view and sharecounts on his articles. I did. That's not what USAToday is talking about. --Jersey92 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That he's been widely quoted is a possible argument for notability. My only point is that writing for Forbes isn't. JSFarman (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I work in IT Security. He is known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.90.37 (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this entry. The author is a known writer in the subject of IT security as well as a writer for Forbes magazine and other publications. - --Keith4298 (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)— Keith4298 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Agree. Researching recent security vulnerabilities his name came up in many articles including the wikipedia article on the heartbleed bug that brought me here.107.14.54.0 (talk) 00:05, 13 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, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Improved the article based on feedback above. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Page protection may also be needed at this point. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep But Edit. The sum of the subject’s activity is that he is a security researcher who is researching and inventing things and researching and publishing his original thoughts. His Forbes writing is him researching a security or scam related topic and then publishing his findings and opinions. Based on the number of times he has been cited, both his inventions and his articles, he certainly meets the Wikipedia notability requirements of a researcher being "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." This article is definitely a KEEP, but the article should be edited to reflect the subject’s notability better. On another note: the original nomination states that there were 4 authors of the subject’s first book. The publisher’s website shows only 2, just like the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.205.251 (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC) — 67.84.205.251 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Good point that unifies his mix of roles into one. Thank you. I edited it as you recommended. And yes, two authors on the book. Please feel free to make more edits. --Jersey92 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clears both criterion one and three of WP:Creative. Creative is apt here as his notability is primarily from his writing and security software coding expertise. While I agree the article needs significant work to avoid being a PR piece, I think he meets significance per my two comments below. (Disclosure: I don't know Steinberg but was asked by a mutual friend to review the page) --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Passing criterion one "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers": the number of times he's been cited as referenced in the article are significant, as well as this reference to Steinberg in Reuters referring to him as a "security expert", writen by "one of nation's leading consumer journalists", Mitch Lipka. I would argue that it is a valid consideration of Steinberg as an important figure if he's the go-to quote for security experts by one of the nations top consumer journalists.--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Passing criterion three. Three elements combine to meet this criterion: (1) Steinberg is first author of a book carried in several libraries; (2) his contributing authorship in a rather significant security manual published by a leading IT security organization (ISC)²; (3) rounded out with his 11 Computer Science and Information Security patents representing a "collective body of work" that have been the subject of "multiple independent...reviews"--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several reasons to keep this article (clears WP:Creative 1,2 and 3, and possible improper nomination for deletion) even though it clearly needs editing. Perhaps it should be moved to a userspace and fixed and then restored?

Comment1 The nomination seeks to consider the subject as non-notable based on applying the wrong criteria for notability. Einstein’s rule: “If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.” The subject is a technical inventor and writer. (He is not a researcher – this is wrong and needs to be fixed in the article.) In response to this nomination, one commenter wrote above to delete “per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources.” Being a Forbes author does not on its own for certain make someone notable however the fact that the references in the article and Google searches show thousands of independent parties including many obviously reliable sources citing him and referring to him either as a “Forbes cybersecurity columnist” or a “cybersecurity expert” indicates that he is notable as a Forbes writer and cybersecurity expert. Those are precisely the type of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources that should exist for a notable technical writer. The subject does not need his biography discussed to be notable for what he does. He does need to have his ideas be notably influential and cited in reliable independent sources. Do his ideas have substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Yes. Someone cited as often as he is, by reliable and independent parties, is notable. Someone whose patents (which are obviously his ideas) are cited by many dozens of others is notable. The number of libraries carrying a technical book that he wrote is further evidence. He clearly falls into the groups described in WP:CREATIVE#Academics as “notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources” and meets several criteria of being a notable creative professional WP:CREATIVE#Creative_professionals. It seems obvious to me that he meets criteria 1, 2, and 3 of this area.
Comment2 The earlier deletions of this article occurred 7 and 8 years ago when the subject appears to have been far less notable. They are not relevant now. Google Scholar shows the vast majority of the subject’s citations occurring afterward. The same is true for quotes found online although old ones might have disappeared over time.
Comment3 It appears that the nomination was done improperly per Wikipedia policies. Per WP:BEFORE before nominating for deletion due to a lack of notability “The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform.” It is clear that the nominator did not perform such a search as a search contradicts half the content of the nomination. Google Book search shows clearly and undebatably that there were two authors of the subject’s first book and that the subject was the primary author. The nominator stated that the subject “has published one-quarter of a book, not four books… His actual co-authored book is SSL VPN: Understanding, Evaluating and Planning Secure, Web-Based Remote Access , and he's not one of rwo (sic.) coauthors, as claimed in this article, but one of four.” This statement in the nomination falsely diminishes the notability of the subject by claiming that there were four equal authors rather than the author as the more significant one of two. The nominator also appears not to have checked the Google Scholar page for the subject which shows a significant numbers of citations of the subject’s work. It also appears in the history of this article that the nominator earlier nominated the article for speedy deletion after it had been moved from AfC to Wikipedia. Even if one wants to “assume good faith,” in light of these facts one must raise serious questions about the quality of this nomination for deletion, as well as about the objectivity involved in nominating it, and any deletion based on this nomination would seem to show a capricious enforcement Wikipedia of policy. --> 64.134.102.239 (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)— 64.134.102.239 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I made edits based on all the feedback above. If the administrators/editors still do not like the page please move it to my UserSpace and let me know what should be edited. Thank you.Jersey92 (talk) 14:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)*Keep -- He is American but is known here in hi-tech in Israel for his work and writing in IT security. He is notable for 4 reasons all from WP:Creative:[reply]

Criteria 1. He is a “important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.” Based on the number of people who cited him, who cited him, and what they call him: security publications, security articles, security magazines and security papers (some linked in the article). Reuters, Fox, Tribune, and many other reliable, independent and respected media all call him a “cybersecurity expert”: links in article. If so many people in his field and in other fields know who he is and they choose to go to him for his opinion and respected professional journalists and people who write about security want to cite him and they call him an expert he is notable.

Criteria 2: He is “originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.” He is double notable for this. He is known for “the use of visual cues to combat phishing” like in the article. This technology is found today in many secure websites like online banking all over the world. On the Google Scholar there are 50 other people’s patents that cite his patents in this area. This can only happen if he “originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique.” The same for SSL VPN like in the article. He originated many of the security portions of it according to the http://www.sans.org/ paper in the article. SANS is respected and clearly reliable and independent.

Criteria 3: “The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” His SSL VPN book is discussed and reviewed and is in libraries. Google Scholar shows his patents have been reviewed by many people otherwise they could not cite him in their own. The articles he writes have been discussed by many other media. ISC2 books are always reviewed.

Criteria 4: “The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.” This criteria does not make sense for technology. The equivalent in technology would be a book being in many libraries. His book is.

Any one of these reasons would make him notable. And there are several together.

Also the nomination above contains false claims that he wrote only 1/4 of a book. This was a big amount of the claim that he is not notable. Wikipedia should not really delete articles based on mistakes.

81.218.126.150 (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also work in IT (over 30 years). I also agree with Dkriegls: per WP:Creative, definitely notable in his field. I fail to find the reference regarding the original deletion requestor's comment "I think any article calling someone notable as a "thought leader" is puffery".

And the comment "He has published one-quarter of a book, not four books" is disingenuous based on the following observations:

1. There are only three books listed in the article, not four.

2. The article clearly states that "The Official (ISC)2 Guide to the ISSMP CBK - Second Edition" is "Expected Fall 2014".

3. The book "SSL VPN: Understanding, Evaluating and Planning Secure, Web-Based Remote Access with Tim Speed." gives credit to Tim Speed. However, the book has Joseph Steinberg in large letters and Tim Speed in smaller font on the cover, and is missing the other 2 authors claimed by the deletion requestor. WorldCat has the other two people listed as "technical editors", not authors (Author editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author_editing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rshinnick (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per above. 38.105.155.6 (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I work with data security. Steinberg is known for both his writing and inventing anti-phishing technology. He should be notable for people outside the industry based on how often he is quoted in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.19.191.106 (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm having trouble discerning which I find more annoying--all of the IPs for whom !voting "keep" is somehow the motivation to start editing Wikipedia, or all of the peacockery in the article itself. I would strongly favor taking a chain saw to all of the promotion and puffery, but there appears to be just enough genuine notability there for some sort of valid article once the sawdust is blown away. --Finngall ^talk 23:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took a stab at clean up and removed some of the more egregious puffery. The "Influence" section still needs some work, but I got tired of checking sources. It probably needs a new name as well. But the rest of the article should pass muster now. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: Obvious result of canvassing is obvious. At this point, I would like to see more views from editors who have an evidenced history of understanding our policies and guidelines. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person does seem notable but the article also seems promotional so IMHO it just needs rewriting. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks notability per Wikipedia standards. Although having 70 citations showing up in Google Scholar is an accomplishment (there are many people with thousands of citations to their work), in my opinion Mr. Steinberg's publications or work does not seem to have made a significant impact in his field of expertise or reached a level of notability to justify having a profile in Wikipedia. I would really like to see a profile of Mr. Steinberg in Wikipedia whenever his work gets a few hundred if not a few thousand citations in Google Scholar. Respectfully, --DukeU (talk) 07:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Easily passes WP:Creative in multiple regards. Comments explain. Portions are quoted from people above:

Comment Criteria 1. He is an "important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Based on the significant number of people who cited him (thousands in recent months - e.g., about the heartbleed security bug), who the people are who cite him (many reliable, independent, respected parties), and what they call him (expert): Security publications, security articles, security magazines and security papers (many linked in the article) do this, as do major media outlets like Reuters, Fox News, Tribune and co., Politico and many other reliable, independent and respected media (some cited in article) all call him a “cybersecurity expert” or “security expert.” Per User:Dkriegls among those referring to him as a "security expert" is a Reuters journalist described by Time as “one of the nation's leading consumer journalists” (Mitch Lipka). In DarkReading a senior security advisor for cybersecurity firm Sophos also refers to him as “a security expert.” Major security firm Fortinet also recently quoted him about a major security issue. If a large number of people in his field and in other fields know who he is and choose to go to him for his expert opinion on security matters, and top-ranked journalists and people who write about security want to cite him, and they call him an expert, he clearly meets the WP:Creative criteria of being an "important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and is notable.
Comment Criteria 2: He “originat[ed] a significant new concept, theory or technique.” He is known for “the use of visual cues to combat phishing” which is technology found today on many secure websites like online banking all over the world. On the [Scholar] there are over 50 other people’s patents that cite his patents in this area. Obviously, if there are over 50 patents (including from firms like Microsoft) that cite Steinberg’s innovation in this one area he must have “originated a significant new concept, theory, or technique.” Per the Scholar page there is also a big increase in citing him in the last few years as technologies based on his innovations are becoming more widespread. The same is true for SSL VPN. He originated many of the security portions of it according to the SANS paper referred to on Google Scholar. SANS is clearly an independent, reliable party. References for these appear in the article.
Comment Criteria 3: “The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.” His SSL VPN book is discussed and reviewed and is in over 500 libraries per Worldcat. That is significant for a technical book. It is used in university courses - e.g. in link, and is listed as a suggested reference in an official certification exam study guide. Google Scholar shows his patents have been reviewed by many people otherwise they could not cite him in their own. The articles he writes have been discussed by many other media - see references in Comment on criteria 1 above. ISC2 books are by definition significant works that are reviewed by many in the field. -- Jersey92 (talk) 16:41, 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 redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2014#District 4. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Cicotte[edit]

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

Yet another as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election, who does not possess a strong or well-sourced claim of notability for something else to counterbalance the fact that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN yet. Article relies mainly on primary sources such as the web page of his own law firm and one of his own campaign press releases, with only cursory coverage in actual reliable sources. As always he'll be entitled to an article on Wikipedia if he wins the election, but does not get one just for being a candidate. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2014#District 4, where he's already appropriately included. Discrete search term, send the readers to the coverage Wikipedia justifiably has. Dru of Id (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ongoing election has provided plenty of press coverage from independent sources--a Google news search yields 54 results. Common Outcomes notes that losing politicians are often deleted without prior notability, but the 2014 Congressional election in Washington is ongoing. This is moreso an issue with sourcing than with notability. scotty2haughty (talk) 5:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the election is current and ongoing has no bearing on Wikipedia's inclusion rules. We do not keep as-yet-unelected candidates just because the election is underway, and then consider them for deletion only after it's ended and they failed to win — creating and maintaining articles about every individual candidate in a pending election for "voter education" purposes is not our job. Rather, a candidate does not qualify for an article on here until after they've won the election, unless (a) you can adequately demonstrate and properly source that they were already notable enough for an article for other reasons before they became a candidate, or (b) they somehow explode into a sustained major national news story that garners them much more than routine election coverage (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). Neither of those conditions has been demonstrated here, however. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Absolutely no evidence of notability whatsoever, the only coverage that exists is barely routine coverage of someone announcing their candidacy for office. Tiller54 (talk) 11:31, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails POLITICIAN . →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable, for all the reasons given above. I don't see much value in a redirect; the Wikipedia search tool find the related articles just fine. A redirect is likely to be more confusing to someone looking for information on the guy, because the content on the individual in the related articles is appropriately terse.

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Gonzalez (electronic sports player)[edit]

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

Seriously under-sourced for any BLP, and given the claimed reason for notability, this really doesn't stand up. Anyone notable for their on-line activities ought to be leaving a visible footprint.

I don't like to poke very new articles, but this one has been up a whole day now and the editing isn't now making major changes to it. If it can't demonstrate clear notability within the span of an AfD, then it should go. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has apparently won stuff but no evidence any of it is at all notable, nor is any of it sourced to reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some sources but probably not enough to establish notability: Lengthy Penny Arcade article, Daily Dot, GameSpot. Sam Walton (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SamWalton has presented sources that establish that the subject widely satisfies our criteria for notability. Very significant coverage in dedicated, reliable and independant sources. As the sources say: if this guy's not "notable", no other eSports player is. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are useful sources that can be found for him but I'm worried that this article will turn out to be no different from the Daigo Umehara and Justin Wong articles. (As in, just being an article that boils down to "In 20XX he won X using X", mainly because sources, while they exist, are scarce. Not really sure how articles on other esports people are done but so far the ones of FG players have been disappointing.) TheStickMan^[✆Talk] 14:31, 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 14:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I appreciate that elite/professional gamers aren't something that we have clear standards for, if Daigo Umehara is what those articles should be like, this falls far short. Coverage in independent third party sources isn't substantial, and this person doesn't have any of the proxies for notability, such as records (from notable organizations), sponsorship, and cross-industry positions (such as being a commentator for e-gaming events), that other elite/professional gamers have.

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 01:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morphological retail analysis[edit]

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

Article about a very specialistic topic that, AFAICT, is based on a single source, which is a research paper with 25 citations on GScholar. I don't deem that enough to establish notability of a scientific concept. GScholar does not give any hits for the query "Morphological retail analysis" (including quotes), so there's a hint of OR as well. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article provides 2 'References' in a sketchy sort of way. Baray and Cliquet 2007 actually has the title (not supplied in the article) Delineating store trade areas through morphological analysis. and is pages 886-898 of Vol 182, No 2, October 2007 of the European Journal of Operational Research, should anyone be curious. The article is not, therefore, entirely made up, but this is a single source. The other Reference is Serra 1982, Image Analysis and Mathematical Morphology, which is not about Retail at all. To confuse matters, two more, "Ghosh and McLafferty 1987" and "Huff 1964" are mentioned in the paper, but references are not supplied. The first seems to be "Location Strategies for Retail and Service Firms", published by Rowman and Littlefield. It is not about morphology. The other may well be Darrell Huff's 1964 "Cycles in Your Life—The Rhythms of War, Wealth, Nature, and Human Behavior. Or Patterns in War, Wealth, Weather, Women, Men, and Nature", published by Norton. It isn't about morphology either, though like the Ghosh and Serra references, it clearly contains ideas which contributed to the idea of using morphology to analyse retail. I think, therefore, that this article is a) basically single-sourced; b) largely WP:OR and therefore c) to be deleted unless sources can be found. This seems unlikely as a google search only turns up clutter apart from the one Baray and Cliquet paper. I conclude, in the absence of specialised knowledge, that this is not yet a notable topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 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 14:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bit of search also turned up Competitive Arena Mapping: Market Innovation Using Morphological Analysis in Business Markets and Morphological Analysis as a Planning-Tool for Retail Developments in Downtown Shopping Districts. The approaches all seem to be about using morphological analysis to perform segmentation of a constructed retail landscape image to determine regions of influence of retail outlets. It is one aspect of urban morphology. But as with Chiswick Chap, all I see are a few primary sources for the topic. Without multiple independent RS, the topic seems to fail WP:GNG. May be worth a mention in urban morphology. --Mark viking (talk) 18:45, 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. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas City Actors Theatre[edit]

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

Non-notable theater company. Lacks non-trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep borderline notable. The article provides two different third-party sources, which is good enough for my personal taste. _noisy jinx ^huh? 15:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a simple click on references above shows a good selection of non-trivial coverage. I would support re-writing it to make it less "POV-y" but that's editing.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 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 14:50, 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 Withdrawn. -- John Reaves 15:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scottevest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a directory or platform for advertising. The company is not notable; it has little to no coverage in independent sources. -- John Reaves 18:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: [17]. Quite a bit of coverage in the book "Smart Clothes and Wearable Technology". Another paragraph in this book by a professor who specialises in the subject of smart textiles/clothing. Searching for "Scott eVest" also pulls up a number of book and magazine mentions, e.g. [18], [19], and several mentions/coverage in this brilliant titled book "Moving Wearables into the Mainstream: Taming the Borg". And that's just a small selection of the dozens of hits I found - mainly magazine reviews, articles, etc, but all those mentions in published books - academic ones no less - are very significant. Did the nominator actually carry out a basic search before nomination and declaring "little or no coverage in independent sources?"

Also - gosh, quite a bit of recent coverage in Google News. [20], and significant articles in both the The Independent and The Telegraph. And a very, very extensive article on Forbes.com. Again - was a basic search even carried out before nomination? I'm very close to arguing "Speedy Keep" as there is so much evidence for notability, but the article does need improvement. Mabalu (talk) 10:18, 8 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 01:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Close[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that he Hasn't made a first team appearance. This means that the article fails WP:NSPORT. He has also not received sufficient coverage for the article to pass WP:GNG. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Cheers, MYS 77 ^{talk with me ☺} 22:46, 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 15:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregarious behaviour[edit]

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

Strange jumble of sentences that isn't quite an article or a disambig or a dictionary definition Bhny (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not encyclopedia material. There are many incoming links, but a typical usage in an article is "Muskellunge are sometimes gregarious, forming small schools in distinct territories". We should not be using overly specialized vocabulary in our articles in this way, if we can avoid it. bd2412 T 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and redirect to Social animal. Andrew³²⁷ 07:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RERTMT[edit]

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

Another user has suggested on the article talk page that this article could be a hoax, and if not a hoax it fails notability criteria. I only bring this here as part of an effort to disposition articles tagged with {{hoax}}. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm the editor that originally added the hoax tag. I couldn't find any Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar results for the phrase "Rapid Emotional Response Through Music Therapy" or "RERTMT". I gave the author the benefit of the doubt and allowed time for them to add sources. Two sources were added to the article and while both are about music therapy, I couldn't find a mention of "Rapid Emotional Response Through Music Therapy" or "RERTMT" in either. The Aldridge book uses the work "rapid" 4 times according to Amazon, but none of them used it in that context. The Gold paper never mentions the term or acronym in its abstract. I'm not convinced that this phrase or acronym exists, and if it does exist but the only proof is a mention in a paper that is insignificant enough not to be mentioned in the abstract then it fails WP:GNG. If any reliable sources establish the use of this phrase or acronym I would support redirecting RERTMT to Music therapy, but otherwise it would be an implausible redirect and should be deleted. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At worst this is a hoax, at best it's a neologism. Either way, it should be deleted. Andrew³²⁷ 07:43, 29 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 deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD G3, "Blatant hoax". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo Reyna[edit]

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

This is a possible hoax. The one source on the article is about Cuauhtémoc Blanco and the hatnote at the top of this article appears to have been copied from that article for no apparent reason. I found no independent sources to verify that a professional football player by this name exists. I am willing to withdraw this AfD if the hoax claim can be refuted and this person can be shown to meet the notability criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if this isn't a hoax, which it very well might be, the article clearly fails both WP:NSPORT, since he has not played in a fully pro league (assuming the content of the article is acurate), and WP:GNG, as he has not received significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a likely hoax, and if it isn't, certainly non-notable per WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:56, 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 delete. As hoax. Contact me if you would like to restore it for inclusion in the hoax list j⚛e decker ^talk 01:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howard's Law[edit]

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

This article seems to rely on one "source" that's questionable at best. A quick Google search on this subject indicates that it could be a hoax. An IP user suggested on the talk page back in 2008 that this could be a hoax but no further action was taken at that time or any other time. If not a hoax, I don't see this subject meeting the notability criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possibly a hoax, based on my inability to find any online searches about this specific cardiac diagnostic tool; Google searches find many false positives. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely seems like a hoax. If it is, be sure to put it on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. I personally have never heard of any medical dictums referred to as laws, and it seems weird that a medicinal phenomenon requires a complex equation to describe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexschmidt711 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 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 15:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lambert Fearby[edit]

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

Non-notable local local politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article seems likely to have been sourced from https://sites.google.com/site/fearbyrichardlambert/ which is not a relaible source. The article asserts that he was an MP (Member of Parliament), but I have checked F. W. S. Craig's election results books (I own the complete set) and can find no listing of any Fearby from 1832 to 1949, even as a candidate. I searched the archive The Times for "Fearby and Morpeth", and found 2 short mentions mentions in the "News in Brief" section (subscription required)

25 Feb 1922 Fined for not declaring election expenses
3 May 1917 Former mayor charged with assaulting him.

That's nowhere near the WP:BASIC test of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at the time he was mayor, the borough was not even chartered/incorporated. Bearian (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and obviously painstaking research. I can assure you that Richard Lambert Fearby was the mayor in 1919, having seen photographs, newspaper articles (including a one in the Railway Magazine of 1919) and in fact, there is a plaque containing his name in Morpeth Town Hall in Northumberland. The reference to expenses and the assault are both interesting and I was not aware of either of these. Many thanks once again for your concern, which I can assure you is not on solid grounds. With kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.97.146 (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. See WP:POLITICIAN. The fact that we can verify a few interesting snippets out him does not make notable ... and unless a topic meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, we should not have an article on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IP, mayors do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being mayors, especially in small or rural municipalities. In actual fact, the standard for mayors in England is that the 16 directly elected mayors in England and Wales are the only ones who are automatically granted a presumption of notability just for the fact of being a mayor — any other mayor in England lives or dies on the strength or weakness of reliable source coverage about them, and does not get to keep a poorly sourced or unsourced article that doesn't offer any substantive evidence of how they were a notable mayor. This article as written does not properly demonstrate that Fearby passes the standards of WP:POLITICIAN, and therefore it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 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 redirect to Quezon City. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St John School Of Quezon City[edit]

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

Unsourced article with no useful content except a promotional "vision" text. PROD removed on April 14 with no attempt to improve the article thereafter. Mosmof (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a very small (50 pupils) and relatively new (1996) parochial elementary school. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to Quezon City, as primary-only schools aren't inherently notable. However, it could be mentioned in a section regarding education or something. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Quezon City. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. WP:WPSCH/AG recommends redirecting to locality in case school is not notable enough. 舎利弗 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John_R_Kennard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John R Kennard

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

Self-Promotional, no encyclopedic relevance discernible (school principal)

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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:EDUCATOR and WP:GNG. Unless I am mistaken, I can't see what he's done is anything more than mundane. There are literally thousands of headmasters and principals, almost none of whom are notable. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From a traditionalist perspective, and looking at the historical record, headmasters of British public schools from the last century tend to end up passing WP:GNG as they often had a Who's Who entry and/or obituary in The Times. As I understand this school it is in the British tradition and I assume a member of the HMC, i.e. this is a quite prestigious public school, and so still not entirely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL contrary to Bearian (talk · contribs)'s assertion. However, I think we still need to go with WP:GNG. This might pass WP:GNG if sufficient sourcing can be found, but at present I do not think references are sufficient for a WP:BLP, so delete. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some coverage in multiple secondary reliable sources provides weak basis for BLP notability claim. Moreover, being one of the representatives of the Grant Schools Council to the Court of the University of Hong Kong confers a certain degree of notability, albeit it could be argued that constitutes inhereted notability by virtue of the position, not the man. Philg88 ^♦talk 13:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete notability is not established in the article and the sources given are primary not secondary. A search for sources only yielded more primary ones or sources that don't pass WP:RS. I did find an Oriental Daily article but I can't translate it sufficiently and besides it is only one article. More would be required. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:45, 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 redirect to Gotham City. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Tower[edit]

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

Not really notable, there are multiple sources, from batman wiki, a comic database. But nothing is really encyclopedic. OccultZone (Talk) 12:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Gotham City and redirect this title to the appropriate section of Gotham City. Unician ∇ 23:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Unician: Even 1 source/reference will work, but do you have any? OccultZone (Talk) 05:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Gotham City article already mentions that there is a Wayne Tower, portrayed by the Chicago Board of Trade Building in Batman Begins, and serving as the fictional city's hub for both water and elevated rail networks. I believe the only claim unique to this article is the 1939 construction date, which as you point out is unsourced. I would have no objections to making this title a redirect to Gotham City with no merging of content. Unician ∇ 06:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without a merge sounds even better. Obviously more can be written, but other article, not really this one. OccultZone (Talk) 07:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gotham City or delete. There really isn't anything to merge. Apparently, the Batman films used it, but that's more a bit of trivia about the real-life building, which is already noted there. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:19, 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 Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BamBam![edit]

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

Non-notable company - does not meet WP:CORP. Evil saltine (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I tagged it as such. It makes no claim of significance/notability, cites no sources other than its own site. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 12:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Corbin[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX. Jakejr (talk) 23:26, 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 speedy keep. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon characters[edit]

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

characters in video games are un notable. Shuasa (talk) 10:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and Wikipedia says this where? -- [[ axg // ✉ ]] 10:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly speedily: Notability is definitely established.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPINOUT and the fact that a number of characters are notable. ex Ash Ketchum, Brock (Pokémon), and Misty (Pokémon). —Farix (t | c) 10:56, 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. Considering the problematic on-wiki history of the whole topic area, it appears reasonable to require particularly good sourcing for contentious material, and consensus here is that this is not the case in this instance. Sandstein 19:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skaramuca[edit]

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

I've already tried two other avenues to address the major faults of this article, RSN and RFC, to no avail. This is an article about a reasonably unknown surname which makes a variety of claims that weave a kind of an origin myth that one could find in a Serbian nationalist forum post - it focuses on a purported Serbian nature of the carriers, who are described in a manner similar to a Serb clan, yet who today by and large seem to be Croatian and there's no corroboration in reliable sources that there was ever such a clan anyway. (Not to mention that those people are reasonably few - the 2011 Croatian Census recorded just 81 people with the surname.[21]) The whole innuendo depends on Jevto Dedijer's 1909 book, which seems far from perfectly reliable with modern-day standards. As a whole, this article is a WP:COATRACK violation that is a net negative for the encyclopedia. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion but support a major rewrite of the article. I looked at the previous discussion at Talk:Skaramuca, and my impression is that there isn't enough of a consensus to make any definite conclusion. We should present Dedijer's claim, along with info on the other supporting claims, and then that Muhamed Filipović and Hivzija Hasandedić expressed doubts in 1996-97. That would be the most NPOV way at the moment. I don't know why you said that the links by User:Antidiskriminator didn't work, just search for Скарамуце on the book description pages, it worked for me at least. - Anonimski (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we present Dedijer's claim, when nothing apparently backs it up? Adding the other works to this article would just compound the problem, because that would definitely stray off topic. Articles should be backed up from claims from reliable sources. If we can't verify that a source is reliable, everything regarding that sole source should go out and stay out. The other way lies madness.

I tried clicking those links again and they still show me no content. I did those searches, and in two out of three instances they showed me incomplete snippets of Cyrillic text. What do these sources actually say and which exact part of the article do they verify? Do they make the same far-reaching conclusions as this article, implying that everyone with the surname "Skaramuca" as well as "Skaramuča" is descended from the same clan? Or do they just mention a family from somewhere that had that as slava? Do you see the difference? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I think that creating an AfD as a part of a content dispute is to go too far, especially for an admin who is supposed to know better. The available information on this topic can be presented without far-fetched conclusions, but the current situation discourages most people to edit the article since there's an apparent risk that the work they put down will be gone. - Anonimski (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this isn't a content dispute about one particular aspect of an article - the whole article is a coat-rack. At this point I can't help but think that you're concern-trolling me here. Hundreds of articles go through the AfD process daily, and a fair few of them are 'rescued' during that time. There's nothing stopping anyone from trying to rescue this article. Will anyone actually try? It has sat largely unchanged since January. That's a pretty good indicator that there's nobody actually interested in fixing it, because there's very little encyclopedic value there to be worth the effort. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, now that I look at it, the only significant change was again by the original author (Zoupan) adding a citation to a 1993 book by one Mile Nedeljković. When I googled that, I found a forum translation of a Strategic Studies Institute scholar Norman Cigar's 1994/95 writings where he basically denounced the whole book as a biased historical forgery. Why are we even still discussing this kind of tendentious stuff in the context of an encyclopedia? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we have is an outside-of-Wikipedia fact dispute, and that should be presented IMO. Just because a source of criticism originates from a US Army dept. doesn't mean that it should override other statements. It shouldn't be impossible to have a surname page that presents the fact that there are multiple views on its origin. So far we only have opposing statements from the 90's, a politically tense period for the region, which is another reason that a more cautious approach should be selected. Further, we also have a source that connects the surname to a concentration camp during the Holocaust, an encyclopedically notable topic, which is another reason why we shouldn't remove the article completely.

Also, it's a bit misleading to say that it's about something from 1993, a quick Google Books search shows that it was the originally stated in 1908: http://books.google.se/books?id=Px0JAAAAIAAJ&q=%22%D1%81%D1%83+%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B8%D0%B7+%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3+%28%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE+%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%99%D0%B5%29%22&dq=%22%D1%81%D1%83+%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC+%D0%B8%D0%B7+%D0%A0%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3+%28%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE+%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%99%D0%B5%29%22&hl=sv&sa=X&ei=gRNlU8y-E6T-4QSGpoH4Bw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAQ

It is however very misquoted in the Wikipedia article, since the original statement mentions the surname Žuštra, not the ones mentioned now.- Anonimski (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* If I had a nickel for every talking point from ex-yu 1990s that could have a coat-rack encyclopedia article, I'd be a rich man. Just because someone somewhere said something tendentious, that does not in any way mean that Wikipedia must cover it. All in all, the list of content policies violated by this article is almost exhaustive: WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:POV, WP:BLP. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Deletion is not a way to resolve the dispute. This deletion proposal looks like "either my way or no way" disruptive attempt of the nominator. Dispute whether Skaramucas are connected with Serbs or not is irrelevant for this discussion. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're framing this as a content dispute about a very specific issue (whether they are "connected with Serbs"). The article doesn't merely include something about such an issue, it revolves around it. If we remove that part, what remains is meaningless didascalia and there's nothing left that even purports to be encyclopedic. Hence, there is no article to be saved from deletion (and any potential can be explored without this baggage). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antidiskriminator, your description of the problem seems quite different from what the article history says. Why do you call this AfD "disruptive"? bobrayner (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; the article is inherently WP:COATRACK. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: A thing that could be worth mentioning here, is that this user most likely doesn't represent an "outside-of-the-Balkans input" to topics relating to the area (and neither does everyone else here, including me, we all have some type of connection to the region). The userpage gives a very neutral impression, but I've noticed some problematic behavior such as this incident: Talk:North Kosovska Mitrovica. Since it's not the first time I see this "dismiss without elaboration" attitude on historical topics that relate to Serbs, I feel that it would be good for the NPOV here to present this issue. - Anonimski (talk) 12:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH maybe he dismissed it without elaboration because we've already had all the elaboration a wiki page can take. There's only so many ways you can call a spade a spade. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weird, implausible claims made in article. It should go. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an Italian surname. Presumably the handful of people in the former Yugoslavia who have it are of Italian descent. The article (or the sources it draws upon) is a WP:SYNTHESIS. Abductive (reasoning) 17:13, 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:02, 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Lidsky[edit]

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

Article was created in July 2010 and has not been edited significantly since then. Has been tagged for notability since July 2010, and nothing has since been added to indicate notability. After 4 years, it's time to make a decision. Emeraude (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 11:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Have added a ref which says he was the founding editor of the Journal of Fusion Energy and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. These both might be enough to allow a pass of WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Sources in and outside the article make clear that he made significant contributions to U.S. nuclear power policy, so I think he passes WP:PROF#C7. He also passes #C3 by virtue of the AAAS fellowship, and possibly #C8 as journal editor. I added a major (but local) newspaper obituary and a few other sources to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Edits by previous two writers have sufficiently established notability. Emeraude (talk) 18:05, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VideoHelper[edit]

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

advertisement. This is nothing more than a list of credits The Banner talk 09:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that seems to serve no purpose other than advertising a non-notable company. Note that major contributor is User:PatrickVH who has edited no other articles, and I'm willing to bet that the VH is VideoHelper, so clear COI issue here. Emeraude (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the majority of the sources appear reliable, most are passing mentions. As the nom says, it's nothing more than a promotional list of run of the mill credits with no notable content. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 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 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DXPN[edit]

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

This is possibly a hoax for the following reasons:

Page was created by User:ZRMontez, sockpuppet of blocked user User:Pinoybandwagon.
There is no FM station operating on 95.9 MHz in the area of Davao according to the NSO 2010 Yearbook (see Table 20.7a, under "XI - Davao Region" [22]).
The callsign DXPN is assigned to an FM station operating on 93.5 MHz in the area of Agusan del Norte (NSO 2010 Yearbook, Table 20.7a, under "XIII - Caraga")

--Bluemask (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with TNT, without prejudice against recreation in the future as an article on the station in Agusan. Hoax. Search fails to find any "information" about this incarnation of DXPN outside of Wikipedia. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:09, 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 speedy delete - spam and copyvio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IUNI[edit]

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

I axed this earlier on CSD G11 grounds, but its been recreated. Supposedly its got notability, but the alleged webpage given is entirely in Chinese, which in turn leads me to suspect a possible copyright problem here. I say kill it before it becomes a problem, but that's me. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copy right violation. Running the About Us page of the company website [23] through google translate shows it was copied word for word. The overly promotional tone is also an issue. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This is a Google machine translation of this page. Should be zapped under CSD G12. - Unambiguous copyright infringement. Philg88 ^♦talk 12:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion, and CSD G12, unambiguous copyright infringement. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 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 speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://dancemoms.wikia.com/wiki/Mackenzie_Ziegler". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mack z[edit]

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

In my view, doesn't meet A7 speedy delete, but I can find no reliable sources supporting notability. She has a notable sister Maddie Ziegler, but we all know notability is not inherited. I am One of Many (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Pathfinder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This 100 year old camp [24] is located on its own island[25] in the middle of Source Lake in Ontario's Algonquin Provincial Park; whatever the particular notability of the camp, the island itself is probably notable per WP:NGEO. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable. Is the nominator going through some list or category of summer camps and nominating them all for deletion, indiscriminately? See also my Keep vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Kawanhee for Boys, and there are 5 or 6 other AFDs about summer camps in progress, where wp:BEFORE seems to me to not be met. --do ncr am 02:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC) --do ncr am 22:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep historic camp that has been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has not seen sufficient coverage in secondary sources according to WP:GNG. While interesting, the fact that it's on its island is not a claim of notability. Tutelary (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The island is important because, if the camp is not notable enough for its own article, the island still is, and best remedy would be to move this article to Camp Pathfinder Island rather than to delete it, since the history of the camp is the same as the history of the island. (Much of the rest of the article could be edited down in either case.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 'I just like it' argument I hope isn't going to stand by the reviewing admin. If it passes notability, then provide reliable sources for it. I haven't seen the sufficient coverage in the sources to warrant a keep. The other argument that 'the island is notable and therefore this is' is inherited notability, and is not permitted per the notability guideline for geographic objects. It must stand on its own to have its own article. Tutelary (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:28, 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, Mz7 (talk) 04:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I would really like to see this article kept and if anyone can demonstrate the it meets wikipedia requirements, I will change my vote to keep. However, I searched and searched and only found that one news article that is already cited. I'm not really sure what people are talking about when they say it's been covered extensively in the media. You'd think a 100 year old camp would have more written about it. I'd like the camp to find a place on wikipedia. If the other editors who say there are reliable sources could add them to the article, that would be awesome. Otherwise, I don't think it meets the sourcing criteria for wikipedia. Bali88 (talk) 04:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, upon further searching, I found one more source: a book called: Treasuring Algonquin: Sharing Scenes from 100 Years of Leaseholding Bali88 (talk) 04:24, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UniteWomen.org[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a noteworthy organization. Multiple reliable sources about the organization do not appear to exist. PROD removed. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a stub and can be expanded. There are reliable sources on the topic. I'm sure this AFD will help expand the article. QuackGuru (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage, including some easily seen at: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please highlight some of this secondary source coverage? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to War on Women. The independent sources in the article all cover the political issues and marches, not this organisation or website. The remaining sources (including the "Addicting Info" source) aren't independent. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 00:53, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable organization. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than enough sourcing here to pass WP:GNG. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 02:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gobonobo:, can you please detail the sources about the subject that pass the GNG? Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:14, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I don't know about anyone else, but even with proper sourcing, the article still wouldn't be notable. This is basically an article about how the organization fights the war on women, not about the organization itself. Epicgenius (talk) 20:26, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hidayath Nagar[edit]

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

The locality is not significant, fails WP:GNG, WP:GEOLAND. Note that the subject is not a city, but a locality of Uppala. The article was deprodded. Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 09:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Uppala - This doesn't seem to be a population center, but basically a block of homes in the Uppala district. [26]. --Oakshade (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Oakshade: I don't think a redirect is needed here. No articles link to the page, the subject is not notable at all, and, there are going to be lots of hidayath nagars in different towns of India. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 06:05, 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, Mz7 (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be a distinct geographic area. rediff gives a slightly different location than google maps, and seems to be a neighbourhood of its own. In Temples in Kasargod district, "Location: 2 km. south-east of Uppala (via Hidayathnagar)...". --Soman (talk) 22:57, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Posterchildren: Origins[edit]

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

This is a self-published novel that fails our notability guideline for books. Unfortunately, I don't see any professional reviews on a Google search, and the results are basically limited to the author's Tumblr blog. I think it's too soon for this author's works to appear on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally concur; delete. Good luck to the author. DS (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like it was moved to the draftspace by User:JustBerry. Not a bad compromise, but it probably would have been better to wait until the AfD was finished. Personally I'd vote to delete given the fact that this book has received no true coverage to show that it passes WP:NBOOK and to be frank, it likely never will. Most self-published books will never gain coverage enough to pass notability guidelines and I'd say that the likelihood of it gaining this coverage is extremely slim. Basically, it's pretty much destined to sit in draftspace forever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what sort of confirms that it won't really gain coverage is that the book has already been out for a year with no actual coverage except for a handful of book blogs. It doesn't seem to have even really gotten any notice in the book blogging world, which is fairly telling. Putting it bluntly, it's extremely EXTREMELY rare for a self-published book to gain mainstream notice when they aren't even really making a splash in the blogging world. It can happen, but it's at the same likelihood as winning a big lottery or getting struck twice by lightning in the same spot. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back to the mainspace and if the consensus is to move it back to the draft space then that's fine, but I think that moving it to draftspace while it's still at AfD is a bit premature. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79:Sorry about that, it's just that there were too many complaints on IRC by multiple helpers for PROD/SPEEDY. I thought moving it off the mainspace would allow the article to be further discussed upon before putting it back in the mainspace. --JustBerry (talk) 04:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability.--Theredproject (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. book. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 18:08, 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 01:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economic effect of beer on the European Union[edit]

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

Author bypassed Articles for Creation and pasted the same essay here. It was obviously declined, the second time by myself. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be an essay, not an article. Jersey92 (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely an essay (and not a particularly good one at that) with minimal referencing all to a single publication. Emeraude (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Almesberger[edit]

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

Sources provided are not reliable and robust and are niche sources which confirm his existence but little more. I don't see any sense of notability here. Almost all content provided by a SPA. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert editing, but I would like to improve and fix the sources provided criticized by Velella. Velella, this programmer has made many more contributions than many other free software programmers wikipedia pages. I can give you several wiki pages links about people with less contributions as free software programmers and kernel coders. But those pages are at wikipedia since a long long time ago like stable pages. So we were considering to start writing this page about this person who did more contributions, during the last 20 years computer history. How can we proceed to improve and to prove you about this notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jornada660 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please read the guidlines here and ensure that the article meets those criteria. You may also wish to look here too in case you are a close associate or friend of Almesberger. Regards Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:52, 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 02:15, 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. I'd be happy to provide the text of the deleted article if anyone wants to move it to Wikibooks or elsewhere. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transitioning from a Waterfall to a Scrum Environment: Project Teams[edit]

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

Page is not encyclopedic. It is a how-to guide. LionMans Account (talk) 02:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page is interesting and adds to the mention of project teams switching to agile from a waterfall methodology, wiki has no information about transitioning roles to agile frameworks and or enviroments. It just needs to be revised and edited and not deleted in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.199.88 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might fit in on Wikibooks though. Although that's a lower-trafficked site, it is a place for how-to guides and the like. LionMans Account (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that Wikibooks could be a better place for this and related content from this group. I'll suggest it on their talk page.Dialectric (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per policy Like all the other articles created in good faith by this now-blocked group account, this is original research and synthesis, which has no place in Wikipedia: sorry, gang. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic article with multiple issues including original research, WP:SYNTH, and how-to content.Dialectric (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully suggest keeping the article:

Our group (now blocked) is NOT a corporation; this was simply a school assignment for Agile Project management. We were asked to create agile articles using a Scrum framework and upload into Wikipedia.
As mentioned, edits are being made to provide considerations and not be perscriptive, making it less of a 'how to.' It also does not endorse a particular methodology (Scrum or Waterfall). It simply articulates considerations for a transition (which happens in the business world). It is my understanding that authors are given an opportunity to continue editing and make the article acceptable. Consequently, I request I be given such time.
Could one not assert that all encyclopedic entries are a synthesis of other research?
I respectfully request the page be saved and debated in more depth (and similar tranisitioning articles), given the complete lack of transitioning material currently listed in Wikipedia. If you'd still like article(s) deleted, I won't object, but I would at least like at least a month for others to opine so that the issue is more thoroughly and formally vetted. Respectfully, author -- Tom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.229.10 (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately you didn't address the comments of other people above. If you want this article to stay then go back over each of the comments above, follow the links to WP policy pages and if you believe the comments are incorrect then explain how that is so. For instance you say there is a "complete lack of transitioning material currently listed on Wikipedia" which suggests you didn't understand the comment above explaining why this is so. Arguing that all encyclopedic articles are a synthesis suggests you have not read WP:SYNTH. Many thousands of articles have been considered for deletion and a procedure for this has been developed over the years. We will not be changing the WP:AFD procedure no matter how politely you request it. The comments above are suggesting ways that this article can be incorporated in the Wikimedia sites and exactly where it has problems that need to be fixed. I politely suggest you take their advice and address the issues raised. Waiting "for others to opine' won't make these issues go away. filceolaire (talk) 08:08, 29 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). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crystina Poncher[edit]

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

This is a non-notable sports reporter and commentator. I cleaned up the article a bit, but the only sources to remain are primary sources. A Google search reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources. I suspect that it's too soon for a biography on Wikipedia. The article creator seems to have a conflict of interest, as I think that they are her talent agency. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cleanup looks good and seems to have erased any COI. I'm seeing links from Yahoo News, Seattle Seahawks, and several boxing sites. That, to me, is enough to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you list these reliable sources that you've found? I see about 150 Google hits, and the vast majority of them are completely worthless. Remember, sources much be independent; coverage by her is not the same as coverage of her. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're really not very hard to find. NFL.com, Seattle Seahawks, Green Bay Packers, Tennessee Titans, Maxx Sports, Yahoo News/AP, NFL (again), ABS-CBN News.
    - Maxxsports is a talent agency. It was originally in the article, and I removed it, as it had been added by Maxx Sports themselves. How is that a reliable source? NFL.com is her employer. That's not independent. I don't think any of these sources help to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yahoo News/AP? ABS-CBNNews? Those should be enough to pass WP:GNG As for Maxxsports and the NFL.com, they are a "reliable" source but not necessarily a "Third Party" source. The data should be considered accurate and therefore "reliable" although I could see the argument that because it isn't third party it doesn't speak to notability. Arguments can be made that Seattle Seahawks, Tennessee Titans, and the Green Bay Packers are independent ownership from the NFL itself and therefore should be considered third party. Far as I'm concerned, consider them secondary arguments because Yahoo News/AP and ABS-CBNNews are more than enough to establish notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Passes GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 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 02:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELISTINGISEVIL may I suggest that before someone relists this a third time, that they take the time to review and comment instead?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:22, 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 speedy delete as WP:G3, hoax/vandalism. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Leaping Trout[edit]

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

Just search "Chief Leaping Trout" anywhere, you will find only this page to be the source. OccultZone (Talk) 01:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G3-pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. I am thoroughly convinced this article is a hoax. Neither Google, JSTOR nor Google books has any entries on Chief Leaping Trout. The fact that the file name of his picture is Keokuk.jpg and that it is used in the article Keokuk (Sauk leader) should also be considered a tip off. (I ran a quick Google search on Keokuk. He is in fact real and meets notability requirements). The book listed in this article exists, but I seriously, seriously doubt Chief Leaping Trout is in there. To the contrary, the article author probably just selected the most valid sounding book source s/he could and fraudulently claimed that Chief Leaping Trout was in there, knowing few people would own the book and be able to point this falsehood out. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax: Article appears to be copied from Neapope, with Neapope's name substituted. LionMans Account (talk) 02:52, 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.