Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 May	26 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Strakosha[edit]

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

Speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G4 was declined on the grounds that the current version had addressed the underlying concern of the last afd. This is not the case. He has still yet to play in a fully pro league (his one appearance against Levski Sofia was a friendly match), and the coverage he has received is still insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - still fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foto Strakosha, his father. He is included at Template:S.S. Lazio squad so is he playing now? If he becomes notable on his own, then it can revisted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with Albanian media coverage such as [1], [2], [3]. Also some borderline Italian coverage such as [4]. Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Calendar[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG requirement; specifically, there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary source; just passing mentions when the subject is Windows Vista itself. Codename Lisa (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (or redirect in case of a "delete" outcome): Did you even read the references I added? The sources in question focus specifically on the subject of this article! This is the very definition of a knee-jerk nomination. Furthermore, this is definitely a plausible redirect (to Features new to Windows Vista, of course), and so should have been nominated for merger instead! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added even more WP:RS for good measure. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've now added page numbers for several of the books (unfortunately, some of them don't seem to have page numbers in their digitized versions). Let's take a look:
    - Windows Vista Feature Focus: Windows Calendar - online article but clearly lengthy
    - Windows Vista: The Definitive Guide - 14 pages
    - Microsoft Windows Vista: Complete Concepts and Techniques - 12 pages
    - Mastering Windows Vista Business: Ultimate, Business, and Enterprise - 7 pages
    - Sams Teach Yourself Microsoft Windows Vista All in One - an entire chapter!
    - Tricks of the Microsoft Windows Vista Masters - approximately 3 pages
  - You're telling me these sources don't qualify as significant coverage? Is this a joke? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dogmaticeclectic who's added reliable sources. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - To be honest do we need articles on every single Windows App ? .... I think not, I actually misread the article thinking it was the XP calendar hence the Keep. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your reasoning sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not at all, We just don't need articles on every single app. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Deletion reasons should be policy-based! Is there a policy that supports that view? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes ... WP:COMMONSENSE my friend!, Questioning my !vote isn't helping you or I you know and since this is leading no where I won't be replying anymore!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, so it isn't policy-based then? Very well... I hereby request that the closing administrator disregard your opinion in this discussion. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Not every !vote has to be policy-based you know .... Don't you think there's better things to do here then argue over a vote seriously?.... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Dogmaticeclectic committed Wikipedia:Bombardment instead of establishing notability – a mistake that many newcomers do. "Lots of URLs" does not mean "significant coverage". These sources are mostly verify nothing except the existence of the app. Notability means impact. Fleet Command (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:FleetCommand, please take another look at the sources per my bolded statement below. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Codename Lisa: indeed, depth of coverage is lacking. (The only exception is Paul Thurrott's article, which can't be used for the purpose of establishing notability of Microsoft products because the author reviews related subjects in indiscrementate manner.) I wouldn't oppose selective merge into Windows Vista, but I'm afraid it is impractical per WP:WEIGHT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:czarkoff, please take another look at the sources. Every single one of the books I added as sources contains pages upon pages on this topic! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - See, the basic principle of WP:N is that Wikipedia editors don't decide on notability of subject, but instead use reputable opinion on such matter – if the topic was found worth mention in reliable sources, it is good for Wikipedia. The books you point us to don't indicate any opinion on the matter – they simply walk through all features of Windows Vista in indiscriminate manner – so that they are not supporting "keep" view. P.S.: it would be very nice of you to avoid using bold typeface for whole sentences. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @User:czarkoff: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. That's taken directly from WP:GNG. Where in that do you see any mention of opinion whatsoever? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you kidding? The whole document is about it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        User:czarkoff, I was unable to find what you are referring to. Would you mind providing a quote, as I have done above? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Here is your quote: "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention." See WP:INDEPENDENT for details. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because someone doesn't "need" an article to be here doesn't mean it should not be included. There is obviously plenty of significant coverage here. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 18:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How-to and guide books are not really "independent" or "secondary" sources for the purposes of notability. Just because the component exists it does not require an article about it, and in fact with as little as can be said, can be included in the Vista article about installed applications. --MASEM (t) 21:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although sources exists they arent showing notability just that the subject exists. Amortias (T)(C) 23:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. There is no evidence of any lasting influence, hence this does not meet WP:EVENT. Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HSC Examination 2014 Question Leak[edit]

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

The article should be deleted according to notability for events, as this type of incident have occurred in Bangladesh many times and it's lasting effect is yet a matter of doubt. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Wikinews offers a place where editors can document current news events. Tanweer^talk 23:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as the notability of current controversy is very high and meets WP:GNG. Also the author of the article has only given summary of the incident that could be added to the encyclopedia as happened before in various controversies. The article seems to be attacked by various editors for its contents by looking at previous deletion nomination history, but wikipedia is not censored as per WP:NOTCENSORED and it may emerge highly notable and require to follow WP:RAPID. -Abhilashkrishn (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Abhilashkrishn ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 13:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not an expert on Bangladesh's education system, but a merge to Higher Secondary School Certificate (if that's the right article) might be a solution, and allow that article to be expanded. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article Higher Secondary School Certificate is entirely different from this article. - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "entirely different" from this article?--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENTS. I can show tens of sources on a rumored relationship of a celeb, but that won't validate a wikipedia article like Rumored relationship of X.--Zayeem ^(talk) 21:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a highly notable event and not a rumor. Government of Bangladesh has already formed a committee to probe this event. Also this article entirely meets WP:GNG. Wikipedia cannot be work for the interest of a specific people and it is not censored as per WP:NOTCENSORED. - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. Notability of an event cannot be judged only through WP:GNG, news agencies tend to cover some insignificant news for their sensationalism (as I've given an example in my last post). WP:NEVENT requires an event to have a national impact and lasting effect, both of which are absent for this topic.--Zayeem ^(talk) 09:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This event has national impact and covered by leading newspaper agencies. As stated in my earlier comment, Government of Bangladesh has formed a committee to probe this event. If it is a mere rumor, the government would not probe this case. Also, the event state is highly changing and may require to put {{currentevent}} tag for informing the readers about its changing nature. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 09:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is only of Dhaka Education Board which is one of 8 regional education boards in Bangladesh. Where is the national impact? --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you delivered in the wiki link, Dhaka Education Board is responsible for all public schools in Dhaka, which is capital of Bangladesh. Also Dhaka Education Board used to conduct largest exams in Bangladesh. Majority of students in Bangladesh are learning under the Dhaka Education Board, this undoubtedly clinches the significance of this article. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 13:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Education Board used to conduct largest exams in Bangladesh. Majority of students in Bangladesh are learning under the Dhaka Education Board - any source for this claim? Even if it's true, it is still a regional education board, so doesn't have any national impact.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Yes, although sorting out the number of students in individual boards in Bangladesh is very cumbersome activity from PDF file provided in Board website, one independent source has done that work on 2012.^[1] In spite of that, a small googling of the number of admission to Dhaka Educational Board and number of scholarships to board will authenticate my earlier statement.

Even if it's true, it is still a regional education board, so doesn't have any national impact. - Matters related to Dhaka Educational Board do come under national impact even though this board is one of the prominent boards in Bangladesh. The notability of this event is not only due to the fact that this event affected majority of students in Bangladesh, but also central government itself seriously involved in this case. If you are still under the impression that; this article does not have any significance and should be deleted, you might want to check the other articles in wikipedia like University_of_Illinois_clout_scandal , University_of_Bristol_admissions_controversy and Kanawha_County_textbook_controversy that did not have national level impact but still considers notable under WP:GNG. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 10:26, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wordpress is not a reliable source. The articles you are showing appear to have lasting effect which is not present in this case.--Zayeem ^(talk) 10:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But I have not used it to cite the article. As the demographical distribution of students in various boards only can be calculated through the PDF files listed in the board website, there is no other way to get the numbers. But you could always refer the board website for the details. Can you show the lasting effects on that articles and ineffectiveness of this article? You have to first remember that this is a current event and it's changing nature cannot be predicted now. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 11:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are talking from your own research which is of no value, please provide some reliable sources to support your claim.--Zayeem ^(talk) 12:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not claiming anything. My entire point was the significance of this article and doesn't have to prove the number of students studying in Dhaka board and the source itself is offline. Offline sources need not be available online and you could always refer HSC result of 2013. Anyway, our discussion point is not that. - abhilashkrishn ^talk 12:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Real incident, has sources. OccultZone (Talk) 13:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "SSC Result 2013 Bangladesh".

Comment: It looks like there are two AfDs currently open for the page, so we need to find out which one would be the best to keep and close the other. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For reference: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HSC_Examination_2014_Question_Leak -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding the information from the other AfD, which I have procedurally closed since this AfD appears to be the most active and visible of the two. The closing admin should look over the following text (which I have put into a collapsed shell) and take this into consideration when closing this AfD.

text from other AfD

The article does not have any useful information and violates and should be deleted upon patent nonsense, under the Wikipedia deletion policy filed under A1 (patent nonsense) as it has no useful or relevant information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronjacksonjohn (talk • contribs) 01:32, 25 May 2014‎

~~(Keep)~~. as the reference links and articles points to a real incident. This has nothing to do with the patent-nonsense. - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

stuck !vote; Abhilashkrishn already participated in this AfD, above. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Real incident, referenced, and discussed in media. --Ragib (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Its may real incident, but a lot of problem may happen out there. Its a country internal matter, let them solved it and this information dont have any other use beside political harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyscript (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. It cannot be accepted working for the interest of specific people or country as per WP:NOTCENSORED - Abhilashkrishn (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will alert the participants of the other AfD that any further discussion should take place on this page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (changed positon) Keep. Real incident? Yes. Significant coverage? Yes. Credible independent source? Yes. Referenced? Yes. Nothing wrong with notability.

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." (WP:NOTNEWS)

"News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." (WP:EVENT)

Bear in mind that this, though a crime, a news sensation, a tragedy and an outrage, is still common in Bangladesh. (see this and [this for instance) Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Aditya. No indication of WP:LASTING significance. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IINFO -- RoySmith (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Aditya. To me this is one event and as BDD noted, no indication of WP:LASTING. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 07:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to ASCII art. Closing this a little early, as a strong and clear consensus exists herein to merge this article to ASCII art. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII art converter[edit]

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

Un-referenced article about non-notable type of computeer software. Link farm of specific implementations with no value-add about algorithms, implemntation, history, application, or any other aspects that could be covered. Mikeblas (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ASCII art. I see value of this name as a search term, but the discussion of the methods of creating ASCII art belongs there anyway. I should note that there is not much information to be merged though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. There are sources discussing this kind of software[5][6][7][8][9][10], but not really enough in depth coverage that I'd say it's definitely notable (I'd expect there to be some more sources in 1980s magazines, old works of computing folklore/history, etc, but that's only supposition). --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ASCII art. Refs insufficient for a separate article, but ASCII art article already has ' Methods for generating ASCII art' where any salvageable content from this article could work.Dialectric (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ASCII art. Long before there were Photographic mosaics, creation of and conversion to ASCIII art was popular. I agree with Colapeninsula that the best sources are likely offline 80's computer enthusiast magazines and newspapers. The lead is a reasonable short summary of how conversion is typically accomplished and the existence of some RS make it verifiable; AAlib is a notable example of such software. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, preservation of verifiable material is preferable to deletion and a merge to ASCII art is a natural target. This is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. No prejudice to re-creation if multiple in-depth RS are eventually found. --Mark viking (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into ASCII art. References not strong enough to establish notability as a standalone article. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:30, 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 Withdrawn/Keep - nom was unaware of Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast_media. (Involved but non controversial close) (non-admin closure) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1st Wave[edit]

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

This article, and the related Sirius XM radio stations, are not notable. I've decided to use AfD instead of proposed deletions due to the sheer number of articles I think should be deleted, meaning it would be better if they were all deleted with community approval. EdwardH (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, nearly all the articles mentioned in Template:Sirius XM Channels (music) are not notable. Those that are not notable have been listed below:

Ball and doughnut[edit]

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

Prod declined on the grounds that "everyone knows it" and "it's unreferenced but it's helpful", so coming here to do it the hard way. For something "everyone knows", I certainly don't know it and nor does teh interwebz - and for something on a popular-culture related topic in an English speaking country to generate zero Ghits is beyond implausible. Even if a source could be found, I very much doubt that this could ever be considered a notable term, and at most would warrant an "also known as..." at NODD. Mogism (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. It went CSD and I deliberately recreated it to PROD it, then the PROD is not even discussed? What's going on, who is up their own ahem? I mostly gnome at RfD. It is for you to show me that it is unhelpful, not the other way around. I thought we were here to help readers find information that they are looking for. It is referenced by the way (albeit not well), another editor has added one: quod erat demonstrandum: that is because we make a start and then improve. It's already been marked with a TV stub for example. I'll take it to admin abuse, then. I am a good-faith editor trying to make it better for our readers; not sure what you are doing. Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by "It went CSD and I deliberately recreated it to PROD it, then the PROD is not even discussed?" or "I'll take it to admin abuse". No, we're not here to help readers find information that they are looking for - we're not Wikia. We're here to provided referenced information on notable topics, and if you want something to be on Wikipedia it's down to you to provide evidence of both.

Someone hasn't "added a reference", they've added a YouTube clip of Breakfast Time with no apparent relevance other than being on BBC1. If you're so confident you can find references for this, why have you not managed to find one? Mogism (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we are not here to help readers find the information they are looking for, what are we here for then? To examine our own backsides? This is why we have {{refimprove}} and {{unreferenced}} and so on: we make a start and others will bung in as they have done numerous times in the past. I live a thousand miles away from the UK and it is hard for me to find references: I actually checked the BBC Breakfast Time reference did you? Others probably can do so more easily: I can only do what I can. I do a lot of Hungarian articles on English Wikipedia because mirabile dictu I am in Hungary and I can; which improves the encylopaedia. I can't even get BBCtv. In fact I can't gat any TV. Now, stop abusing me on my talk page please. Si Trew (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I "abused you on your talk page"?

"Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it" is one of Wikipedia's core policies. Again, if you think this could ever meet WP:V and WP:N, find even one reference. Mogism (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think hassling another good-faith editor is apart from abuse? How would you describe it: good-natured debate or something? Doesn't seem like it to me. Si Trew (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:RS also applies if you want: and how many thousands of articles have not got RS. I add them to make them RS and V and N. And thousands of articles are not RS or V or N but that is WP:NOTFINISHED. Don't start talking to me about "policy": start trying to make the encyclopaedia better. Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I "hassling" you? I've made three posts to your talk in my entire life: two notifications, and one reply to a bizarre comment from you about my supposed "admin rights".

This discussion is clearly not going anywhere, and I'm not going to engage with you any further if you're going to post nonsense like "Tell me where you live and we will fight it out man to man". Feel free to try to convince anyone else who turns up to this AFD that the references exist. Mogism (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not a slang term dictionary. PaintedCarpet (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced and not notable enough for a stand-alone article. The creator's hand-waving above doesn't carry conviction. We do have an article about NODD, this content could go there iff sources can be found. Bishonen | talk 10:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence that this is notable. We're not a collection of indiscriminate information. We do have inclusion criteria, and this does not seem to meet them. "It's useful" is an argument to avoid. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this, but if any do show up, the article can be recreated. A YouTube video, however, is not good enough. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic is a duplicate of History_of_BBC_television_idents#The_Mechanical_Globe.2FNexus_Orthicon_Display_Device_.281969.E2.80.931985.29. Redirecting/merging would only make sense if this content had any sources, otherwise the dubious claims should be deleted per usual policy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence it meets notability standards. Amortias (T)(C) 23:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no reliable sources for this term, then it's at best a neologism or just use once for all we know. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Somebody please explain to me why this was not dealt with as WP:G11? There's a single reference, and it's to a book that's in press? Article created by a SPA whose user name is an acronym of the book's title? Sheesh. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling and Simulation-based Systems Engineering Handbook[edit]

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

blatant WP:OR, doesn't seem like it can be recovered Zeus^u|c 18:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might even be a speedy delete, as content/ad copy seems blatantly promotional of the book. --Mark viking (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Luther Vandross tours. slakr^\ talk / 02:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Vandross tours[edit]

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

Not convinced these are noteworthy tours for Luther Vandross. The tours do not appear to have multiple reliable sources about the tour itself, merely reviews of individual stops. The other tours nominated as a group are below. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Upon reviewing the sources in some of these articles, some of the tours actually do appear to have received WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable sources. It would be better to assess each article more closely and perform sources searches as suggested in section D of WP:BEFORE, after which time then renominate those that haven't received SIGCOV accordingly. Those that actually don't meet notability guidelines could be merged to List of Luther Vandross tours. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate the use of this BEFORE essay that implies the research hasn't been done. Can you please show which of these tours have received said coverage about the tours that aren't simply local reviews? They have been reviewed, so if I missed them, you should be able to point them out. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect all to Luthor Vandross. Saying a tour happened, and here were the dates/locations is not of encyclopedic value. Give a sentence or two about each tour in the main article. That is sufficient, unless there is significant commentary/content on one of them.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all ~~with Luthor Vandross;~~ to List of Luther Vandross tours; separate articles are not needed. Fylbecatulous talk 14:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about the notion of merging to List of Luther Vandross tours? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basically a permastub that I'd argue should merge into Luther Vandross if this content is kept in any form. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list of tours is more feasible than all these individual articles; which really need to be put somewhere, rather than continuing to stand alone. Upon reconsideration I will amend my merge above to reflect the list as my preference. I do hope the list can be expanded with more text and sources to fend off the permastub declaration. Fylbecatulous talk 13:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. I know we don't normally do a third relist, but given the number of articles involved, I think it's worth one more attempt to form a real consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to List of Luther Vandross tours. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:39, 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 02:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of Left 4 Dead[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Vaypertrail (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Actual vote cast lower down on page) Much of the content on this age appears to be copied from the Left 4 Dead wiki. The specific page can be found here [11]. Just to be thorough, I ran this article and the Left 4 Dead Wiki article through the Duplication Detector. The results can be seen here [12], but it basically shows that much of the article is a word for word match of the Left 4 Dead article. There also seems to be extensive copying from "The Infected" page [13] (specific sections copied shown here [14]) as well as the "NPCs" page [15] (with specific coping shown here [16]). The Left 4 Dead wiki does not receive any attribution in the reference area nor in the talk page. I haven't been able to find what specific licensing the Left 4 Dead wiki is under, but this article should be considered a massive copyright violation if the Left 4 Dead wiki is not under creative commons or another compatible license. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wikias are cc-by-sa, and the L4D Wikia is the same (see the bottom footer), so no copyvio issues there. The copy/paste should be attributed somewhere, though. @Vaypertrail, can you say more about why it fails the GNG, like what part or why? czar ♔ 17:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, though while not (adding) a copyvio, there's extremely little of the content from Wikia that I would assume survive a proper rewrite to necessitate the need to keep that revision history. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC) (clarified statement that not a copyvio --MASEM (t) 04:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Wow, I did not notice that footer. Thanks for finding it. While the copyright issue is easily cleaned up (just add attribution in the talk page and reference everything), this article still has serious flaws. Specifically, most of the content is Left 4 Dead cruft. This level of detail is certainly appropriate when writing a wiki about the Left 4 Dead franchise, but not appropriate for Wikipeda. I can see the plausibility of having an article on Left 4 Dead characters, but this article as it stands needs massive clean-up. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:35, 27 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) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There might be a possible article for a list of L4D characters, but let's start the slate clean without "borrowing" content from Wikia. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the subject of this article does have substantial third party coverage, which I'm not sure is actually the case, it would still need to be built from scratch, using those sources. There's nothing to save here. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2 articles both contain sections describing the survivors and the infected. These sections contain minimal cruft and do not copy directly from the Left 4 Dead wiki. I see no reason to keep this page. (Note: I commented above about potential copyright issues, but placed my vote here so it could be visible and to avoid causing confusing edits in my above comment). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:47, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Empty vessel[edit]

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

Rambling list of things that mention "empty vessel", much is unreferenced and not notable Bhny (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a possibility of the business term becoming notable but there's one throwaway use at electronic business (also questionable). I'm surprised there isn't a philosophy or other version of use but better to delete and let something organically come if it ever does. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure what policy to cite, but, this is clearly not a valid encyclopedia article. It's a rambling, sort-of dab page, sort-of extended dict def. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sum 41 discography. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does This Look Infected Too?[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. This album provides no sources and so little information which is hardly worth having its own article. --Wudumindif (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sum 41 discography, where this EP and Japan chart peak are mentioned. Although it charted, I could not find coverage for this release to warrant a standalone article; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 05:45, 27 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, Go Phightins! 02:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is to delete per WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, however if Nfitz is able to compile significant non-English sources that would confer notability per one of the aforementioned guidelines, s/he is encouraged to do so Go Phightins! 02:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Mejía[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. Original rationale was that this player fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (the Honduran league is not fully-professional.) Giant Snowman 14:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with significant media coverage - the German version of this article in particular is well referenced - de:Henry Mejía. Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: sorry where is the "significant coverage" that does not relate to his death? WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 07:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two significant references that were published over a year before he died would be a good starting place! Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 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 keep. While consensus is not a vote, a majority support either unequivocally keeping, or keeping or merging, while only a few support merging. One editor raised a concern with the target of a merger, and as such, consensus at this point appears to be in favor of keeping the article. Go Phightins! 02:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volnovakha checkpoint attack[edit]

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

It would seem that the article fails to suffice WP:NOTABILITY. It is one of the various Ukraine related articles that are being created daily. WP is NOTNEWS and although notable at the time of the event we cannot create separate articles for every single checkpoint attack throughout this crisis. I appreciate that there was loss of life, however I don't feel that this alone is sufficient for a separate article. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just merge it to the Donetsk People's Republic article and close this discussion. No need for an AFD. RGloucester — ☎ 15:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the best option. Lunch for Two (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That might be messy. The Donetsk People's Republic article is already crowded with a lot about the history of this conflict, mostly because the split proposal (to article about the conflict and article about DPR) has failed. It it hadn't, maybe then it would have been a good idea to merge this to the article about the conflict. Feon {^t/_c} 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about the merger, but it would be a good idea--Arbutus the tree (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep it for now. Although Wikipedia isn't a news website, it does include articles about attacks and ambushes. It may turn out to be non-notable, but for now we should let it stand. We can delete it later is necessary. B14709 (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per B14709. It was notable at the time as the incident that resulted in the highest number of Army fatalities in the conflict to-date, and is still known as that, and it has been reported enough in the mainstream media. EkoGraf (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event with wide press coverage and many casualities. NickSt (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now think this article should be kept for the time being.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable event with a significant media coverage Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would just like to remind everyone that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and that press coverage is not the final arbiter of notability. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities which is not a sufficient basis for inclusion on Wikipedia per its policy (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), and a military battle that has resulted in the largest loss of life for one side in an ongoing conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This event is no Siege of Sloviansk or 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes in its notability. That the media is no longer reporting this suggests that this is of insufficient notability. Furthermore, this is one of a series of articles (Rubizhne Attack 2014 Kharkiv RSA raid Kramatorsk Ambush List of states that declared independence during the unrest in East Ukraine) all created by the same user that end up being redirected due to lack of notability. We cannot have an individual article on every single occurrence that is happening in Ukraine. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they continue to report on it when it was a one-day battle? If you check other war articles you would see you got hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on battles that happened only during one day. And I agree we do not need an article for every single occurrence, but this was not just simply an occurrence. Also, the track record of another editor on his article redirects isn't really an argument. In any case, we will see what is the opinion of other editors. EkoGraf (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2014 kept.

Again that is simply not true. This is just one of many skirmishes happening in East Ukraine at the moment. In the last few days we have had a more serious skirmish, which is of greater notability than this incidence yet is nonetheless being incorporated into the parent articles, which is where this too belongs. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i understand what is happening. This article should be kept or merged--Arbutus the tree (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a merge/redirect is most suitable in this case. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppinions so far - 5 for keep, 2 for merger, 1 for keep or merger. EkoGraf (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable event with significant media coverage.--HC PUNXKID 16:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC) (involved but uncontroversial close)[reply]

Peter Rodger[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:CREATIVE, sources are about his son, WP:NOTINHERITED, etc. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep - as article creator, meets WP:CREATIVE, "person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work", both with Oh My God and The Hunger Games. Has also won numerous awards at important film festivals. Giant Snowman 14:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the shooting article. He worked on two movies (one as assistant director) and has won a handful of unremarkable awards from local film festivals. I guess it could really go either way, but due to the lack of anything super strong I'm suggesting a redirect. wirenote (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wirenote: how is the Chicago International Film Festival ("the longest-running competitive film festival in North America") a 'local' film festival? Same goes for WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival which is renowned. Furthermore what good does a redirect to the shooting article do? If you were to redirect (though I am still confident of independent notability), then a better target would be Oh My God (2009 film). Giant Snowman 15:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The awards from those festivals are not notable. He has a handful of minor ones; so what? His body of work is not significant. (By the way, he was the assistant director of the second unit on THG, which is far less significant than the main assistant director). wirenote (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was "best director", how is that a non-notable award? Giant Snowman 15:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added a link to the Saatchi Gallery which states he is an "award-winning director and photographer" - furthermore his official website states he has written 8 screenplays (with 3 to be directed by him) and he has also published a book. I have not included that information in the article as I cannot currently find a third-party source to verify. Giant Snowman 15:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as barely passing GNG, although that is about the weakest sourcing for awards I've seen in a while. No mention of year or for what. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: well there are other sources such as this and this which give a bit more info but I'm not sure if they are RS or not. There are going to be other, better sources out there, it's just hard to find them as internet search results are being skewed given recent events. Please also note I am going on holiday for a week vey shortly so won't be able to look any further... Giant Snowman 15:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He is in a terrible position personally right now. I think his son's actions should be irrelevant to this discussion. At this point we can confirm that he directed one notable documentary that received substantial coverage. I don't think that we usually consider second-unit direction to convey notability, even on a film as prominent as Hunger Games. He appears to have a long track record working in commercials. I would find this easier to deal with if there were any independent confirmation of some of the "awards": I couldn't find any, and I note that no awards are listed on his IMDb page. I do agree that if this is redirected, the correct place would be Oh My God (2009 film). --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:N, has received multiple awards for his work. No notability is inherited, as the article does not significantly discuss his son. He does not need to be the primary subject of the reliable sources for it to be considered coverage. STATic message me! 19:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep this article is overdue given his contributions to an award-winning film. On what grounds would this be considered for deletion? Because his son was crazy? What difference does that makes? Bangabandhu (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the person has only been given an article now that his eldest son went on a murder spree. Had this not happened, he may not have gotten an article. He seems like a big-time producer of some renown and based on this I'd say notability can and has been established outside the actions of his son. However the article is very short as it is. I believe an image and some more lines, a more complete biography and such is needed to improve the article. It's too much of a stub now, and I would like to see if it can be improved because in it's current form I am leaning towards deletion. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While he didn't have an article before his son's shooting spree, I agree with Mythic Writerlord above; his career with Hollywood films seems to have established some notability for him. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 21:29, May 25, 2014 (UTC)
Strong Keep Meets criteria for [[WP:CREATIVE]. Peter Rodger has contributed to cinematic arts and with highly acclaimed films. The article does need more development/contributions of his work and life. TalkAbout (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established.--JOJ ^Hutton 22:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll withdraw the nomination, even though I still consider it a very borderline case. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:55, 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sensory overload[edit]

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

Article low on content, with little signs of improvement over time, as well as only being notable in very specific circumstances. --Pichu0102 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:SK: "fails to advance an argument for deletion". Andrew (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a real thing, and thus gets coverage in medical studies, government webpages, and medical publications. Google search for it at sites that end with *.gov and you'll find some good results to lok through. [17] You can search for *.edu as well if you need to find more. Dream Focus 23:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- From a cursory glance at the search results, the term mainly pops up in the contexts of schizophrenia or ADHD, and the clippings don't make it seem to be all that clear that it is an agreed upon term. Furthermore, the links to this article are sparse, and seem to be mainly from more specific articles already. My apologies if I am in error on this matter or if you disagree with me or my nomination. --Pichu0102 (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - [18], [19], [20], etc. define it. Need to find an official medical textbook to look it up in though. Is there a doctor in the house? Dream Focus 04:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it certainly needs TLC and some serious editing, but this is clearly a notable topic, and probably is not a candidate for WP:TNT. The fact that it's difficult to define is not a reason to delete; I can recall several times we have kept articles precisely because they were difficult to define - in a few cases they have ended up as dab pages. For examples, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velleity, etc. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps there has been some confusion? It is widely used, as can be more clearly seen in the Google Scholar results. I think the misunderstanding may have come from the fact that it is SO well-known that it has entered pop psychology, and so is often MIS-used. Anarchangel (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination under a valid reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedad Financiera de Objeto Múltiple[edit]

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

This article is still not sourced after a month JacobiJonesJr (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lack of sources is never a reason to delete, it is a reason to improve. WP:V requires that all facts are verifiable, not verified. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and as a search indicates that the type of organization certainly exists and is a valid term for an encyclopedia to eventually cover, we have to keep. WP:There is no deadline when building articles. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Dennis - As it's unsourced why not WP:FIXIT?, Anyway Speedy Keep as no valid reason for nomination. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 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 keep. It has been established that Rego plays in a fully professional league, and therefore satisfies WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Rego[edit]

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

Does this meet WP:NFOOTBALL? JacobiJonesJr (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rego plays in the Segunda Liga who is a fully professional league. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Alexanderalgrim

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving though. – Michael (talk) 04:10, 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 02:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tng Jian Zhi Sherwin[edit]

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

Seemingly non WP:NOTABLE and WP:PROMO Benboy00 (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A biography contributed by a WP:SPA account User:Sherwintng. Being co-founder of a firm and registering a patent with one's brother are not in themselves evidence of encyclopaedic notability and I am finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is little more than someone's CV with really poor references.- Mr X 14:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 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 02:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Wade[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Boxing, does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. Bin. CharlieTheCabbie (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Jakejr (talk) 06:28, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Touchmail[edit]

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

Delete - Dead application without any reliable third party references. Itsalleasy (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 09:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Delete: I failed to find enough independent reliable sources to cast any other !vote. I would note, that La Stampa citation from the article qualifies for RS, albeit it lacks depth of coverage (actually, the amount and depth of coverage barely allows to identify the topic) and is not sufficient alone anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:55, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The LoLo Project[edit]

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

Unremarkable academic venture, no WP:RS on a cursory search. Perhaps notable if successful but not at this time Zeus^u|c 09:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only page I could find was a Facebook fan page. Support deletion per the opening users statement. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed for deletion by me under the alternate title The `Lo`Lo Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), created by User:Theloloproject. Delete, perhaps speedily as self-promotion. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It probably could be speedyable as promotional. In any case, it's definitely not notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 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 02:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lukasz Rusiewicz[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not come close to meeting WP:NBOX and is basically unsourced. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and has no significant independent coverage.Jakejr (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There appears to be a plausible argument for SALT as well. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of two Fields[edit]

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

Non-notable film with no coverage, does not meet WP:NF -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no secondary coverage found. BOVINEBOY2008 15:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of several articles that looks to have been built to create a WP:WALLEDGARDEN around Zachary Laoutides, whose article is also up for deletion. On a side note, the account that created the article seems to be a sock so it could possibly be speedied that way if it was confirmed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF and is TOO SOON. Allow undeletion or recreation only if or when the film is released and gets independent coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Multiple sockpuppets have appeared on the articles and AfDs related to Zachary Laoutides, of whose movie this article is about. The latest sockpuppet recreated recently deleted articles Zachary Laoutides, Midnight Charlie, and Adios Vaya Con Dios. I have salted the recreated articles for two years and I recommend that this article be salted for two years once the AfD is closed as the recreation of the aforementioned articles shows a pattern of promotion and not abiding to consensus. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Robert Tutak. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Film Academy[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Minor coverage by Variety and Zawya, niche trade magazines. Per Wikipedia:Notability (universities), I think this fails the auto-notability we extend to universities as it is not really a university, just some for-profit school. Sources describe the offerings as "a series of intensive hands-on film production workshops", and it doesn't seem that the students will get any degree that matters (either for any employer, or more importantly for us, anything that would allow us to classify this as a serious degree-granting institution). In other words - a spammy, promotional entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Tutak, the founder (Tutak isn't very notable but his films got some press). I can't find sufficient evidence of notability for this institute: there is some coverage in middle eastern press about it setting up schools in the region, but nothing going into much depth. As already identified, this is not a well-written, encyclopedic article. And it isn't an officially accredited higher education institution such that it would be automatically notable. Note: do not confuse with New York Film Academy, which is a proper educational institution. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is probably good idea, agreed with the rest. OccultZone (Talk) 12:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it qualifies as an institution of higher ed and it has received some coverage in reliable independent sources such as the Variety article linked at the bottom under external links. Other sources are also indicated although they don't seem to be available online or aren't linked as such. A merge is also worth consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a notable film academy there are almost no results. OccultZone (Talk) 12:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 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, czar ♔ 03:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robert Tutak. There is mention of this academy, but only one reliable book has noted it and referred to the official website. Page in its present form is not ideal. IMDB and a primary source has been used for reference. Page can be re-written if there is any hope. By then I will change my vote to keep. OccultZone (Talk) 12:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. OccultZone (Talk) 13:33, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable[edit]

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

This article is a dictionary word. There is no coverage for the dictionary word in other sources as being notable for an encyclopedia article. I think Wiktionary already has this, so delete because an encyclopedia article on a word is what a dictionary is supposed to be. 123chess456 (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A dictionary definition, plus random 'examples' which amount to nothing but speculative WP:OR. Not remotely acceptable as a Wikipedia article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, it seems obvious that this is just an attempt at a longer definition with examples. Dougweller (talk) 09:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition. wirenote (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indeed. WP:DICDEF. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be some cases where we could build a good encyclopædia article on something that's also a dictionary word, but this isn't one of them. bobrayner (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its presence on Wikipedia cannot be explained. I suggest it be redirected to Explanation. Paul B (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 02:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Boulden[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Boulden has a job that puts him on TV, but it doesn't make him notable. I can find mentions of him in reliable sources doing his job, but the coverage isn't about him. Not finding significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Article says he won a "Headliner Award", but he was part of a show that won it. He isn't listed as an individual winner or as the producer.[21]. In the end, he's just a guy with a job. If we look at WP:CREATIVE, I can't see him passing. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Delete. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:22, 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Sates Post Office First Day of Circulation September 18th, 2008[edit]

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

I don't think this warrants an article. A line on the Bette Davis article already exists which is more than sufficient, also it is already included at List of people on stamps of the United States. The title is a very unlikely search term (and States is spelt incorrectly). Probably would be a CSD, to be honest. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A routine U.S. commemorative stamp about a great actress, appropriately mentioned at Bette Davis but lacking independent notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated by the others here, no need for a separate entry about the stamp. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:01, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination, but no consensus at this time Go Phightins! 02:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one I created through it's absence, and also happens to be the first article I have created. When it was marked for deletion, it was nowhere near complete, nor is it complete now.. It is still very much work in progress, further details are to be added and all references and tags are to follow as well. Now I appreciate the album didn't make the UK Top 100 Albums for a given week, but it is an album by a recognised and respected UK rapper, and the album also contains 3 songs that charted, one of which was very successful making the Top 20. This, in itself, I believe, makes it an album worthy of an article. W3513Y1994 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by W3513Y1994 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voices in My Head (Dot Rotten Album)[edit]

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

WP:NOTE 146 in the UK charts doesnt make it noteable. Amortias (T)(C) 10:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:10, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:12, 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. Go Phightins! 02:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Confalonieri[edit]

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

WP:NOTE Presenter and professor with a single publication that doesn't appear to have sufficient notability Amortias (T)(C) 11:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- Kanghuitari (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and your reason? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

See article. She is notable. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 08:22, 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, czar ♔ 17:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Professor with a single publication of dubious notability she may be, but she's also a widely known fixture of Korean popular entertainment. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:25, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as extremely notable presenter. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:30, 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 delete. Go Phightins! 02:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Speranza[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Unremarkable career. Being an honorary consul is not a claim for notability, they are part time volunteer roles. The Moises Bertoni Foundation which he is director of is questionable notability. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:14, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Most of the "sources" provided are simply directory listing that confirm he held certain roles. None of those roles, though, would seem to be enough for us to consider the subject notable. Can't see any specific instances of "significant coverage" in there. Stalwart111 14:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination, but no consensus at this time Go Phightins! 02:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Unity Center[edit]

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

This community center appears to fail not only WP:ORG but even WP:GNG. Most of the sources are either sites tied to the organization itself, or profiles created in web directories as part of the center's digital footprint. A Youtube link is thrown in for good measure as well. There does appear to be a tiny amount of info on a university website, but that's it. This center isn't notable.
Also worth noting is that the article was created by an account which is either the official account of the center or an account posing as such, as can be seen at Special:Contributions/Muslimunity_center. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:15, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:08, 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. Nomination withdrawn, so keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quran and Sunnah[edit]

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

Like many other articles written by this article's long-retired creator, this is merely a synthesis of primary religious sources which only loosely relate to the topic stated in the article's title; it's as clear an example of original research as one could find. The last AfD was ruled "no consensus" because not a single other person participated for the entire three weeks it was up. Reopening the discussion speedily per WP:NPASR. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article cites no secondary sources at all, AFAICT. I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, as my ignorance of the subject is profound. GoldenRing (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I do believe that Hadith as Scripture: Discussions on the Authority of Prophetic Traditions in Islam is a secondary source. Mustadrak al-Hakim is both primary because it is a collection of hadith, and secondary because it constitutes a commentary on those hadith. --Bejnar (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hadith as Scripture book is only listed as further reading though; it isn't actually cited for anything in the article. As for Mustadrak, then I have never owned a copy as it's a big book but it is always referred to as a collection rather than a commentary. Are you sure that it does contain actual commentary on the contents of the hadiths? If it just contains his verdict on whether or not he thinks it's authentic, then it absolutely is a primary source only just like the Six Books for Sunnis or Four Books for Shias. A proper commentary would be like Fath al-Bari of Ibn Hajr, which could be a secondary source, but a simply collection wherein the author says "I think this hadith is inauthentic due to X, Y and Z" then that's a textbook example of primary source religious material in Islam. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now cites two additional secondary sources. I do not find the article to be significantly tainted with original research. When looking for substantiation of the statements in the article, I find it. Yes, the article could use work. As the article is confusing, I can understand why the nominator might have thought that it was synthesis, but the debate between the Sunni and the Shia over the authenticity of Quran and Sunnah as a hadith is very real, and that is the topic of the article, as hidden as that may be. --Bejnar (talk) 00:50, 23 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) 03:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit User:Bejnar, while I respect your view and am delighted that a discussion is finally happening, I am a bit perplexed by that view. The two sources you added are absolutely irrelevant to proving the notability of this subject. The first one simply stated that the Sunnah is a thing, and as I explained at the first AfD this article isn't about the Sunnah in general, it's about one specific supposed statement attributed to Muhammad. The second source you added then essentially supports the same thing, just explaining what a hadith is. Neither source bears any relation to this specific hadith at all, and so I once again must reiterate: notability of this topic has not been sufficiently altered in any way and is still totally unsupported. I hope my language doesn't come off as standoffish; it's not a serious, Wikipedia-threatening issue, I just don't see how this is notable (or how the article isn't just a bunch of OR). MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This hadith is notable because (1) it is a saying of Muhammad that is basic to the two source belief of followers of Islam; and (2) because it has generated a controversy that has lasted centuries and has lots of commentary in secondary sources. Now to non-Muslims it may seem ludicrous to argue the superiority and authenticity of the two hadith, since the result seems to be so similar, but consider how the controversies between what became Orthodox Christian belief and Arianism or Monophysitism might look to an outsider. --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I not quite sure where the other problems that you are having lie. There are two closely related hadith, one (2 weighty things) for which Wikipedia has an article entitled Hadith of the two weighty things, and a second hadith known colloquially as "Quran and Sunnah", which in one of its many expressions is: I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of God and my Sunna. attributed to Muhammad. This second hadith is not universally accepted. Although there are noted scholars who do accept it, and there are footnotes to their works, see FN 10-12. Acceptance of this hadith is a point of controversy between the Shia and the Sunni. The editor of this article tried to present the hadith and the controversy in NPOV terms, but it is obvious to me that he/she basically feels that the "2 weighty things" hadith is more important and should provide all the guidance that is necessary for the faithful. The result seems to have been a lack of clarity. This is not OR, the scholars do discuss the authenticity of this hadith and the reasons for supporting it or not. Unfortunately, the article, in my opinion, currently gives undue weight to the "2 weighty things" hadith. I tried in my two edits to give some of the background, but maybe it would be better to strip out about half of the "2 weighty things" discussion and start the lead as: Quran and Sunnah is a saying attributed to Muhammad (a hadith), namely I have left among you two matters by holding fast to which, you shall never be misguided: the Book of God and my Sunna. Cite: Mālik and Medina: Islamic Legal Reasoning in the Formative Period. p. 95. The authenticity of this hadith is rejected by many Shi'a. The concept itself is not rejected, as most Muslims hold that Islam is derived from two sources: one being infallible and containing compressed information — the Qur'an — and another being a detailed explanation of the everyday application of the principles established in the Qur'an: The Sunnah, or the living example of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.FN1 What makes you think that this article is original research? --Bejnar (talk) 06:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding User:Bejnar, this is actually one of the more interesting discussions on AfDs lately. Anyway, my main objection is to proof of notability. If Muslim scholars discuss this hadith so much, then where is the proof? The sources you provide talk about hadith and sunnah in general, not this specific one. We only have one secondary source mentioning this hadith at all. That isn't notable.

The authenticity of it isn't for us editors to delve into, which is why much of this consists of OR. The collections of Nishaburi and Hakim, for example, are primary sources, not secondary; they cannot be used on their own to establish a point without reliable secondary sources to support what is being written. Additionally, even if we did want to perform OR here, this is amateurish. Quoting Ihkam and Tamhid and calling it a day isn't how it works; the takhrij of one hadith can occupy an entire book, especially one on a contentious issue. So this isn't just OR relying totally on primary sources, but it's also bad OR. Wait I'm at work gotta go ttyl MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, duty called. Anyway I kind of lost my train of thought but the gist of it is that I don't think primary source material like the Mustadrak or Tamhid can establish notability, and right now I'm only seeing one secondary source which is actually relevant to the topic. If I am mistaken - and that is possible - then I will gladly withdraw the nomination, but right now I just don't see this passing WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The authenticity of it isn't for us editors to delve into, except for reporting the opinions of others, since the controversy being reported on is about "authenticity". As editors we don't make a ruling, we just report, but that usually means reporting the arguments on both sides, which usually requires delving. --Bejnar (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does @MezzoMezzo: regard a source that reports on a hadith as a primary source? How about if the source says "X reports that Y reports that Z said"? --Bejnar (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Bejnar, it isn't really what I consider a primary source or not. This isn't a matter of opinion. Mustadrak of Hakim, for example, is where hadith come from, no different than Sahih al-Bukhari. Those are the actual books of hadith, which renders them primary like the Qur'an. Quoting books of hadith alone with no secondary source is like using the Talmud as a citation for Judaic articles.

Now, books like Ihkam are a different story. Ihkam is a derivitave work so it's secondary, but it's also a thousand years old. Quoting that one book in which that one author says a given hadith is authentic isn't how a professional muhaddith supports an argument in favor of the authenticity of a hadith, especially in 2014. There have been another thousand years of study done on most other hadith and the literature review alone could theoretically occupy quite a bit of space. Which goes back to my original point: I think this is OR, and if I am correct, it isn't even quality OR.

Keep in mind, even if the hadith isn't authentic, it can still be notable. Wikipedia allows articles on all sorts of things not considered to be true like bigfoot, so an inauthentic hadith would be no different. Which brings me back to a point I had wanted to make earlier: I don't think authenticity is the issue here, I think notability is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MezzoMezzo: May I assume that you have looked at the discussion of this hadith in Mālik and Medina: Islamic Legal Reasoning in the Formative Period? --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MezzoMezzo: Ignoring OR for the moment, if notability is your concern, see my comments above of 06:21, 25 May 2014. --Bejnar (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Bejnar, indeed I did scan it, but it's one source. Can notability really be established with mention in one source? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is saying "one source"? You already mentioned Ihkam above, and I assume that you have not read the introduction to Dogan's Islamic Law with the Quran and Sunnah Evidences, since the book is new and not widely held. (£28.58 + postage from a reseller at Amazon). I have also added a citation to a book by Muhammad Hisham Kabbani to the article. That one you may be able to find in a nearby library or school. See also the discussion of this hadith with regard to shariah which I have added to the article, in particular the discussion in Ali's The Position of Women in Islam. --Bejnar (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you added three new sources in the past day or so. Correct, I haven't heard of the Dogan work nor am I familiar with Kabbani's written work in comparison to audio and video of him. But are these passing mentions, references to other topics like two of the sources already in the article, or the real deal? Can you give me a day or so while I look it up just to see for sure? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, in fact I am supposed to be on-the-road for the next week, with iffy Internet access. But I think that I have just scratcched the surface of modern secondary sources. The problem seems to be an absence of good search terms. I came across Ali's The Position of Women in Islam by happenstance. --Bejnar (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well User:Bejnar, the discussion was already relisted four days ago and it was the second time so it might not be listed again before being closed. To avoid a "no consensus" result (which could mean someone else renominates it in the future), I would be willing to withdraw the nomination (and it would appear as such, defending the article to an extent) if you tell me you're absolutely sure the secondary sources you have found, some of which are quite new, push the topic past WP:GNG. You're a respected editor and if you will go on the record here saying that point blank, I would withdraw the nomination in recognition of that and somewhere down the road we could work on the article. This is if you're absolutely sure that the topic is notable as proven by secondary sources and should not be renominated later, as a "withdraw" result would be a better ending in that case. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, I am convinced that the existing secondary sources provide acceptable coverage for WP:GNG. I still have other books on order via interlibrary loan, that I hope will add additional substance, but that are not necessary to provide Wikipedia notability. I also look forward to redoing the Shia section which is particularly perverse (full of extraneous arguments about 2 weighty things that belong in that article, if anywhere). As I mentioned I may be off the air for a bit starting tomorrow (Friday). --Bejnar (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs addition sourcing and that can be found. Let's continue to work on the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Withdraw nomination per the discussion with Benjar. There appear to be multiple sources, some of which are very recent and some of which Benjar has requested via interlibrary loans to help build the article. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Hepato-Pancreato-Bilary Association[edit]

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

fancy name and I'm sure it does important work for its field. The article is full of primary sources. In 20 years of existence it gets 2 gbooks hits and 3 gscholar hits, one of those books uses WP as its source. LibStar (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 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, czar ♔ 18:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is the nomination basically "i don't like it"? An AFD is a demand on other editors' time. The topic seems obviously notable. If someone wants to develop it, searching should be done on alternate names given in article:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, U.S. regional one
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, predecessor
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, predecessor
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, predecessor

--do ncr am 02:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"An AFD is a demand on other editors' time" the whole of WP is a demand on people's time...so? the burden is on keep !voters is to establish evidence sources. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 27 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) 03:06, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beware Fashionable Women[edit]

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

Unlikely to meet WP:GNG Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing significant discussion in secondary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep'. The deletion nominator has not asserted wp:BEFORE is met, and in similar nominations, including others solidly kept, the nominator has refused to answer the question of whether they tried to assess notability. It is not a requirement that every article has a plethora of sources; stubs with no sources are allowed in wikipedia; whether a topic is notable or not is a different question, not yet explored here. I am not personally into articles on bands and hope others more knowledgeable will comment. But a moment's search finds this Examiner.Com profile article (hmm, Examiner .Com is blocked for some reason, so to see, drop the "Q" after "www." and the "Q" after "examiner." in the URL) for another source to add to what is in the article. --doncram 23:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet another ad hominem, Doncram? Ask yourself whether a blacklisted site is likely to meet WP:GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:33, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding much in the way of sources. The only good one on the page itself is the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which would be considered local coverage. The link to the issue of Music Connection Magazine is broken, but I wouldn't consider coming in 3rd on a list of unsigned bands to contribute much to notability anyway, and mere presence on a list isn't what I would call significant coverage (though if there was more coverage than a ranking and a blurb, maybe, but I doubt there was because a search of the magazine's own site brought up zilch). The rest is promotional/sales links and scattered music blogs. — Gwalla | Talk 02:57, 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 02:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Dallas[edit]

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

Don't think this fits the CSD criteria. Seems to be a social media fad, doesn't meet notability guidelines for BLP Zeus^u|c 02:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have been anticipated by Zeus :-) patrolling the page. Anyway, I vote deletion per G11 (promotional style), A7 and also because, looking at "what links here", I've found 3 user talks with a tag for speedy deletion: Magconluver8 Camzbae, Erin K.O Blake. So this article was speedy deleted 3 times (8 March 2014, 10 March 2014, 7 May 2014) and the current author is Lseids. Suspecting that the users, only with contribs related to "Cameron Dallas", could be related, I've opened this SPI page. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 02:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Borg, thanks for all the detail. I first threw A7 up on it but after a quick Google search I wasn't sure that would fly, so I just took it here. Should be a relatively uncontested removal and then we can CSD it per G4 in the future... Zeus^u|c 02:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-). I've seen for few seconds the {{Db-a7}}... You've done the better action: me too, when I'm not sure, I prefere to use the AFD. Anyway, I suppose this is a case of sockpuppetry, or meatpuppetry, related to the promotion of the subject. Note: I suggest to block the title "Cameron Dallas" to avoid further creations... at least until (and if) the person purchases notability. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 03:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Searching for the title Cameron dallas, I've found that the page was deleted in April, and the author was Ilysmcamerondallas. --Dэя-Бøяg 18:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and failing WP:GNG. STATic message me! 20:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that he has yet achieved notability per WP:BIO, and the sources don't meet the WP:GNG requirements. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 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 redirect to Peter Hewitt (director)#Career. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Baby Jesus (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable cancelled film. Future films are generally not notable until independent reliable sources confirm that principle photography has begun. This unsourced article stops just shy of claiming that filming did begin (saying it was scheduled to begin one month before it was cancelled). SummerPhD (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason or sources are given as to why this cancelled film is somehow significant. 331dot (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence whatsoever of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt - Since a paragraph's been added IMO redirecting is a much better solution. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No citations or reasons that this should be notable. -- Jersey92 (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per User:MichaelQSchmidt -- Jersey92 (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Dead project or not, (did some research) this film topic has been the recipient of significant coverage. Even if never made, the topic can be spoken of somewhere, and so I added a well-sourced short paragraph at Peter Hewitt (director)#Career so we can serve our readers by sending them to the one place where topic may be spoken of in context, even without its own article. It might even be arguable that the failed production meets the caveats set by WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about how redirects are treated to comment on if one is valid in this case, but if the information can be made part of the director's article, that's OK by me. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, redirects are cheap, serve our readers by sending them where sourcable content can best be placed, and the title is searchable. My thought and effort is based on WP:GNG and WP:NFF (paragraph 3) for a cancelled film project. Thanks for stopping back by. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect And strike-through previous comment. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Redirects are cheap -- free even -- and a canceled project is a reasonable search term. Don't panic. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt's initiative consistent with WP:PRESERVE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:52, 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.

[SSC_Result_2013_Bangladesh-1] "SSC Result 2013 Bangladesh".

[1]