Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 May	1 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Alexis[edit]

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

Article was brought to AfD in 2001, which closed with no consensus. Since then, little has been done to address concerns that article does not satisfy WP:GNG Subject does not seem notable and has not been the subject of multiple third-party RS. PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim to notability is made in lead. There is no significant coverage. She has appeared on television, written a couple of articles, but drawn no real notice. Fails WP:GNG and may not qualify under WP:ENT or WP:ATH, but she fails them anyway. --Bejnar (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any notability criteria, including GNG. Mdtemp (talk)
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguously promotional. RomanSpa (talk) 03:45, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Xian[edit]

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

Naked advertising. Subject fails POLITICIAN. Article was previously deleted per G-11 but has reappeared in substantially the same form and wording. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Xian an accomplished human rights activist in Hawaii. The fact that she is running for Congress doesn't diminish her human rights contributions. Obviously, not all Wiki articles created for people who decide to run for office are automatically "naked advertising." In fact, this article significantly and deliberately downplays Xian's congressional run in order to remain non-commercial. Her congressional run and the fact that she's the first openly gay person to run for Congress from Hawai'i are notable historical facts, in my view. If you see things differently, please explain why. Thanks! Fracpol (talk) 01:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:POL. The community has consistently set a high bar for articles about unelected persons seeking public office. Further this article is one of the more brazen campaign adds masquerading as an encyclopedic article that I have seen on Wikipedia. It has already been speedy deleted once. The only reason I sent it here instead of another G-11 CSD is so we can get a more definitive ruling that will hopefully make it a bit more difficult to recreate. Of course if Ms. Xian wins the election she would then satisfy the criteria for inclusion. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the relatively few sources I can find about her thus far, she isn't even a formal candidate for Congress yet — as of yesterday, she was still just a candidate in the party primary to become the party's candidate in the congressional election. Being on the ballot in the general election wouldn't, in and of itself, be sufficient basis to deem her as having passed WP:POLITICIAN — and being a candidate in a primary is even weaker as a claim of notability. And while her activism as described in the article is certainly admirable, it's all pretty local in nature and import, and would not be sufficient to qualify her for a Wikipedia article by itself, either. She'll qualify for an article if she wins the election in November, certainly — but there isn't sufficiently strong evidence of notability here as things currently stand. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's nice that she is an activist for worthy causes, but our standard for inclusion here is WP:GNG. That basically requires coverage, namely, significant coverage about her from independent reliable sources. She is mentioned here and there by local news media (primarily by alternative media, rather than mainstream media like the TV stations and the Star-Advertiser). She is such a long shot in that seven-person primary race that pollsters don't even include her name when they take a poll.[1] At this time she is simply not notable as Wikipedia defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this Xian the director referred to [2], [3] She appears to be so. [4]. There's a very small but non-zero number of references to it at paywalled journal articles. The article may need work, but I'd imagine those sources, plus the ones already in the article, meet WP:BASIC, and unless someone wants to dispute that this is the same Xian, I'd suggest keep. --j⚛e decker ^talk 20:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference appears to be a very short blurb in a magazine that I would question whether it meets standards for reliability and independence. The second two I can't access in their entirety but what I can see appears to be trivial. Sources that are behind a paywall may be reliable and verifiable but if they are going to be cited as evidence of notability someone should state as such clearly, and explain what the sources are claiming. (See WP:BURDEN.) I am not seeing that. But much more important is that the article clearly fails WP:NOT as it is a naked political advertisement that has already been speedy deleted once on that basis. Even if a credible argument existed for notability, which I would strongly contest at this point, this article would have to pretty much be completely rewritten to eliminate the naked bias and advertising. NOT is policy and it trumps Notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is the third place candidate for the seat being vacated by Colleen Hanabusa, if she wins the primary election on August 9th then she would warrant an article, but not yet by a long shot. She is barely notable locally much less to the degree that would warrant a Wikipedia article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 12:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- She hasn't even been included in the last two polls of the race, with the reasoning that she "is trailing in the race. She has raised very little money for her campaign and has not held elective office." Delete Tiller54 (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually she needs to win the general election to merit an article under POLITICIAN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The district's so heavily Democratic that winning the primary is tantamount to election. Tiller54 (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence for deletion, everything I find show her as a mid-level manager of a few non-notable charities. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 00:44, 1 June 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting as no one has addressed Joe's sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drive assist[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about unreleased software. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 23:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While it may gain notability at some future date, it definitely hasn't yet, and is therefore WP:TOOSOON. G S Palmer (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:TOOSOON aycliffe^talk 15:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Interesting subject but sadly TOOSOON. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:04, 8 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bishop (politician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as is only a candidate for election and not an elected politician. Mattlore (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 02:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOL. He has attained significant press coverage, even featuring in UK news. He has been on television during his time at Philip Morris. He has been reported on Kiwiblog several times for both politics and debating. He has been a staffer for at least two government ministers. Also meets the general notability criterion in WP:N due to wide independent press coverage. Wipkipkedia (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL. All sorts of crazy stunts and name-calling during election season, none of which leads to notability unless elected. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's established practice here that we delete articles about mere candidates. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has not been elected. Other coverage is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham University Handball Club[edit]

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

A British University sports team which fails all notability tests and so fails WP:ORG. The article has been around since 2006 but has failed to attract a single external reference. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely non notable Atlas-maker (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ It's apparently England's oldest university handball club and has received coverage in the papers but I suspect I'm plucking at straws here. As university handball clubs in the UK go, they are notable but that's about it. Longwayround (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, delete: that the club's championship victory from 2013 appears not to have been reported suggests to me they're just not notable. Longwayround (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. University clubs in the UK are almost never notable, this one is no exception. Szzuk (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an amateur sports club for students. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another student sports club. RomanSpa (talk) 03:52, 7 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no other arguments for deletion. — Gwalla | Talk 17:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miklós Malek (musician)[edit]

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

This article is a bit like my cat - looks fat, but once the fluff has been combed out the real bag of bones shows itself. Nothing indicates notability, and I dispute some of its factual accuracy - "Miklos' work has been featured on over 15 million records" is an impossibility! Laun chba ller 20:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Nom: It best to keep to the facts. As he has written alot of songs, it is very possible his songs have been on albums that have sold over 15 million. Malek co-composed five songs on Yanni's Truth of Touch album.[5]. The album was #1 New Age album of the year in 2011[6] and #10 album in 2012.[7]. It sold over 7 million copies. Malek passes WP:COMPOSER. As Malek is Hungarian and works in Hungary, there are alot of refs in Hungarian. [8], [9], [10] and [11]. Malek passes GNG. Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion of WP:COMPOSER are you saying Malek meets? None of the compositions on that album are independently notable. Malek may well meet WP:GNG.--Laun chba ller 22:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Co-wrote 5 of the first 6 songs, including the song Truth of Touch, that was on the #1 album of the year, #10 album the following and sold 7 million copies. The composition is the album, the album is notable, thus Malek is notable. Same as Grammy's... Win album of the year and every songwriter on the album has won a Grammy. Bgwhite (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Album tracks are not notable compositions in my opinion, but rules are rules - withdrawn.--Laun chba ller 09:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: A notable artist in music composition and in films. The fact that he was a judge in X Faktor, a greatly followed programme in Hungary as a clear proof of notability. Now article well sourced both in English and Hungarian articles. werldwayd (talk) 15:09, 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 Janelle (given names). j⚛e decker ^talk 04:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Janell[edit]

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

Seems redundant to Janelle (given names). The link to "Gang Gets Racist" doesn't meet DABMENTION. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally created this as a redirect to Janel, but would agree that Janelle (given names) is the most likely target, and would therefore delete and redirect to Janelle (given names). bd2412 T 22:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Janelle (given names) PamD 21:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Janelle (given names) as per PamD and bd2412.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:08, 9 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VCR (Tyler, the Creator song)[edit]

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

The song fails WP:NSONGS, has not charted or been covered significantly in reliable sources. Redirect to mixtape was challenged by article creator. STATic message me! 18:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, fails WP:NSONGS. 2Flows (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is not enough reliable third-party coverage to expand this beyond a stub. Salt if necessary. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CreateDebate[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Google search (removing the words 'create debate' and the site itself) reveals very few articles about the site other than blogposts (see WP:SPS, WP:USERGENERATED). The only valid source in the References section seems to be the Mashable article; the other two were a blogpost and a post which mentions the site as a part of their monthly 'startup review'. The site has won a well-known award, but it is not independent. Kayau (talk · contribs) 18:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reliable sources are hard to find about this website. First of all, most of the sources are "startup reviews", some of which are broken links. Also, the article tries to WP:MASK its lack of notability by adding whole paragraphs on the site's functionality with primary references. Jh1234l (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added archive copies to the broken links, if you want to check them now. I don't think it will change your opinion, however. Agyle (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did not find significant coverage in reliable sources. There is a 2008 Mashable article that's a critique of the site when it began, and a 2008 Gawker article with about a paragraph about its launch. Note that a press release was issued around that time as well, so don't confuse repetition of that with independent coverage. The site was launched from a class at the University of Maryland, and apparently shared a monthly prize, detailed here, but this does not establish notability the way a well-known award would (i.e. in the WP:WEB criteria). Tip for googling for information about the site: search for createdebate -"create debate", so you don't get articles with the words separated. Agyle (talk) 18:59, 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 delete. without prejudice to future creation of a new article on Legal status of Chinese people in America j⚛e decker ^talk 03:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legal history of Chinese Americans[edit]

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

This article has been troubled with various issues from its creation date, some of which has been mentioned on the article talk page. The creator and affiliated people of said user have abandoned resolving the issues. There's no clear scope and most of its content is unsuitable if one can call it content. The article history has been riddled with copyright violations from its creation and from its recreation. The remnants should be treated carefully in that regards too, close paraphrasing and such. In conclusion, it would be best to delete this article rather than try to go the lengthy and cumbersome way to fix this (there was two plus years for that). If someone decides to recreate this article, I doubt any current content would be salvaged anyway than to start afresh. Besides, there's no point in saving an article history filled with copyright violations. Cold Season (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case of TNT required. The Opium War and subsequent treaties are way off-topic and the other sections seem to be a bizarre tangle of legislation and news items with no cohesive structure. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unless there is a good merge target) -- The article and the name do nmot wholly match, but that is curable, perhaps Legal status of Chinese people in America. The article is essntially a time-line of historical laws and legal decisions. That is worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author pledged to recreate it properly, only too abandon it in this state... The article is a remnant of something comprising a chronological overview, with the most-blatant issues cleansed, thus the listing in its stead (it gives an idea at how much needed to be removed). People have wasted too much time to salvage it, but feel free to do your attempt for this keep or merge (and prove me wrong, I doubt it; it's more likely that an attempt would focus on starting over). The topic is worth having, this content is not. --Cold Season (talk) 20:38, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vertabelo[edit]

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

This was deleted by a WP:PROD, and later undeleted with a promise that third-party sources would be added. That has not happened. It's pretty easy to research Vertabelo, since it is a distinctive word. I have done this and uncovered no independent sources, so I think this does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason for delation was lack of external sources. The third party sources have just been added to the article. The external sources come from reliable webpages (eg. PostgreSQL). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owsql (talk • contribs) 11:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You might have misunderstood the deletion rationale: there should be significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The profile page at Postgress' web site is neither reliable (self-published), nor independent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vertabelo is a database modeling tool and such tools have articles on Wikipedia and are listed on Comparison of data modeling tools. The references of these articles are as reliable as the ones of Vertabelo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owsql (talk • contribs) 19:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This discussion is about Vertabelo article, not any other. If all of these articles have similar problems, they all have to be deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:32, 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 delete. Delete the disambiguation, speedy close without a result on the rest procedurally. I'm uncomfortable expanding the scope of this discussion to the subarticles without hem being tagged individually or having appeared in the nomination, no prejudice against immediately nominating those articles (bundled or not) or PROD'd them as editors feel appropriate. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Netguide (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Per WP:2DAB SAMI ^talk 19:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the lot per WP:NMAGAZINE, including NetGuide (Magazine) and Australian NetGuide, and then speedy delete NetGuide as a pointless redirect. Neither publication appears to meet notability criteria. As a side note, WP:2DAB isn't really an AfD criteria - you could be WP:BOLD and simply make the changes yourself. Ivanvector (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all "Netguide" references Go on if notability criterias are not met Sylvainlp (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC) (talk)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Dagher[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography by an apparent WP:COI editor who is creating multiple promotional articles. Fails WP:ANYBIO. - Mr X 18:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 18:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn'tsatisfy WP:ANYBIO. PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails WP:ANYBIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have good recent precedent (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barbara_Vanden_Bussche_(2nd_nomination)) supporting the view that not all beauty queens (or kings, I suppose) are notable. RomanSpa (talk) 03:59, 7 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebro (software)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: indeed does not. I can't believe it survived previous nomination with such references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails software notability. References are a mix of self published sources and blogs. Nvidia ref has a mention of Cerebro. Philg88 ^♦talk 12:11, 3 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BugTracker.NET[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Essentially no coverage. One blog mentions that it used it was used in a project. Fails WP:GNG and software notability, see essay Wikipedia:Notability (software). Wikipedia article in existence since January 2008. --Bejnar (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references apart from one blog post. A search turned up this how-to article [12] and more blog coverage, but no non how-to significant coverage in reliable sources.Dialectric (talk) 13:58, 4 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IssueNet[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: indeed does not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. Refs provided are all press releases or incidental mentions/minor awards; the Triangle Business Journal ref is a possible exception, but at one brief paragraph, which does not even mention 'IssueNet', does not establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 12:40, 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. slakr^\ talk / 04:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini (issue tracking system)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: indeed does not. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete software article of unclear notability, lacking significant RS coverage. Refs provided are download sites, developers' sites, PR, and an incidental mention/minor award. The SD Times and Visual Studio Magazine external links look like articles but are press releases for a product embellished with a few quotes from the CEO. The company Countersoft also appears non-notable. Dialectric (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use who has requested this deletion is an active contributor on a competitor product, Jira. I urge you to reconsider this request! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.223.101 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That says nothing about notability of this product. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I'm not currently a user of JIRA, but I have used it, Bugzilla, Mantis and FogBugz. As Dmitrij D. Czarkoff stated, what I use does not affect the notability of this product in any way. I looked at the article and didn't find any sources to support notability. I then ran a Google search and didn't find any either. All I could find is a book: ASIN: B007MWRLOW Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gemini is a generic term therefore it was hard to find references, I've found this: PDF which is a whitepaper about Gemini in an Educational institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 11:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— JudeDread (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Appears to be anonymous and self-published, which does not convince about reliability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry are you saying that Biodiversity Library is anonymous? NO WAY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 12:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The paper does not clearly identify its own author let alone where it was written. It could, for all we know, have been written by someone close to the subject. Further, JudeDread has a heavy involvement with the subject and so we must identify you as a single-purpose account, likely with a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am part of the ORG that wrote the paper and use Gemini. I am passionate about the tools I use and care to help them! One has to ask you 2 about your motives as per the comment from someone else here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 15:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        My full disclosure: I'm a software tester who has used several defect tracking systems and no issue tracking systems. As a Wikipediain, this article falls into one of my areas of interest and I nominated the article because a competitor noted that his article, which was also up for a deletion nomination, had more and better references than this article and several others. After reviewing that list, I nominated the articles that did not meet notability guidelines. With that said, you are clearly in COI as a co-author of that paper. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        So you went and nominated a few articles, looking at that list about 50% of it are not notable! Seems like you went after the first few from top! I'll finish your job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        See, we can't cite your claim of authorship. This PDF is just a file on BL's site with no signs that it (1) was ever published and (2) was subjected to editorial oversight. Without these conditions met, it is not reliable in terms of WP:GNG, and as such can't prove notability of the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (edit conflict) JudeDread, your interpretation is wrong. I looked at the full list presented by the other editor and I nominated those that I felt did not meet notability guidelines. Perhaps the other editor only looked at the first few in the article. I didn't look at the article and look at a few from the top. There is no job to finish, but you may nominate articles for deletion if you feel that they don't meet notability guidelines, but you do so as an editor who is in clear conflict of interest and have stated here that you have an agenda. Before wasting the time of other editors and even admins, you might want to think twice as your actions could be seen as disruptive. Finally, the act of nominating doesn't mean that the article will be deleted, only that a discussion will ensue. Also, if the discussion ends with no support for deletion (either no consensus or keep) you will not be able to nominate the article without providing a different criteria or until the ground rules for nomination change, as is the case here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you keep coming back with this conflict of interest? I only put the PDF to show a product I am using is notable, nothing to gain for me here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeDread (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I keep coming back to COI because your only edits, up to the point that I noted it, have been to promote Gemini or its parent company. The closing admin should be aware of this. No other reason. Some editors would see you blocked for this behaviour, but I don't have a problem with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that you, JudeDread and Walter, are intent on defining notability in your own terms, in clear breach of the Wikepedia guidelines, which state: "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." What you are saying is that a product used by governmental organizations, national banks, major financial institutes, space research organizations and the like is not worthy of notice. You insultingly choose to denigrate an academic source without having lifted a finger beyond reading a pdf and doing some googling. Did you attempt to contact said organization? It seems that you are dangerously close to vigilanteism and I wonder for example if JudeDread, being so close to Judge Dredd is perhaps more than a coincidence. The disavowing of self-interest here is irrelevant - why should anybody believe you? Who are you to be believed? To me (and the rest of the world I would imagine) you are far less credible sources than the Biodiversity Library. I suspect you are stooges for one or more organizations on the list with nothing better to do than to find ways to damage their competitors. Whether that is true or not remains to be seen (I shall spend a good long time looking, you can be sure of that). Whatever the case may be, you cannot be a subject matter expert and deem such a commonly used product not "worthy of notice" when clearly thousands of people on the internet DO notice it. What do you take them for then, fools? People less worthy of notability than yourselves? Your deletion request is quite frankly ridiculous in the face of the impressive list of organizations that use the product and the Wikepedia requirement of "worthy of notice". If you choose to persist in this ludicrous farce, please start by listing your CVs so that the world can judge your suitablity to pass such judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsikuade (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Dsikuade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Actually I base notability on the Wikipedia definition. The summary at Wikipedia:Notability defines notable subjects, in part, as "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. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So what we're seeking here, is those subjects that have been worthy of notice to the community at large. That is reflected in how much they write about the subject. There are great many interesting items on the Internet, but the Wikipedia community does not consider them to be notable. You could raise your concern on the Wikipedia talk:Notability or even Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), and if the criteria changes, you could recreate the article later or request that it be undeleted in light of the new criteria, assuming that it is changed and the article meets that criteria. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The real issue is what you consider to be the world at large. As I have already stated, you choose to define notability to suit you own narrow and dubious purposes, since by any definition the 'world at large' could not possibly be considered to be interested in a subject as narrow as issue tracking software. There are more than 7 billion people in the world, how many of them do you think even know what Issue Tracking software is? Almost by definition this is a field of narrow interest filled with enthusiasts and specialists and the number of referential cross-references is bound to be narrow. When I search for Countersoft on duckduckgo, a 'notable' search engine for developers, I find that Asana has bought this company's name - hmmm clearly they think the authors of Gemini and the Gemini product are notable and they have an audience that spanks Atlassian into the ground! You seem to know next to nothing about this space and yet are setting yourself up as some kind of judge and jury. Once again I repeat my question: WHO ARE YOU? WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN THIS SPACE? WHO DO YOU WORK FOR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsikuade (talk • contribs) 15:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you are suggesting that I have a conflict of interest, you're wrong. I already stated my role in relation to this nomination. Feel free to look at my edits, as I did to yours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, in the light of the clear lack of evidence provided by either SPA, lack of evidence in the article, and the inability of two editors who looked for sources using the tools above (see above where it reads "Find sources" with links to Google, books, scholar, JSTOR and free images), this subject clearly lacks notability and must be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now you are contradicting yourself. You have found a book: Gemini Issue Tracking System. Jude Dread — Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not contradicting myself. If you would actually read WP:N you would see that the book is a self-published book again doesn't meet WP:RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 8 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 keep. Clearly no consensus for deletion here. There is some support for a redirect (but no consensus for that either), that can be discussed outside of the deletion process if anyone wants to advance that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Louisiana Pipeliners[edit]

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

Not notable; perhaps redirect to Continental Baseball League Go Phightins! 21:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Continental Baseball League. Per WP:ORG, no team is inherently notable, and I'm not finding non-trivial RS about this team. PaintedCarpet (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional baseball teams are notable, even ones in the independent leagues. The players and personnel often arent but the teams themselves are. Spanneraol (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Spanneraol. Is there a guideline relating to teams' notability? The only ones of which I am aware are WP:BASEBALL/N and WP:SPORTS/N, and per both of them, so far as I know, this organization fails. Go Phightins! 23:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teams arent included in those guidelines, which reflect individuals only. It's my own personal preference. Spanneraol (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fully professional baseball team. Alex (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is there a policy that supports any professional baseball team being notable? I am not aware of one ... Go Phightins! 16:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that says it was a fully professional team? I haven't been able to source much information about the team. Andrew³²⁷ 06:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your definition of "fully professional." The Continental Baseball League was a professional baseball league and all players of all teams were paid.Spanneraol (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I think a key is that "fully professional" is not part of any guideline, so although we can nitpick at what the term means, it is irrelevant, as it is not part of any policy-based argument. Go Phightins! 01:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)\[reply]

Oh, policy-based arguments are no fun. Spanneraol (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you move beyond policy, you're left with an unsourced article about a group of guys who allegedly drove around the south for a few months losing the vast majority of their games. If you turn back to policy, you see the article utterly failing to meet GNG. Andrew³²⁷ 06:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Continental Baseball League. The League's article could use additional attention and does not have many hits in reliable sources. The Pipeliners don't have anywhere near enough coverage to warrant their own article. Andrew³²⁷ 03:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:FOOTYN has notability criteria for soccer clubs. They are not directly comparable to US Baseball clubs but seem good enough to keep this article, barely. filceolaire (talk) 06:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is what that standard says about team notability: "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria." The Pipeliners certainly never played at the national level, meaning they should be considered under general notability criteria. I don't believe they meet WP:N. Andrew³²⁷ 06:54, 29 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, Wizardman 14:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Indonesia Super League[edit]

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

there is no need for a 2016 competition page when nothing has been confirmed except 18 teams will be competing. Secondly the article opens with 2014, which just shows this is a copy and paste with no thought. LibStar (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the Indonesian football editors are in a world of their own, and as far as I can tell have never appeared at afd discussions - if there had been a redeeeming feature of a future event, it is not shown - they will not come here to defend the article, and they rarely maintain their overlinked seaofblue articles - as for thought, almost all Indonesian football articles reflect none at all. satusuro 07:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL no reliable information in existence about the season. Fenix down (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 18:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, maybe redirect to Indonesia Super League. Either way, too soon. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:11, 7 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 into female genital mutilation and convert to a redirect to that article. This one took a while to consider, which may be why it was left open for so long. While the numbers lean delete, this is a classic case of the strengths of arguments making the case, rather than the numbers. As for Afusat, no one has provided a strong argument to counter the BLP1E concerns. It is all she is known for. On the other hand, the event is noteworthy and documented. That doesn't necessarily make it notable according to Wikipedia standards (ie: a rename would likely be insufficient). Many of the deletes and even the nom mentioned merging, so it seems clear the issue isn't with the information, but is instead with it being a stand alone article. It also makes sense that someone might search for that term, and they will at least get to the entire article or the subsection that covers this woman. Being noteworthy, it is worth inclusion somewhere else, where it will arguably have more impact and add more value to the reader. If events change and Saliu's status changes as to notability, there should be no prejudice against an article being recreated, but at this time the arguments fall on the side of merging. I have converted to a redirect, and will leave the merging to the actual editors of the articles, who can use the article history for material. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afusat Saliu[edit]

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

Originally deleted as WP:CSD#A7 because the article failed to assert significance and the sources focused more on a petition and movement rather than the person. Deletion review consensus is that the article should be taken to AFD and evaluated against WP:BLP1E, which says we should avoid having articles on people who are known in the context of a single event. Because this is a short article and unlikely to generate much further coverage because the this person's deportation date has passed since the coverage, it may be better to use this information to expand female genital mutilation instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They won a last-minute reprieve a few days ago, but their eventual fate remains uncertain, this case has generated quite a bit of publicity and could run and run. PatGallacher (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But is the coverage really about the person, or about the petition/movement? Regardless, this is still a WP:BLP1E situation. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E says that it only applies to low-profile individuals. Afusat Saliu is not a low-profile individual: she's given an interview to The Guardian (evidence). Therefore WP:BLP1E is out of bounds. WP:BIO1E, however, is available: this is a person who is only notable for one event. We could rename the article to deportation of Afusat Saliu, although I must say that I think Afusat Saliu is the most plausible search term so it would need to be kept as a redirect. I agree that the coverage of this lady in the Guardian, The Independent and the BBC could be used to expand the FGM article as well, but this does not preclude having an article about the person. The fact that 120,000 people have signed a petition to keep her in the UK and this is reported in several major national news sources does rather strongly imply that we ought not to have a redlink here.—S Marshall T/C 02:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so torn between keep and delete that I can't put either !vote in bold. So, I'll say move to Deportation of Afusat Saliu, or whatever, keeping the redirect, following S Marshall's suggested possibility. At present it's a pseudo-biography, as deprecated by WP:BIO1E, but I see the reason we do not have these is so as to avoid harm. However, in this case I'm far from seeing what harm we would be avoiding by changing the title. Thincat (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete on the grounds of WP:TOOSOON in conjunction with WP:BLP1E. She might eventually be notable enough for an article, even based on just this one event, but not yet. Paisarepa (talk) 10:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Afusat and her daughters have now been deported to Nigeria but there is continued media interest in her since the deportation, for example an article in the Guardian Online on 3rd June 2004 (The Guardian). The family is still proceeding with a judicial review, so there will be more media coverage in the near future as that process gets under way. The issue has also been extended beyond simply that of FGM, as there is now concern about the possibility of Boko Haram getting involved because of Afusat's conversion to Christianity (also reported in the referenced Guardian article), so simply extending the article on female genital mutilation would not be sufficient. MrUK1953 (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a classic example of one event. If it is kept, the article needs to go through very major revisions. Currently it is the worst attack article I have ever seen. Calling things "unfounded, unreasonable" and going on from there is attack language, not encyclopedic language. The whole tone of the article is just not acceptable for Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A classic case of a "famous for 15 minutes". This is a case where some one has got journalists attention and got a case into the papers. FGM is obnoxoius, but not obviously notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to event article "Deportation of..." for example. The event is notable, the person not so much. Hobit (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, after rename, keep a redirect to it. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — notwithstanding disagreement over the "letter of the law" with regard to whether WP:BLP1E applies (and realistically, we should prolly err on the side of caution even if someone's given an interview), WP:BIO1E is still an issue. Furthermore, if converting it to an event, this reeks of WP:NOT#NEWS and seems to fail event notability (including no demonstrated lasting effects, limited geographic scope, not really that significant in quantity, lack of diversity in sources, and proportionately short duration of coverage). At best it might be merge-able to Female genital mutilation or a related list of sorts detailing events that have made a headline or two but aren't exactly encyclopedic in and of themselves. --slakr^\ talk / 04:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or Delete : She's not notable based on Wikipedia standards but the event seems notable. Darreg (talk) 02:24, 14 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 keep, with no prejudice against possible merge into larger article. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunit Ghosh[edit]

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

Rejected PROD. The reason I initally PRODDED was "Poorly referenced BLP", and the article creator reverted my edit, saying that the subject was presumed notable, and that "poorly referenced" wasn't a valid criterion. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:NCRIC - "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire." Has umpired two Test matches and seven ODIs. Poorly reference is NOT a valid reason for deletion - meeting notability standards (or not) is. Read the notability guidelines next time instead of wasting everyone's time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Lugnuts. The community has created fair and reasonable measurement of notability, and this umpire meets those measurements doktorb _words^deeds 14:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Merge. I agree with all concerned that he is notable but in the absence of any information other than statistics concerning matches umpired, it would be sensible to merge the information into a central List type article (this isn't the only cricket biog that consists of just a single reference and two lines of text) which can be better looked after (in terms of vandalism and BLP violations). Nick (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist, so "vandalism and BLP violations" wont be an issue. If we merged every stub into a main list of article, we'd have no articles. There are literally thousands of biography articles (not just cricket) that are in the format of "X did Y in Z <ref> <categories>". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we shouldn't have thousands of biographical articles with only "X did Y in Z", and we also shouldn't rely on only one editor to keep the vandals away. --I dream of horses (T) @ 03:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the policy about this? Oh you can't, as there isn't one. You best get proding all the stubs on here, based on your logic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spendex[edit]

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

Not English; using google translate it had no important meaning LovelyEdit ^talk_edits 13:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google translate says that the term was invented or coined by the creator, so this article should actually be tagged for speedy deletion A11. Piguy101 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Nonsensical article. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:21, 3 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 keep.

Due notice was made of the fact that multiple, clearly policy-knowledgable editors participated here until IPs or usernames not previously used. This can sometimes, even often, be a sign of misbehavior, a factor which can complicate the determination of consensus. In this case, the result would have been the same in any case. The conversation got acrimonious, and unnecessarily so. Please WP:AGF.

I did not find substantial evidence of canvassing; many of the strongest arguments on both sides were raised by experienced editors who are familiar participants at AfD.

The strongest arguments in favor of deletion invoked a fairly straightforward analysis of GNG. As always, a careful analysis of sources, as was done here, demands strong weight.

However, there seemed to be substantial support for the idea that different metrics should be applied to academic journals on a more consistent basis. The various essays on journal notability were cited by a few supporters, each of which tried to identify the metrics we could better use to evaluate journal notability. And those metrics were not so different, in a very general sense, from Carrite's approach to looking at journal publisher as a signifier of notability, nor DGG's looking to the reach of the journal via WorldCat. What I saw here was a number of experienced editors, experienced and knowledgable at AfD, with, in my experience, varied philosophies struggling with "I know this is notable, what the heck is the right way to create a good test?"

That too is a form of rough consensus for both keeping this article and continuing the difficult process of trying better codify a metric for academic journals. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy & Nature[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Article on an academic journal that existed from 1992 to 2003. Has been taken to AfD three times before (two "no consensus", then keep) in short intervals in 2005. Since then the article has changed a lot and it now has an impressive 24 references (I refer to this version of the article). Unfortunately, this is deceptive: not a single one of these references is independent of the journal, indeed, most are to the journal itself:

/ Website of one of the sponsoring institutes with a summary description of the journal.
/ A book-selling website
/ The journal page on the last publisher's website
/ Editorial in the successor journal
/ Editorial in the journal itself
/ Debate in the journal itself
/ 2 commentaries in the journal itself
/ 3 commentaries in the journal itself
/ Article with 2 commentaries in the journal itself
/ Article with commentary in the journal itself
/ Article with commentary in the journal itself
/ Commentary on a related website with a response in the journal itself and a link to the succesor-joual's website
/ 4 articles/commentaries in the journal itself
/ 2 articles/commentaries in the journal itself and a (temporary?) dead link
/ Commentary in the journal itself
/ In-passing mention in a brief bio of one of the journal's associate editors
/ In-passing mention in the bio of the journal's book review editor
/ List of editorial board members on the journal's website
/ Same as 18, but at a different point in time
/ Letter of resignation of a board member in the journal itself
/ Board's response to 20 in the journal itself
/ Article in the journal itself
/ Article in the journal itself
/ Article in the journal itself

There are also a number of external links. These are to the journal itself, its successor, a website related to its successor, the EBSCO database Academic Search (not selective, indeed does not even limit itself to academic journals but includes many magazines), and a link to a "journal matrix analysis" site, which lists 2 specialized databases in which the journal is listed, neither of them particularly selective either. On the article's talk page a further 13 references are listed. These are all cases where an article from this journal is cited in a book. None of these citations go further than an in-passing mention. Neither are there many citations: a GScholar search reveals that only one article has been cited 72 times, all others have been cited much less and, in fact, not that many articles have been cited at all. The articles claim to notability seems to be based on the fact that some notable people were associated with it or published an article or commentary in it, but that does not make the journal itself notable. In short, the above boils down to a failure to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SJ, WP:NJournals, and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals)#Academic journals. The criticism "passing mention" does not apply here; when a scholarly source directs its readers' attention to the coverage of a subject in Democracy & Nature, they are not doing so the way a newspaper article would mention another news source's coverage, or a public figure's opining. Totally different standard. Less than 72 times? I contradict the implication that that is a small number. Average of 10 times per article, for the first three pages of Scholar. Many are 30, 40 times. Google Books, also, looks like an intriguing place for new sources. Anarchangel (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me put it this way. If we were debating a single academic and not a whole journal, that citation record would be way below what we usually accept as indicating notability (Hundreds of citations). Note that "citations" are not the same as "sources". When I say "in-passing", that is exactly what I mean: a citation is used to support something that somebody writes, usually a sentence or part of that. It is not an in-depth discussion of the article cited, even less so of the journal in which that article was published. In addition, this journal seems to be particularly navel-staring. For example, the first article listed when one clicks the GS link above is one by T. Fotopoulos (the EIC). It has been cited 26 times. If you click that and look at the citations, you will see that at least half of them are by Fotopoulos himself. By the way, the applicable guideline here is WP:GNG and we also often use WP:NJournals. WP:SJ is an old essay that nobody follows and has no standing as policy and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals)#Academic journals has been superseded by NJournals (and is extremely vague, too). If you think there are new sources on Google Books, then please give them. Just saying that they exist is mere hand waving and not likely to impress anybody here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These two comments / votes have been posted @ D&N talk page. I place them here.

== Democracy & Nature should be kept ==

This entry gives a description of a journal that operated successfully for a number of years. Anyone coming across an article from this journal should be able to look up information about the journal so as to assess the article's provenance. If anyone feels the entry lacks information they are free to add to it. I don't see why it should be deleted. WallabieJoey (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC) — WallabieJoey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (user's first edit since 2009)[reply]

== Proposal to delete entry for Democracy & Nature ==

As a former member of the editorial panel and contributor to Democracy and Nature I find the suggestion that this entry be deleted astonishing. It is not just that the journal was very significant internationally during its period of publication; it is a reference point for current work on how to deal with the threat of a global ecological catasrophe. If Wikipedia does not have a place to keep alive memory of the recent past, it seems to me we are in a sorry state, coming closer to 1984. Memory, as Samuel Butler argued, is a defining feature of life. Associate Professor Arran Gare, Swinburne University, Victoria, Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.26.222 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC) — 136.186.26.222 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Neither of the above SPA comments, raising the suspicion of off-wiki canvassing, are policy based. --Randykitty (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You should refrain from commenting. Not appropriate for a nominator to do that. Cwobeel (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

????? AFD is a discussion about the notability of a subject. It is absolutely appropriate for each and every participant in the debate to comment. --Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Anarchangel comments above. Nikosgreencookie (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SJ and WP:NJournals Cwobeel (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SJ, WP:NJournals, and Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals)#Academic journals as argued by Anarchangel. I am One of Many (talk) 00:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anarchangel. United States Man (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that my nom was not just "does not meet this or that policy, should be deleted", but gave a detailed analysis of why I think the sources are insufficient. I note that up till now, the keep !votes all boil down to "meets this or that policy", without actually responding to my arguments or without specifying exactly which criteria of the cited policies are met, or exactly which sources provide an in-depth discussion of the journal. The only exception has been Anarchangel and I have stated why I think their argument is invalid. --Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User Cwobeel left also a comment here: [[13]] saying "Very unlikely that this article will be deleted as it conforms with WP:SJ, WP:NJournals. I believe he is right. What do you think about? Nikosgreencookie (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "What do I think about"? I guess you mean what I think about that assertion. Well, I just said so: just saying "as it conforms with WP:SJ, WP:NJournals" is not very effective unless one explains why. --Randykitty (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you ever take a look (for example) @ New Left Review? And if yes do you see any problems there too? Nikosgreencookie (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't recall looking at that and did not look at it now either. There's 4.5 million pages in WP, there's indeed a couple I've never seen. If that article has problems, fix them. It has no bearing on the discussion here. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll just base my defense on the pillar and policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES (use common sense). Wikipedia is based upon footnotes to so-called reliable sources to provide for verifiability of the information they contain. Peer-reviewed journals, such as Democracy and Nature (published by Taylor and Francis) are given extremely high consideration as reliable sources. We NEED information on these journals to help our readers assess the merits and limitations of each journal. It should be extremely important to us all to create and maintain pages such as Democracy & Nature — whether or not the information contained therein is fully independent of the journal itself. This is common sense, is it not? Carrite (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but articles on journals regularly get deleted, even if they are published by Taylor & Francis or Springer if there is no indication of notability. We must have some criteria and they must be more objective than "this seems to be a reliable source, so ignore all rules", because otherwise any of the literally thousands of non-notable journals would clamor to have an article here. If, in addition, the information in an article is more than just simple facts that are easily verifiable, but consists of OR that interprets articles published in the journal themselves and is based on the opinion of a WP editor, I think that deletion is perfectly acceptable. Notability is not the same as WP:RS and nowhere is it written that reliable sources are automatically notable. --Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it inconsistent that Randykitty mentions the need for objective criteria, and expresses concern about opinions; and then expresses the unsourced, and I presume unsourceable, opinion that there are "literally thousands of non-notable journals". Even if Randykitty could make such an argument, wp:notability is not the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia, as explained at WP:ATD. Certainly, as argued by Carrite, journals have a low bar to inclusion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First and foremost, I would like to make an “ethical” remark on this brazen and (as I will show below, totally biased) attempt by Randykitty to delete a historical journal of the radical Left, eco-left, Anarchist, feminist, left-libertarian and socialist dialogue from Wikipedia, an on line Encyclopedia that despite its dilative and “liberalistic” structure, may at times become a means to promote truly independent and autonomous voices that cannot be heard easily in the mainstream or sometimes even the "alternative" media. I am saying this because Randykitty tries to devaluate the notability of the journal Democracy & Nature on the grounds of mainly quantitative or other orthodox “impact” factors, as if the matter of notability of such media is a sort of competition of “prestige” in a TV Show or in comparison to ...the New York Times. Instead, as a matter of fact, in the relevant entry on “Prestige” and Rankings of an Academic journal, it is stressed that:

“In the natural sciences and ‘’’in the "hard" social sciences, the impact factor is a convenient proxy, measuring the number of later articles citing articles already published in the journal’’’. There are other, possible quantitative factors, such as the overall number of citations, how quickly articles are cited, and the average "half-life" of articles. There also is the question of whether or not any quantitative factor can reflect true prestige; natural science journals are categorized and ranked in the Science Citation Index, social science journals in the Social Sciences Citation Index.

In the Anglo-American humanities, there is no tradition (as there is in the sciences) of giving impact-factors that could be used in establishing a journal's prestige. Recent moves have been made by the European Science Foundation to rectify the situation, resulting in the publication of preliminary lists for the ranking of academic journals in the Humanities.”

Thus, as anyone with a rudimentary knowledge may understand from the primary sources provided in the article of Democracy & Nature, the journal is a radical, left-libertarian, direct-democracy Academic Journal, which does not conform to a “hard” science array of journals, no matter if they are natural or social.

For example, a professor in University of Oxford has stressed that ^[1]

"a wide range of scholars have shown that procedural electoral democracy can be disparaged for its casting of divisions between public life and private life, its liberal individualism (Phillips 2000, 513), as well as its embeddedness in exploitative market economies (refer to Fotopoulos and to related Journals: Democracy and Nature and Periektiki Demokratia)."

But, let’s see, one by one, the (to say the least) completely biased “arguments” of Randykitty used to diminish and devaluate the journal’s importance:

(A) Randykitty says that the existence of references is “deceptive” per se, based on the fact that most references are to the journal itself:

"Article on an academic journal that existed from 1992 to 2003. Has been taken to AfD three times before (two "no consensus", then keep) in short intervals in 2005. Since then the article has changed a lot and it now has an impressive 24 references (I refer to this version of the article). Unfortunately, this is deceptive: not a single one of these references is independent of the journal, indeed, most are to the journal itself"

Nonetheless, even if this were true, it would not be a determining criterion for an article to be nominated for deletion, as primary sources per WP:PS can be used

”to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge”

As a matter of fact, all primary sources used in the article are descriptive, apart maybe from the ones used in a probably subtle “interpretation” in this extract:

"The journal also served as a colloquium for a wide range of more-marginalized left groups, including libertarian socialists, social anarchists, and supporters of the autonomy/democratic project,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] which sometimes has led to heated exchanges.[13][14][15]"

This extract was just amended by me in the entry itself. The rest of the primary sources are actually descriptive statements of facts for people to have an idea of the journal with access to the primary source without further, specialized knowledge.

But let’s see how Randykitty describes one of the references s/he finds “deceptive”:

"#/ Website of one of the sponsoring institutes with a summary description of the journal."

However the Social Ecology Institute is not a “sponsoring institute” of the Journal (!). It is an Institute that supported the journal, through the writings of mainly two of its members, among plenty of others, along the period of the journal’s operation. The Institute of Social Ecology was and has been independent of the Journal, as can be also documented by Murray Bookchin’s dialogues with members of the Editorial Board^[2]^[3].

Of course, there are indeed many primary sources in the entry, something that can be amended in the entry itself, but as I stressed above, this is not certainly a reason for a topic/article to be nominated for deletion. The primary sources are used descriptively and not interpretatively.

(B) Randykitty then “judges” the value of the journal based on the “Selectivity” of the Indices added to the entry:

“There are also a number of external links. These are to the journal itself, its successor, a website related to its successor, the EBSCO database Academic Search (not selective, indeed does not even limit itself to academic journals but includes many magazines), and a link to a "journal matrix analysis" site, which lists 2 specialized databases in which the journal is listed, neither of them particularly selective either.”

As a matter of fact, though, this is totally irrelevant. Per WP:Journal that the nominator him/herself uses as his/her ultimate reference,:

“For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat. Other sources can be found on the book sources page, at the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog, or at the Zeitschriftendatenbank) when evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. Data on library holdings need to be interpreted in the light of what can be expected for the specific subject.”

So, in Worldcat, one may find that the journal is available in significant libraries in many locations, particularly in Europe and the UK, like the British Library and the MIT library^[4]^[5]. The same can be retrieved in German academic libraries by cursorily using Zeitschriftendatenbank etc.

As far as the mention of “a journal matrix analysis” site, in fact this is the MIRA index analysis, which is actively supported by the Spanish Academia (University of Barcelona etc.), and the journal scores there an ICDS of 6.279, which seems more than adequate for a non-still operating journal. ^[6]

(C) But what is even more blatantly uninformed and deceptive is when Randykitty says that:

”Neither are there many citations: a GScholar search reveals that only one article has been cited 72 times, all others have been cited much less and, in fact, not that many articles have been cited at all.”

Something that he repeats later as a “token” for the non-notability of the journal.

“When I say "in-passing", that is exactly what I mean: a citation is used to support something that somebody writes, usually a sentence or part of that. It is not an in-depth discussion of the article cited, even less so of the journal in which that article was published. In addition, this journal seems to be particularly navel-staring. For example, the first article listed when one clicks the GS link above is one by T. Fotopoulos (the EIC). It has been cited 26 times. If you click that and look at the citations, you will see that at least half of them are by Fotopoulos himself."

But, everyone, even with a cursory look at WP:NJournals (which Randykitty supposedly has “studied”, and then "lectures" the rest of Wikipedia contributors) can clearly read (at the Criteria section) that:

"Google Scholar should not be used as an indication of notability. Google Scholar is reasonably inclusive for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers in computer science will show up, but less technologically related fields or non-scientific subjects are less well represented. Even the journal Science puts articles online only back to 1996. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. In the other direction, Google Scholar includes many sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as conference preprints, technical reports, and academic web sites. Thus, the presence or absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used to determine notability. At best, it is a starting point."

It is obvious, hence, that the above constitute a complete bias against the entry and the journal, and even against Takis Fotopoulos, the EIC, when s/he talks about “navel-gazing”, without a shred of evidence!

(D) Finally, as Anarchangel correctly replied, whether the citations are “passing” or not is irrelevant, and it is not of course easy for someone to judge if s/he has not read the book or author that does the citation! Nevertheless if we compile (and this only for Democracy & Nature, that is, excluding “Society & Nature” which also has plenty of references in books, journals and indices) a -certainly not exhaustive, but representative- collection of:

(1) Bibliographical Databases, Journal & Research Indexes,^[7]^[8]^[9] ^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14] ^[15] ^[16]

(2) “Bibliographies and Further Reading” recommendations^[17] ^[18] ^[19] ^[20] ^[21] ^[22] ^[23] ^[24] ^[25]

(3) References (many of which are accompanied by commentaries and recommendations) ^[26] ^[27] ^[28] ^[29] ^[30] ^[31] ^[32] ^[33] ^[34] ^[35] ^[36] ^[37] ^[38] ^[39] ^[40] ^[41] ^[42] ^[43] ^[44] ^[45] ^[46] ^[47] ^[48] ^[49] ^[50] ^[51] ^[52] ^[53] ^[54] ^[55] ^[56] ^[57] ^[58] ^[59] ^[60] ^[61] ^[62] ^[63] ^[64] ^[65] ^[66] ^[67] ^[68] ^[69] ^[70] ^[71] ^[72] ,and

(4) References used on libertarian and, not only, Education,^[73] ^[74] ^[75] ^[76] ^[77] ^[78]

...then we can verify that there are “tons” of important references and a significant impact of the journal in its field (something testified by contributors in the relevant talk pages as well), taking into account even “quantity”, a factor dictated by the bias and obvious ignorance of the nominator as his/her main “criterion” to judge an alternative journal-medium that was a invaluable forum for socialist, left-Libertarian, and democratic dialogue for the cause of promoting a new, liberatory project! Panlis (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The above wall of text contains so many misconceptions about what Wikipedia is and how things are done here that I hardly know where to start. Let me start with saying that you should comment on the subject at hand, not the editor. My motivations are irrelevant and, in any case, WP requires that we assume good faith from the part of editors with whom we have a difference of opinion. Please read WP:ADHOM. Second, the above seems to assume that I am applying standards that are used for scientific journals to this one. That is untrue. For example, there are many selective bibliographic databases (not the same as library catalogs) that are specialized in political science, or whatever category you want to class this journal in. Further (I'll stop counting now, it's just to cumbersome), if something "cannot be heard easily in the mainstream or sometimes even the "alternative" media", then unfortunately that something is just not notable. WP is an encyclopedia and is not here to promote any ideas or publications. WP reports what is said in neutral, independent reliable sources. Simple things can be sourced to primary, non-independent sources (such as the T&F website of this journal). However, such sources obviously have no impact on notability. Referring to your point "A", people discussing with each other in a certain journal is nothing out of the ordinary, so that does not make a journal notable, unless that debate has been noted outside of the small circle of people publishing in said journal. You are correct that the presence of primary sources in and of itself is no reason to nominate an article for deletion. However, if all available sources are primary and not independent of the journal, then that is an excellent reason to nominate a journal for deletion. And selecting some debates from the journal is already OR, because it is done solely following the opinion of the editor who did the selecting. That the journal "served as a colloquium for a wide range of radical left groups, etc" is not something that some reliable source said, nor is it even something that the journal said (and if it did, that is not the kind of "neutral fact" that can be sourced to primary non-independent sources). It is the interpretation of a WP editor. Point "B" criticizes my use of GScholar and simissing EBSCO as not being selective. However, I did not mention those items to prove absence of notability. Obviously that is not something that can be proven, only notability itself can be established. I mentioned this to show that GS did not give evidence of notability. If GS had shown lots of citations, that would show notability, not the other way around. So all I basically said was that I couldn't find any evidence of notability, which is a standard reason to take an article to AFD. If somebody here has better searching abilities and can show any evidence of notability, then please present it. The argument that I am looking in the wrong place is a straw man. Item "C" criticizes my response to somebody who did think that these scattered references constitute evidence of notability. Now, please decide, either GS can show notability for this journal or it cannot, you cannot have it both ways. Item "D" is a complete misinterpretation and failure to understand what WP regards as a reliable source that shows notability. If we follow your reasoning, then any academic article that ever has been cited 2 or 3 times is notable and we should write an article about it here. As for the long list of references that you posted, I don't see anything that goes towards in-depth coverage of the journal. All the above keep !votes boil down to "ignore all rules" or WP:ILIKEIT. If this journal is as important as several people here so loudly claim, then why is it so difficult to find anything written about the journal? --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the intensity of these arguments, and by being compelled to comment on every single Keep, one could easily argue that the one who WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no other than the nominator. Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be honest, I really wonder when you took the time to read carefully the "above wall of text" before dismissing it on the instant, as it is obvious you bypassed plenty of evidence and arguments that I cited, and I really wonder when you managed to read the dozens of references I mentioned and judge if they go "towards an in-depth coverage of the journal"! Most importantly, there is not any rule in Wikipedia saying that there should be an "in-depth coverage of journal" for an entry or a journal to be entered in Wikipedia (see criteria in WP:Journal. Most references cite various articles of the journal, as it is very logical, that adequately show off its chronic and historical importance and valuable researching and reference medium, for every impartial reader. So this argument popped up totally arbitrarily and subjectively, further showing your prejudice and bias. To my mind, the evidence I provided above, replies to your initial and revised allegations, one by one. And as a matter of fact, my remarks were on your actions and documented activity and not an WP:ADHOM or personal attack as you try to demonstrate. An attempt to "play the victim" may not be a good sign of solid argumentation. I had every reason to not have a --naively defined-- "good faith", based on your documented activity, when you initially started adding tags to an entry without contributing even a comma to it, based on dialogue with other contributors here and in other pages, where there are signs of not taking into account independent contributors' documented counter views, and also based on your blatanlty judgmental behaviour towards eponymous academics of the left who tried to testify their opinion in a journal to which they had contributed in the Talk Page of the entry, whom you instantly accused and tagged as suspicious of "canvassing" etc.. Then your remark of yours may not be accidental at all: "people discussing with each other in a certain journal is nothing out of the ordinary, so that does not make a journal notable". In fact Wikipedia itself serves as a tertiary source, so it may itself help substantiate the notability of an entry. This activity of yours reached an unprecedented when you actually dismiss all other arguments by brazenly claiming that "All the above keep !votes boil down to "ignore all rules" or WP:ILIKEIT. If this journal is as important as several people here so loudly claim, then why is it so difficult to find anything written about the journal?". All the above could be a reason for WP:DISRUPTSIGNS: 4,5 and 6.

I also replied about the primary sources. Contribution to the entry itself is the best way to amend the entry, something that you never did. Instead you started adding multiple tags on it "from day one" and then, after a few days, and even when some contributors started to edit the entry, you nominated it for deletion. So my commentary was on your activity and only this. Someone can judge the difference of our approach by just looking at the debate.

Some of your reply is indicant of your biased argumentation on the matter and shows you did not understand my extended "wall of text" above. E.g. when WP:Journals explicitly say that GScholar is not a medium to use in order show notability, one does not use it at all, --that is s/he does not even refer to it--. So what you say "I mentioned this to show that GS did not give evidence of notability. If GS had shown lots of citations, that would show notability, not the other way around." is totally erroneous. You then still say "If somebody here has better searching abilities and can show any evidence of notability, then please present it.". I just did it along with other contributors, and I think very plausibly.

Then you claim that the quote "the journal "served as a colloquium for a wide range of radical left groups, etc" is not something that some reliable source said, nor is it even something that the journal said (and if it did, that is not the kind of "neutral fact" that can be sourced to primary non-independent sources). It is the interpretation of a WP editor." But, only in my vote/comment above, I mentioned a quote of an Oxford Scholar which in fact is only one source of many that may demonstrate that this extract of the entry has a basis. The existance per se, of many citations and references to articles of the journal in books, essays etc. of the left which encompasses the trends above, is also another good indication for the viability of the extract. Many of the dozens of references I provided also can support adequately this claim, but this anyway is something that could be discussed in the Talk Page of the entry, before you start adding tags and nominations for deletion of it! So, and speaking in good faith, instead of giving "lessons" to others about what is an interpretation and what not, why don't you contribute constructively to the entry by adding some of the references that I provided you with, that may support the extract of the entry, or amend the extract itself if you feel it is not totally accurate?Panlis (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not going to go into this in detail, because you are clearly not assuming good faith. I do want to note, however, that I started with trying to make of this article a neutral one, conforming to accepted standards like the journal article writing guide, only to be accused of trying to destroy the article and being reverted wholesale. I'm going to stop responding here, given all the bad faith on the part of all participants. I hope that the closing admin will be willing to read through all the (incorrect) arguments being floated here. --Randykitty (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:NJournals. I have access to two huge academic library collections, one in my home state, and one in another state through "visiting scholar" status there, and I did some library searching after reading all the comments here. There simply aren't sources to support the scholarly impact of this defunct journal or to independently verify facts about the journal under the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. Some journals are just very obscure, that's all, and Wikipedia is not a directory of every obscure journal that has gone out of business. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SJ and WP:NJournals.I fully agree with Cwobeel's comments. The importance of a radical Left journal is judged by citations of its contents and contributors. There are plenty of such citations on D&N. To decide that a radical Left journal is very obscure because one cannot find it in an obscure state library is ludicrous, to say the least. Try the major university libraries (Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, London School of Economics e.tc.) for better luck!178.146.93.162 (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — 178.146.93.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Is the validity of my concrete argument judged by the number of my edits in the past? Very interesting logic!178.146.93.162 (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not always, but the closing admin needs to take that into account when determining consensus. There have been many shenanigans by people coming to these discussions that were canvassed to do just that and who may not give a hoot about Wikipedia. Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SJ and WP:NJournals. I fully agree with Cwobeel's comment about the disruptive behaviour of the nominator, which I think shows a clear preconception to have this entry deleted at all costs.Autonomy-boy (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC) — Autonomy-boy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Per the TL;DR section above: the editorial ideology or topic of focus of a journal shouldn't matter a whit. We need to have an article on every peer-reviewed academic journal, period, in my view. Carrite (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP According to wiki notability rules for a journal to be notable it must satisfy at least one of three (1. 2. 3.)notability guidelines:

1. The journal is considered by reliable resources to be influential in its subject area. To satisfy this criteria the journal should be included in a major indexing service in its field. This guideline has been satisfied as D&N is indexed in Alternative Press Index. Who can deny API is not a major service in anti-systemic analysis as is D&N, nor deny EBSCO database is neither reliable nor selective? Randykitty wries on 31 May, “not selective, indeed (EBSCO) does not even limit itself to academic journals but includes many magazines”. So what? Does that mean they are not notable? D&N is also peer reviewed which adds an abundance of credibility to the journal. 2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable resources. In Panlis most recent edit he has provided sufficient reliable resources citing D&N. This guideline has been fulfilled. 3. The Journal has a historic purpose or a significant history. This criteria is satisfied as the journal has been in existence with a different title, but same content, (the journal has not gone out of business) for twenty-two years and still exists if you all care to subscribe to the journal. Randykitty what was your age 22 years ago? Thus according to wiki guidelines D&N is notable as it has, at least fulfilled one criteria (none-the-less the two other criteria), and the attempt to silence by deletion the journal is disingenuous. As ignorance of the wiki notability guidelines is inadmissible for administrator, especially of Randykitty’s stature, I can only surmise he had a plan to attack D&N (as if it were not already notable), to be blocked indefinitely. "My boss ordered me...", is inadmissible. John sargis (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep The journal is important in its field and this is sufficient reason for inclusion.

the nominator and I have agreed on 99% of the journal discussions here. Certainly, I continued to maintain the validity of our criteria -- criteria which he and I have played a large part in developing over the years -- based mainly on indexing and citation for academic journals in the academic citation and indexing networks, particularly in the physical and biological sciences and the "hard" social science where research and publication patterns resemble those sciences. Outside that area matters are much more doubtful. In the humanities, citation patterns of weak and inconclusive, indexing does not give a useful separation , and the GNG is in practice totally worthless for all such publications, for essentially nobody writes "substantial" publications about any journals of any sort except the very most famous. This applies all the more to nonacademic journals. This is a journal of opinion and persuasion, not of academic research in the usual sense. The only rational criterion is the significant presence of the journal within its world of communication and discourse, and I think that has been satisfactorily demonstrated.

I am of course considerably concerned at the vehemence of the defense of this article, but I think it is an understandable response to the deletion nomination, which is based on the application of standards which do not work here, I know the nominator does not apply the GNG to academic journals--which is why he and I and the others concerned developed the present standards for these journals, I am therefore puzzled at the use of them here, where they are just as irrelevant.

It should not have been necessary to defend this journal. Worldcat shows the journal to be present in over 400 libraries [14], and that is fully sufficient demonstration of its importance in the field and therefore its notability. That's a rational standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG for your reasoned comment. As you explain, some of the criteria are difficult to interpret. I don't think, for example, that we can summarily state that a journal like D&N, which existed for a mere 11 years had an "historical purpose" without adequate documentation. Nor do I accept that the handful of citations to its articles demonstrate its influence. In any case, when I solicited your opinion, I was almost 90% certain that you would be in favor of keeping the article. However, if the article is to be kept, I want it to be kept on the basis of rational arguments, not on the basis of the arguments that have been brought forward up till now in this AfD. And you did indeed deliver, I admit forgetting to check WorldCat. That is a rational argument that I can accept and I therefore !vote ~~weak keep~~ (I cannot withdraw the nom as there are other people having !voted "delete"). Nevertheless, I would like to comment on some of the remarks made above (I will ignore the doubt being cast on my motivation, weird questions about my age, and other such drivel, I'll just assume that that was caused by the respective users not being very familiar with AfD). Unscintillating asks me to support my statement about the huge number of non-notable journals that I maintain exist: please see Predatory open access publishing and the link to Beall's list therein, which itself lists a large number of publishers, many of them publishing hundreds of journals. Carrite says "We need to have an article on every peer-reviewed academic journal". I understand the sentiment behind that statement and even agree with it, this is how things should be in an ideal world. Unfortunately, the world is not ideal... Consider the list that I just linked to in the previous phrase. All those journals claim to be peer-reviewed. Many of them even are (albeit bad peer review). How are we going to decide when peer review is really peer review? How will we evaluate its quality? And all this without violating Wikipedia:No original research? Should we include all those journals in WP? Should we let Beall decide what comes into WP or not? The reality is that we need inclusion criteria, even for peer-reviewed journals. And the consequence of that is that from time to time we will have an AfD for a journal and delete some of them. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you did not check WorldCat? It may be a good idea then to add WorldCat to the AFD template (Find sources:... alongside JSTOR and others. That would have save the time sunk in this debate. Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did anybody else until DGG came here. There are many different types of journals and many different possible sources. WorldCat is rarely one that needs to be consulted. And if the debate had been conducted civilly and assuming good faith, and people would have used the time attacking my motives for searching on how to improve the article and show notability, then it would indeed have taken much less time and effort. --Randykitty (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to belabor on this, but you could have done the same and avoid the whole thing. Happy editing. Cwobeel (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could and so could have everybody else. I didn't think of it, as I explained, its rarely consulted. But I guess I'm talking to someone with an eidetic memory who never makes the slightest mistake. That I forgot WorldCat is not so strange in the light of the fact that in my experience, the kind of partisan editing that was going on at the article, and even more the vehemence displayed during this debate, are 90% of the time a sure indication that something really, really is not notable. --Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am always concerned when some editors show a behavior as if they are the only "defenders of the wiki". That type of ownership when taken to that extreme, did not help either and added to the lengthy back and forth, and with hindsight, a total waste of editors' time. Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, when dealing with a publication of any sort, or with an author, or anyone who has ever been an author as part of their career, the first thing I do is check worldCat--it tends to give a quick indication of what the situation is. For example, if for an author I find no items listed, or only 1 or 2 holdings, there's usually no point in doing an exhaustive search for reviews. From the previous arguments I expected to find about 40 holdings here; if so, I would still have said keep, but it would have been a more tentative argument. for it would not have been clear to be that the publication was important rather than a little fringy. . This is undoubtedly my library experience, but I think it s relevant experience on this sort of subject, and I would strongly urge others to do this also. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP First, the journal, published only electronically and under a slightly different name, still exists (http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/), more than 20 years after the first issue of Society& Nature/Democracy & Nature was published.

Second, the historical purpose of a journal can only be assessed over time. The now famous Socialisme ou Barbarie journal (Socialisme ou Barbarie) was a very obscure journal indeed at the time of its publication and no major university libraries kept any copies of it at that moment of time.

Third, what the nominator says in dismissing at a stroke all other arguments apart from those by other administrators as non-rational is that there is no democratic rationalism involved in wikipedia discussions but only “wiki rationalism”. This implies that the view of any non-administrator on such crucial matters as deleting an article on an important radical Left journal is decorative. If this is so, then it should be said openly by wiki administrators, or, alternatively, interventions by non-wikipedia administrators should better be banned altogether, so that everybody is clear on how democratic these discussions really are!Rstvr (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Rstvr — Rstvr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :[reply]

You're absolutely right that WP is not a democracy and things are not decided based on the number of votes they get (which is why we call them !votes). WP does not exist to publicize things or points of view that are "neglected in the mainstream media". Neither does WP report what a majority of editors think. We do not do our own research. Instead, WP reports what can be verified in reliable secondary sources. If an historical purpose cannot be verified with such sources, then a hundred editors can come and say they think it has such a purpose, but our opinions don't carry any weight if they are not supported by sources. Indeed, "the historical purpose of a journal can only be assessed over time". If at this point in time that is not yet clear, then we'll have to wait until it has become clear. That DGG is an admin (or I myself) is irrelevant, admins can do some menial work that non-admins cannot do, is all. It's just that DGG came with an argument that was independently verifiable. Finally, whether the journal still exists is debatable. The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy started completely new, with different volume numbering and a different publisher. The only continuation is the editor-in-chief. If it were a clear continuation, the the current article should have been renamed to the new journal title, as we habitually do with journals that undergo a name change. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The difference between a proper encyclopedia, (Britannica, Routledge e.tc. - which by the way has an entry on D&N) and Wikipedia is that the former are reliable sources of knowledge because the entries are written by experts on their field who know what they are talking about, unlike of course administrators like yourself who obviously have no idea of what a radical Left journal is about in general and what its contribution to knowledge, research and politics has been in particular. This is why you rely instead on ‘verified reliable sources’. But for anybody with an elementary knowledge of the philosophy of science this is impossible, simply because, unlike ‘hard sciences’, there is no (and can never be) any consensus, let alone an objective truth, in the analysis of social phenomena, as it is mostly possible with natural phenomena. All this is presumably unknown to people who count the references of what they consider ‘reliable’ sources (usually ‘systemic’ sources) in order to assess the notability of an entry. However, Wikipedia could play a significant role in breaking the ‘systemic’ monopoly of knowledge by providing ‘alternative’ sources of knowledge and social research, and up to now it was doing just this to a significant extent, and this is the main reason of its appeal to visitors. If it now starts deleting ‘alternative’ journals like D&N and tomorrow continues with entries about alternative political projects and theorists, simply because there is not enough ‘systemic’ evidence to support them, then Wikipedia will not only become a second class orthodox encyclopedia but, even worse, as the well known philosopher and academic Arran Gare put it, this would imply that “we are in a sorry state, coming closer to 1984”—a comment whose significance obviously escaped your knowledge and, like a good wiki bureaucrat, you promptly dismissed it as a “SPA comment not policy based!” 94.66.3.101 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With your disdain for (and misunderstanding of) the way WP works, I wonder why you even bother coming here. Please read "What Wikipedia is not" and then go create your own wiki somewhere else so that you can push your POV without any interruption by wikicrats. --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expected a reply like this from you attempting to create a ‘wiki front’ against 'outsiders' but anyone wishing to understand my point will understand your attempted distortion of it. I repeat my main point so that other administrators, more broad-minded than you, could understand what I am really saying: “Wikipedia could play a significant role in breaking the ‘systemic’ monopoly of knowledge by providing ‘alternative’ sources of knowledge and social research, AND UP TO NOW IT WAS DOING JUST THIS TO A SIGNIFICANT EXTENT, AND THIS IS THE MAIN REASON OF ITS APPEAL TO VISITORS.94.66.3.101 (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

94.66.3.101, you are not helping the article with this line of argument. WP in an encyclopedia, and the purpose of an encyclopedia is to report on what is already notable in the world, not to bring neglected topics to attention nor to advance the frontiers of knowledge. "Breaking the existing monopoly of knowledge" is indeed something we do, but in a different sense than you say: we break the existing barriers to knowledge from the paid system of publishing, providing free access to information. But the information we provide access to is about those things that are already known, and already recognized for their importance. Indeed, we do try to correct for the systematic bias of coverage in conventional print sources by somewhat relaxing the standards for materials that may not be readily accessible in conventional forms. But the attempt to bring to attention what ought to be noticed but has not yet been is what we call promotionalism, and we avoid it. That an article promotes something not yet notable is cause for deletion, not inclusion. Breaking these sorts of social and intellectual barriers must be done elsewhere, for we are not qualified to judge what deserves to be importance--all we can do is to try to determine what already is. We are not purely orthodox: we cover topics outside the mainstream as well as in the mainstream, but only if they are notable in their own fields, and the public interested in those fields will therefore want information on them.

If this publication was unknown or almost unknown, we would not cover it. The argument for having an article about it is that it is already well known in its field, as shown by its inclusion in library collections, and by the use of material in it from a wide range of other publications, and by its choice as a publication medium by notable authors. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG thanks for the useful information. Obviously, I was not trying to help the article. I was simply trying to find out whether wikipedia is really an alternative encyclopedia, as seen by Arran Gare above and many people at large. Clearly, providing free dissemination of systemic knowledge on social phenomena is not what many activists fighting for a better world had in mind when talking about an alternative encyclopedia.85.74.194.119 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randy has found an error in my argument: over 3/4 of the libraries hold only the electronic version, and most of those are in the habit of adding to their catalog every title in a collection to which they subscribe. Other libraries, including my own, does not do that, but adds only the ones selected by the subject bibliographers as worth adding. The OCLC record does not clearly distinguish, though there are normally separate master records, libraries often add their holdings information to one of them without paying attention to that, considering the distinction a mere format difference. If one wants total holdings, one normally adds them all together. (The diagnostic feature for the situation is whether the list contains libraries one would not expect to have it, and lacks those that one would) The OCLC record here, shows the libraries that all of them or almost all did hold the print, showing 74 libraries. This is the minimum number of true subscriptions, and my estimate of he total number of libraries that would be truly subscribing is about 150-200. Now, that covers the US+Canada+a few major research libraries elsewhere--the number of libraries worldwide for academic material is usually estimated as double the US rate. This gives a true worldwide subscriptions of between 300 - 400 (I didnt correct for non-US earlier, but Ebsco etc have a higher reach in the US). This is still very significant, I I think does show notability -- though not as clearly as I thought. (I will remember to be more careful in checking in the future) DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I am sorry, but given all these uncertainties, I am going back to my original !vote. I do not think that the WorldCat counts, given these imponderables, establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty the link you provide to “what WP is not” does not tell us what it is and is thus in contradiction! Defining something by what it is not is a really poor exhibition for rational thinking that does not press forward ideas much further than the negative. You claim to obtain rationality, for anyone who has read the exchanges (4 june {your italics}: I gave a detailed analysis of why I think the sources are insufficient) by dismissing and adamantly rejecting all other users arguments, and even a ‘good’ administrator included (DGG “keep” vote of 6 June: The journal is important in its field and this is sufficient reason for inclusion…the nominator and I have agreed on 99% of the journal discussions here. Certainly, I continued to maintain the validity of our criteria -- criteria which he and I have played a large part in developing over the years… It should not have been necessary to defend this journal. Worldcat shows the journal to be present in over 400 libraries [2], and that is fully sufficient demonstration of its importance in the field and therefore its notability. That's a rational standard for inclusion in an encyclopedia.), you failed to reply to my “keep” rationale even due to the fact that D&N is notable as a journal of rational argument, according to wiki guidelines. Furthermore, DGG performs a pure bureaucratic maneuver that he simply counts the number of libraries subscribing to D&N as a criterion of notability. On 6 June you heap praise on the only 1 rational argument in the whole lot, according to you, that is given by the ‘good’ administrator to the ‘bad’ administrator where you change your vote from “delete” to “weak keep”. “I will ignore” the, facetious (you could have hypothesized) “weird question about my age”. Then why didn’t you reply to me as mine was not a remark or comment, but a rational argument? On 10 June DGG says you found a hole in his argument, but that nevertheless D&N “does show notability”. On 11 June you again switch your vote back to your original vote to “delete”! Your claim of 4 June to “detailed analysis” leads one to think that you are on a mission to delete D&N as a notable journal from Wikipedia as your vote today exhibits. The discussion should have been closed after 7 full days, but here it is some 11 full days! Have the last few days of debate become less acrimonious? It seems you have dug into every conceivable excuse to delete “D&N”. If, according to your interpretation and against the “good” DGG, Worldcat is not reliable, then does that make the libraries which use Worldcat less reliable by extension? If no, how would Wikipedia make that determination? It is strange a privileged wiki-rule you used to claim “off-wiki” canvassing against two users without any proof, a SPA crime, (as charged by you on 3 June), but “on-wiki” canvassing is not a crime, since you enlisted the expertise help of DGG, the record of which has now since disappeared from DGG talk page (==Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democracy & Nature (4th nomination) ==Dear David, this AfD debate is getting quite acrimonious. I'm backing out, but perhaps you could have a look. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)! Your vote, to avoid irrationality, should at least have remained “weak keep”. John sargis (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to reply to the above rant, except for one point: the accusation of on-wiki canvassing. You correctly cited my post on DGG's talk, not asking to come help me, but to ask him for his opinion. You might also be interested in the exchange I had with DGG on this subject on my own talk page (User talk:Randykitty#Qy). Thanks for following WP:AGF. It's becoming harder and harder for me to follow that guideline myself in this case. --Randykitty (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to the things you have said. Please refrain from categorizing my reply as a violent rave (there must be some wiki rule about your refrain). My questions are based on fact and you choose not to reply to them, but you change the subject to bad faith, a rule you admit is "becoming harder and harder" for you to follow, just as your only admission to my very first “keep” was “weird question about my age”. Could it be that it is bad faith not to answer the questions? Anyway it seems like a convenient way to back out of answering my questions. Of course perhaps you are feeling the pain of the deconstruction of your arguments and choose not to reply to my questions about D&N notability, but I cannot read your mind and therefore, would like answers to my questions. John sargis (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained my thinking at length above (poor admin who'll have to wade through all this verbiage, small wonder nobody has turned up yet to close this AfD...) That you seem unable to accept that somebody, based on the same evidence, comes to a different conclusion than you (if WP were a democracy, we might call that dissent) is your problem, not mine. If you think that it is a problem that I am flexible and change my mind when confronted with convincing evidence, and then change it back when that evidence turns out to be less convincing than initially thought, again, that's your problem, not mine. BTW, you might want to read WP:COI, given your apparent connection with the journal's successor. The vehemence displayed by others here make me thinkl= that, just perhaps, they might have a teenie weenie connection to the journal, too. --Randykitty (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

List of references

^ Adrianna A. Semmens, [http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her122/semmens.pdf Engendering Deliberative Democracy: Women’s Environmental Protection Problems], Human Ecology Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2005
^ Murray Bookchin, "Advisory Board Resignation Letter," Democracy & Nature, Vol.3, No.3 (1997), pp. 198-202. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
^ " Editorial Board Response To The Resignation Letter," Democracy & Nature, Vol.3, No.3 (1997), pp. 203-211. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
^ Worldcat for Democracy & Nature
^ Worldcat for Society & Nature
^ “Miar Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals”. Journal scored an ICDS of 6.279
^ William A. Katz, Linda Sternberg Katz, “Magazines for libraries: for the general reader and school, junior college college, university, and public libraries,” (R.R. Bowker, 1997) Google Books.
^ Leo P. Chall, “Sociological Abstracts” Vol. 51, issue 6 (2003) - Google Books.
^ “International Bibliography of Sociology Vol.52,” - British Library of Political and Economic Science - Google Books.
^ “International Encyclopedia of Civil Society,” edited by Helmut K. Anheier, Stefan Toepler- Google Books.
^ “Serials in the British Library,” (British Library, Bibliographic Services Division, 2001) - Google Books.
^ “Independent Publishers, vol. 17,” (Jenkins Group, Incorporated, 1999) ) - Google Books
^ “Miar Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals”. Journal scored an ICDS of 6.279
^ “Gale Directory of Publications and Broadcast Media,” Vol. 131, issue 1 (Gale Research, 1997) - Google Books.
^ [ http://www.researchgate.net/journal/1469-3720_Democracy_Nature “Research Gate Index”]
^ “On line Library of the Open University of Malaysia”
^ Charles Masquelier, Critical Theory and Libertarian Socialism: Realizing the Political Potential ...” - - Google Books.
^ “Education under the security state: defending public schools,” - Google Books.
^ Scott W. Fitzgerald, “Corporations and Cultural Industries: Time Warner, Bertelsmann, and News ...” - Google Books.
^ ”Immigration, Integration, and Security: America and Europe in Comparative ...” - Google Books.
^ Simon Tormey, Jules Townshend, “Key Thinkers from Critical Theory to Post-Marxism - Google Books.
^ Kerry T. Burch, “Democratic Transformations: Eight Conflicts in the Negotiation of American ...” - Google Books.
^ “Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture ...” - Google Books.
^ Albert J. Mills, Gabrielle Durepos, Elden Wiebe, “Encyclopedia of Case Study Research: L - Z; Index” - Google Books.
^ Andrew Dinkelaker, [http://www.quadrant4.org/thesis/bibliography.html “The New Frontier in Democratic Theory and Practice: Organizational Forms that Simultaneously Optimize Autonomy & Community”]
^ “Anti-Americanism: Comparative perspectives,” - Google Books.
^ “World in Motion: The Globalization and the Environment Reader,” - Google Books.
^ Jhan Hochman, “Green cultural studies: nature in film, novel, and theory,” - Google Books.
^ “Environmentalism: Critical Concepts,” - Google Books.
^ Frank Huisman, John Harley Warner, “Locating medical history: the stories and their meanings,” - Google Books.
^ “Watch Yourself: Why Safer Isn't Always Better,” - Matt Hern - Google Books.
^ Jhan Hochman, “Green cultural studies: nature in film, novel, and theory,” - Google Books.
^ David Goodway, “Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British ...,” - Google Books.
^ “World in Motion: The Globalization and the Environment Reader,” - Google Books.
^ David Ingram, “Rights, Democracy, and Fulfillment in the Era of Identity Politics ...,” - Google Books.
^ “Eastern Europe: Politics, Culture, and Society Since 1939,” - Google Books.
^ “Library Juice Concentrate,” - Google Books.
^ Damian F. White, “Bookchin: A Critical Appraisal,” - Google Books.
^ Nader N. Chokr, “Unlearning Or 'How NOT to Be Governed?',” Imprint Academic (January 1, 2009) - Google Books.
^ Robert A. Saunders, “The Many Faces of Sacha Baron Cohen: Politics, Parody, and the Battle Over Borat,” - Google Books.
^ Saul Newman, “The Politics of Postanarchism,” - Google Books.
^ “Defining Technological Literacy: Towards an Epistemological Framework,” - Google Books.
^ Ernest Beyaraza, “Global ethics: cases from Africa,” - Google Books.
^ Derek Hodson, “Looking to the Future,” - Google Books.
^ P. R. Hay, “Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought,” - Google Books.
^ “The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture,” - Google Books.
^ “Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire,” - Google Books.
^ “Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age,” - Google Books.
^ “Critical Perspectives in Politics and Socio-Economic Development in Ghana,” - Google Books.
^ “Capital, Power, and Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean,” - Google Books.
^ Professor Poe Yu-ze Wan, “Reframing the Social: Emergentist Systemism and Social Theory,” - Google Books.
^ “Resistance, Space and Political Identities: The Making of Counter-Global ...,” - David Featherstone - Google Books.
^ Theodore Kokkinos, “Economic structure-functionalism in European unification and globalization of the economies,” (Peter Lang, 2000) - Google Books.
^ Tony Bennett, John Frow (editors), “The SAGE Handbook of Cultural Analysis,” - Google Books.
^ Iain Watson, “Rethinking the politics of globalization: theory, concepts, and strategy,” - Google Books.
^ James Gifford and Gabrielle Zezulka-Maillous, “Culture + the State: Landscape and Ecology,” - Google Books.
^ David A. Gabbard, Alain Beaulieu (editors), “Michel Foucault and Power Today: International Multidisciplinary Studies in the History of the Present,” - Google Books.
^ “The Sociology of Zygmunt Bauman: Challenges and Critique,” - Google Books.
^ “Toward a New Socialism,” - Google Books.
^ Paul Warren James, “Globalization and Economy,” - Google Books.
^ Robley E. George, “Socioeconomic democracy: an advanced socioeconomic system,” - Google Books.
^ R. James Sacouman, James Sacouman, Henry Veltmeyer, “From the net to the Net: Atlantic Canada and the global economy,” - Google Books.
^ Karin Dalhues, “Treehugging 2.0: Powerful Niche Media in the Battle for a Better Future?,” - Google Books.
^ Olanike F. Deji, “Gender and Rural Development: Introduction,” - Google Books.
^ Judith R. Blau, Alberto Moncada, “Freedoms and solidarities: in pursuit of human rights,” - Google Books.
^ Carrie Friese, “Enacting Conservation and Biomedicine: Cloning Animals of Endangered Species ...,” - Google Books.
^ “Toward a New Socialism,” - Google Books.
^ S. A. Hamed Hosseini, “Alternative Globalizations: An Integrative Approach to Studying Dissident ...,” - Google Books.
^ Nick Garside, “Democratic Ideals and the Politicization of Nature: The Roving Life of a ...,” - Google Books.
^ P. R. Hay, “Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought,” - Google Books.
^ Derek Hodson, “Looking to the Future,” - Google Books.
^ Ernest Beyaraza, “Global ethics: cases from Africa,” - Google Books.
^ “Education under the security state: defending public schools,” - Google Books.
^ “If Classrooms Matter: Progressive Visions of Educational Environments,” - Google Books.
^ Richard Vernon Kahn, “The Ecopedagogy Movement: From Global Ecological Crisis to Cosmological ...,” - Google Books.
^ “Learning the Virtual Life: Public Pedagogy in a Digital World,” - Google Books
^ “Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A New Generation of Scholars,” - Google Books
^ “Schooling and the Politics of Disaster,” - Google Books

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SightLife[edit]

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

A local organization, with almost entirely local references and local very minor awards. The purpose is presumably promotional. I make this assumption for every article on an organization that bothers to list "best companies to work for" as an award--such awards are mere PR and that includes human interest stories is small local papers among the references. An actually notable organization has no need to do either. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The included article in The Hindu already establishes it has some world-level impact. It is greater than U.S. $19 million in revenues and 9m in net assets, with CEO earning 298k and CFO earning 190k, per its 2012 charitable nonprofit 501c3 filing available for free from GuideStar. Seems important, bigger than $1 million rule of thumb notability threshold for charitable nonprofits that I've posed occasionally. --do ncr am 01:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep Some coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The assumption should be that Wikipedia editors are objective and make their edits in good faith. The interest in SightLife is not just local as the nom. indicates, but global as do ncr indicates. Also By 2009, SightLife was the leading eye bank in the United States. Norton, Lisa (2012). So You Want to Be a Global Nonprofit?: Legal and Practical Guidance for International Activities (PDF). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-118-45222-6. --Bejnar (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't understand the motives of DGG's nomination, because it is wrong on all levels, the charity has a global focus as, for example, demonstrated by The Hindu article (which is certainly a major non-local newspaper). I don't really see promotionalism either, the article (when it was moved from AfC) was fairly succinct. I do agree that being in a list of 50, or 100 organisations is not of tremendous note though, taken together with the other evidence, points to clearly meeting WP:GNG and WP:NONPROFIT. Sionk (talk) 10:52, 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 delete. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of transactions involving the Dallas Mavericks[edit]

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

non-relevant fancruft The Banner talk 10:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cut. Somebody went to a lot of trouble listing the roster moves of this team, but that's just way too much detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly detailed WP:TRIVIA. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:49, 3 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. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of transactions involving the Portland Trail Blazers[edit]

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

non-relevant fancruft The Banner talk 10:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cut. Somebody went to a lot of trouble listing the roster moves of this team, but that's just way too much detail. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly detailed WP:TRIVIA. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:49, 3 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. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of transactions involving the Charlotte Hornets[edit]

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

non-relevant fancruft The Banner talk 10:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have been bundled together with the other nominations above. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly detailed WP:TRIVIA. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:49, 3 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 keep. Merge discussions can proceed through normal processes. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of Half-Life[edit]

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

Violates WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:GNG, WP:IINFO. Excluding the reception section, it is all primary sources and walkthrough's. Reception is about the environment of the game in general, not specific locations. Specific locations are not discussed by outside sources. Vaypertrail (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Half-life (series) per nom, but the setting of the game is easily notable given the wide range of media coverage cited in the article. The Elder Scrolls is a similarly notable game series with a similarly notable setting and that game's setting redirects as above. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 11:31, 31 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) 13:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is non-primary sourced information about specific locations among the other details in addition to the reception section. I will agree there are places to trim down, but the significance of the locations in the HL series have been well described in media. There's also no game guide material here (these are general locations, but not, for example, name-by-name levels as game guide warns about). The series article is already too large to accept this. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask where? All I see GS talks about City 17 in a hl1 and hl2 review and some unknown persons thesis'. Xen, black mesa, science lab are all passing mentions and no real info. That's only City 17, everything else is passing mentions, fan sites, or nothing at all, or 9 out of 10 locations failing WP:N.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement that every entry in a list meets WP:N. Yes, there needs to be some love and care to help source these better,, but the key locations in the Half-Life world are well defined placed in video game from the current sources, and AFD is not for cleanup. Yes, I agree there's trimming to be done, but that's not what you can use AFD to force to happen. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree only one entry meets WP:N, in which case it's mergeable with Half-life (series).--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel like there is value of the page and as such, if this were to be kept, I would want the whole scope of the setting of Half-Life to be expanded. Yes, the locations does read as a game guide, but I feel like a broader scope and more encyclopedic approach could do this some good. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 06:38, 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Sudenberg[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer who's claim to fame is he fought Jack Dempsey before the latter become champion. Single non death index reference is to Jack. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Had 9 wins in 59 fights and no significant coverage.Jakejr (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing to show he meets WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:05, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ayala, Sr.[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Sons are notable but WP:NOTINHERITED. This is an obituary. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and notability isn't inherited from his sons.Jakejr (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jakejr, fails all three criteria of WP:NBOX in addition, majority of sources fail WP:RS ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 11:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ballycraigy Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school. We don't generally keep stand-alone articles of such schools, absent unusual notability reflected in coverage that is absent here. Tagged for notability for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable primary school.TheLongTone (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷_{♀ 投稿 ♀} 11:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom as non-notable. Nothing independent found beyond passing mentions in local sources. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Non notable primary school. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - That's cool, happy enough to redirect to the education section of Antrim. Mikes (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- above comment is by the article creator. Epeefleche (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why create the page and then !vote delete ? ..... I'm somewhat confused there. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is a new editor. Perhaps he was unaware of our rule in this area; it's not completely intuitive, and we have a bunch of similar schools that have to be addressed. Just guessing. Epeefleche (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true I just assumed he wasn't a new editor lol. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I'm a pretty new editor, also created that page ages ago... Sorry guys! Mikes (talk) 21:00, 6 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same World, Different Day[edit]

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

After performing some cleanup and WP:BEFORE, I was unable to find any reliable sources speaking about this unreleased film project. Fails WP:NF and WP:NFF. I would be fine with a recreation or undeletion once this gets released and gains the requisite coverage. But for now it is simply TOO SOON Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails film notability due to absence of reliable sources. "Micro budget" hints that it's never going to receive widespread coverage. Philg88 ^♦talk 07:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The micro budget is still in crowdsourcing. No guarantee that this future film will ever exist, so it presumably doesn't meet the criterion under WP:NFILMS to have reached the principal photography stage. And that would only matter if the film otherwise met the notability criteria. No substantial, non-trivial independent coverage for the film, its directors, its producers, or its stars. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. It's just far, far too soon for this to have an entry. I couldn't find anything to assert notability either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lino Alvarez[edit]

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

Claim to notability appears to be because of his status with the LDS church. Only sources are LDS church-related and/or fleeting. Since notability requires sources independent of the topic, fails GNG and should be deleted. p b p 15:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Alvarez is notable because of his service as a general authority in the LDS Church. Even if that service was only for a short-term call, he is still notable for the service he rendered in a Church that now claims 15 million members. If you propose that an article about Alvarez be nominated for deletion because he lacks notability or relevance or whatever other term you choose to employ, then you must also argue that articles about deceased prophets and apostles have no more relevance and should also be considered for deletion. Alvarez served in many capacities, before, during and after his time as a general authority. And that service makes him notable. I would be unalterably opposed to any motion to delete any article about any general authority because I still feel they are relevant and good sources of information for all who want to learn more about such people who have so served. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote is not based in policy. We don't keep articles just because they are about people who served in a particular capacity, we keep articles if there are reliable sources about them. If this person really was notable, there would be more about him out there than a fleeting mention in the New York Times and the rest ripped from Mormon websites. That also goes for any LDS official, so if there are unsourced dead general authorities, they should be deleted too p b p 13:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As can be seen from his mention in the New York Times, Alvarez held major positions within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The sources used are not directly controled by Alvarez and reflect the fact that he was a major educational and religious leader.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention in the times does not cover him in depth enough to attest notability, sorry. There is no policy or guideline that states that people holding Alvarez's position should be kept. Failing that, it defaults to GNG, which he fails p b p 04:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - in my view, a claim to notability could be made on one of three grounds so I will deal with them on that basis:

1. WP:GNG - no, the coverage available is from the church itself and so isn't independent, a key requirement of such coverage.

2. Principal of Benemerito Preparatory School - no, school principals are generally not considered notable for having held that position.

3. General authority - maybe. He was one of a group of about 100 church leaders for 5 years. We generally consider cardinals of the Catholic Church (perhaps a similar position in terms of rank) to be notable. But this is a much smaller organisation where individuals of that rank are responsible for far fewer people and elevation to the rank is not for life.

I don't really think that number 3 is enough, alone, to confer notability but it is by far the closest thing to a claim to notability this subject has. Failing the presentation of additional coverage in reliable sources, I'm inclined to think the article should be deleted. Stalwart111 07:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (there's not much to merge into that list) per discussion at other AFDs about various General authorities. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:40, 4 June 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to either List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or to General authority. Not notable enough for an individual article perhaps, but collectively enough to list somewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi[edit]

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

The "swearing-in ceremony" of any leader, however important he/she may be, can hardly claim a Wikipedia article of itself. Here, too, an entire article for such a topic, seems inappropriate. Maybe there can be a brief section (much shorter than this article) about the swearing-in ceremony of Narendra Modi in some other related article (e.g. Council of Ministers of Narendra Modi). But such a detailed article about a medium-importance, short-duration event like this seems overkill. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an in-depth account of every event that comes in the news. This article seems like an example of WP:Recentism. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a record of news. Sarthak Sharma (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses the Template:Infobox historical event. But can a swearing-in ceremony really be called a "historical event"? Agreed, the SAARC leaders were present at this ceremony (something that happened for the first time), but even after considering that, was this swearing-in ceremony such a high-importance historical event that it deserves its own, separate Wikipedia article? I do not think so. Besides, there are no other Wikipedia articles for any swearing-in ceremonies, of any leader of any country. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Infobox event replaced with Infobox historical event by this edit. I think User:Powerplant786 taken it from this article because most of the inauguration articles using this template. Gfosankar (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sarthak Sharma (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sarthak Sharma (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the nom, does not qualify for a stand-alone article. Delete per WP:INHERITED and WP:INTHENEWS. — LeoFrank ^Talk 05:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event acquires high importance due to all SAARC leaders being present (an unprecedented first) and it is one of the largest attendance for a swearing-in of a PM. The controversy over the attendance of Sri Lankan President and the celebration of the Pakistan PM were other highlights. Just to answer to "Besides, there are no other Wikipedia articles for any swearing-in ceremonies, of any leader of any country." see First inauguration of Barack Obama, Inauguration of Benigno Aquino III, Inauguration of Uhuru Kenyatta, . --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those "inaugurations" may have been more than just "swearing-in ceremonies". They may have had more events, lasted for longer duration, had more attendees, all of which may have increased their significance. (Besides, creating an article just because others have created similar articles seems poor reasoning. It is a repetition of mistakes.) The swearing-in ceremony of the Indian Council of Ministers is not such an extravaganza. It does not merit its own separate article. The presence of SAARC leaders, controversy over attendance of Sri Lankan president, etc. were important points (probably the only points worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article), but all this can easily fit in a section of the Council of Ministers of Narendra Modi article. There is no need for a whole new article for all this. If this article is allowed to exist, then in the future there will also be articles for other swearing-in ceremonies (even though nothing remarkable may happen in those), and this article will be cited as an example to support their existence (please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DUE). Wikipedia must not become a newspaper-like record of everything that happens. It must remain an encyclopedia. --Sarthak Sharma (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing-in ceremony of Modi was a historical event, as mentioned by many commentators, e.g 1, 2, 3, also it must be mentioned that Swearing in of Indian PM, is just like US inauguration of presidential office, and there are many pages for the latter. Modi's swearing in was a talked about event in many countries and was historic in nature. So a page for it is of good utility and should be kept. Powerplant786 (talk) 14:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what there is of worth Narendra Modi. (most is eye-wateringly trivial. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.TheLongTone (talk) 10:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost each and everything that happens these days can be linked to Modi. We have to understand that the article on Modi is a biography and can't accommodate everything in it. Mergers now are later on pruned and completely deleted after sometime over there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic meets the event notability criteria: widespread international coverage, complete with analysis by political and international relations experts. WP:NOTNEWS is applicable when the article contains news-like updates, announcements, daily happenings etc. Multiple non-Indian sources (e.g. The Sydney Morning Herald and CNN) have called the event historic. "If this article is allowed to exist..." is a slippery slope argument: if another such ceremony is not notable, an article on it will be deleted. Besides, I don't see how can we blame this article for starting a trend, when Wikipedia already has 70+ articles on the various US presidential inaguarations. This event is certainly more important and more historic than most of its US counterparts. To quote CNN: "For the first time, leaders of an entire South Asian region attended, including Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister of India's traditional archrival, Pakistan. But it's not just the guest list that makes this inauguration historic. Never in the past three decades has a political party taken up the reins of the world's largest democracy with an absolute majority." As for {{Infobox historical event}}, that template is just a redirect to {{Infobox event}} -- I don't see what the problem is. utcursch | talk 20:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever content makes this article notable can (and should) be accommodated in a section of the article Council of Ministers of Narendra Modi. Articles are meant to be of substantively important things. As far as events are considered, they should be notable and have a long enough duration, to merit the need of separate articles. Otherwise, a brief section about them in an article of a larger or more inclusive topic, is sufficient. And the swearing-in ceremony described in this article lasted a brief time (an hour or two). There was not enough significance in it to merit the need of a separate article. As for comparing it with "inaugurations" in other countries: the Indian ceremonies are comparatively low-key and brief affairs. --EngineeringGuy (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a "low-key" affair - that's the entire point. And, no, there is no minimum duration for an event to be considered notable - by that logic, we will have to delete the the 130+ articles in Category:FA Cup Finals. Narendra Modi's swearing-in ceremony was a "substantively important" event:

It was attended by the heads of 7 countries that represent over 1/5th of the world's population. This is without counting Bangladesh (which was represented by the speaker of its Parliament) and the Tibetan Government-in-Exile. This was the first time in India's history that all the SAARC heads were invited to the swearing-in ceremony of a PM (Narendra Modi's swearing-in: SAARC makes history, comes together for a new experience)
The media as well as political & IR analysts discussed its significance beyond the mere oath-taking, in multiple contexts (e.g. India-Pakistan relations, India's attempt to showcase itself as the regional leader, the release of fishermen by Pak and SL, the Tamil issue etc.)
It received widespread coverage internationally, with media from Australia to America explicitly using the word "historic" to describe it (the ceremony, not the electoral win).

By any standard, this event is more significant than most of articles in Category:United States presidential inaugurations. Calling it "not important enough" is just plain systemic bias. utcursch | talk 00:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets our event notability criteria, an inauguration/swearing-in of the HoG in the world's largest democracy should take care of that, but even beyond that basic point, we have sufficient coverage about the uniqueness and notability of this particular swearing in courtesy of the NYT, WP, The Guardian, The Times, Sydney Morning Herald etc etc in addition to the excessive coverage in Indian media. And of course, the fact that it was even broadcast live in Pakistan with running commentary is of greater significance, not to mention that Stephen P. Cohen has been giving tv interviews on this left, right, and center. It is quite silly to say that an inauguration/swearing-in gains notability based on the number of balls or concerts held or the designer for the clothes worn. Not news is an argument taken to absurd extremes as the nom seems to think that the I-P or I-SL issues contribute less to notability than a performance by James Taylor. —SpacemanSpiff 07:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Certainly notable, deviates very substantially from oath ceremonies of previous PMs of India. --RaviC (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it's clearly a notable event. Schwede 66 22:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much more than a mere oath taking event with attendece of many heads of states and global interest it generated.Shyamsunder (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was as notable as the swearing in of Obama. The first time that the Pakistani PM came, and other SAARC leaders, the largest gathering in Rashtrapati Bhavan, it was broadcast live in Pakistan and reported globally in all major news. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for passing WP:GNG and has been described as a "major diplomatic event". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the inauguration of the Head of the Government of the United States (viz. The President of the United States) can be included as a Wiki Page, why cant the inauguration (swearing-in) of the Indian Head of the Government (The Prime Minister of India) be included? Wikipedia has to be fair that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.59.37.190 (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without merge: A notable event but need not be linked with Modi himself directly in his article. - Vivvt (Talk) 14:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, or merge~~ (after shortening) with Council of Ministers of Narendra Modi. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news record. Wikimedia Foundation has another project: Wikinews, for presenting news items like this. But many editors are not satisfied with just Wikinews, and want to create news item- related articles on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is more popular than Wikinews. And if such articles are allowed, then in the future there may even be articles about every budget passed by the government, every parliament session, every new law passed by the government, and other topics that should instead have only sections and not entire articles (or should not be there at all in an encyclopedia). All this may happen for not only central governments, but also for the more numerous state governments. Then Wikipedia will be less and less like an encyclopedia, and more and more like a record of news items. Finally, giving examples of other articles about swearing-in ceremonies or inaugurations (or any mid-importance, short duration events where nothing unexpected happens) as justification for allowing this article to exist seems poor reasoning. That is effectively saying that one poor or inappropriate article should be allowed to exist, because several other poor or inappropriate articles like it also exist. Instead, the opposite should be done: if there are other articles about topics that do not really merit the need for entire articles, then they, too, should be deleted, or merged with related articles of more important topics and of larger scope. Note that already, more than three quarters of all English Wikipedia articles are of poor quality ("stub class" or "start class", which are levels below even "C class"), and almost half are marked as "low importance" (see: Wikipedia#Internal quality control and assessment of importance). It is not surprising, as a lot of articles are about topics that do not need entire articles. They should instead have only sections in other larger articles. (This article itself is marked as "start class" and "low Importance", for WikiProject India) ---EngineeringGuy (talk)

Two votes not allowed. You are already the nominator of this AfD. Hence striking your vote but keeping your comment. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin: The users with signatures "Sarthak Sharma" and "EngineeringGuy" are same as User:Intelligentguy89. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly notable ..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable with so many world leaders attending... ƬheStrike Σagle ^sorties 06:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets WP:EVENTCRIT criteria. It's not WP:Recentism.Prateek Malviya^•✉•✎ 11:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The swearing-in has been covered by media the world over. There has also been a lot of discussion about the SAARC leaders attending. Clearly, notable. If you want examples of non-notable inaugurations look no further than some of the US Presidential inaugurations. Reagan's second has only 2 sources, one of which is the US Senate website and the other is a 124-word newspaper article. I point this out because the nominator states, "Those "inaugurations" may have been more than just "swearing-in ceremonies"." BigJolly9 (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:Since almost all the SAARC leaders were present which actually has happened for the first time in Indian history, it deserves a separate article.No merger and obviously, no deletion.Yohannvt (talk) 11:01, 6 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~~. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing result to no consensus per discussion on my talk page, especially the sources [15] and [16]. Inability to read a language is not a valid reason to deny a source. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Ng[edit]

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

Martial artist who fails WP:MANOTE. He also doesn't appear to meet the notability standards for actors and no reliable sources are referenced.Mdtemp (talk) 16:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see lots of content on the web. E.g., this, this, this, this, this and this.

With one exception, those articles are just a list of movies he's appeared in or about Linda Chung (his long-time girl friend). Notability is not inherited.Mdtemp (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Content on the web in regards to his body of work as a martial arts actor and action director can easily be found. Hong Kong media tends to focus on gossip and personal relationships among their artistes so articles regarding his rumored relationship would naturally appear more often in searches. Notability should not be inherited but it often is, but in his case if he was not notable in his field, the Hong Kong press would not give him any coverage regardless of who he is dating or not dating. . E.g., this, this, this, this.

— Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

The problem is that none of these show independent coverage from a reliable source. I'll wait to see if better sources are added before voting. Papaursa (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither the article nor the sources mentioned by the keep voters provide the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they do WP:GNG states as one of its criteria - " "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." Each article listed addresses him (the topic) directly and in detail. i.e. this this, this,this,this,this,this,this All reliable independent and third party sources reporting directly about him. A simple search on Google or any other search engine will bring up many more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mentioned earlier do not show significant independent coverage from reliable sources. As for this bunch of sources you just mentioned that are in Chinese, my translate program doesn't do much with these. The ones I got didn't meet the necessary standards and the others I can't evaluate. As stated in WP:V, I would like to see some independent translations of the material to show it's not just more of the same type coverage you've been using (i.e., sources that don't meet WP:GNG). It's an English WP and the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Astudent0 (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states as one of its criteria - "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." Note that articles can be in any language. This subject meets all the criteria for Notability according to all the guidelines listed WP:GNG All the delete voters just state that the articles listed by the Keep voters are not reliable or independent without stating how they are so. While I have on more than one occasion stated criteria listed in the Wikipedia guidelines that all of the listed articles meet. And each article or video listed are from internationally recognized third party media organizations which a simple internet search can confirm, so not sure why we are going in circles debating clear evidence as a number of the listed articles are in English that is written or translated by the actual source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this debate is notability of the subject matter, which over the course of this debate seems more like a subjective matter rather than an objective one, thus evolving guidelines are set by Wikipedia to maintain a certain status quo in articles being published. WP:N#NCONTENT - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." As each of the various media coverage sources listed by the Keep voters meet all criteria listed by Wikipedia's guidelines and the fact that a simple internet query will show ample and easily accessible information about the subject strongly points to the subject notability in his field. If fellow editors feel the article is poorly written or could be formatted better, please help improve it or offer insight on how. The debate now is Keeping or Deleting this article based on the subject's notability, which evidence has been brought forth by the Keep voters to assert clearly. While I agree that Wikipedia should not be a repository of all information, Wikipedia SHOULD list articles on subjects that a number of the public would like to find out more about (i.e. Notability). For example, if I come across an article in Wikipedia on [this] film, I enjoy the fact that I can find links to other independent entries on Wikipedia about the film's lead actors so I can learn more about them. The subject of this debate meets the criteria for Notability set forth by this community, if anyone disagrees, please state why. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kungfu05 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Others have stated why they believe he's not notable and you responded with a missive against a straw man argument. Claiming those articles "meet all criteria listed by Wikipedia's guidelines" is false when sites like IMDB, chinesemovies.com, and his family's martial arts page clearly are not independent AND reliable. (I don't know how reliable some of the others are, but I hope you see my point). In addition, it's reasonable to claim that the articles on his girl friend that mention him are "passing mentions" and not "significant" coverage. The last bunch of articles you mentioned are all in Chinese and my computer translation makes them a garbled mess that prevents me from figuring out what they're talking about. Astudent0 is correct when he says the burden of proof is on you. Right now I'm on the fence--I think he may well be notable, but I'm not yet seeing the sources that clearly show me that. Papaursa (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR nor WP:GNG (at least from what I can read).Jakejr (talk) 03:19, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I have been asking to see better sources for several weeks because I couldn't find the coverage I felt is necessary to show he meets GNG, and none has been provided. I will reconsider if additional sources are provided. Papaursa (talk) 02:55, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Nisham[edit]

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

Notability of subject questionable, Article seems to be only based on indictment or accusation. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. 舎利弗 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS, and this is a novelty story at best. Individual is not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS and Wikipedia:WI1E--Jersey92 (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely un-notable once the recency effect evaporates. RomanSpa (talk) 17:00, 4 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbai Science[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Awards are not major. nothing notable here. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on my hit list and then I've been off WP for a year, non-notable self-promotional puff with a list of references from self-posted web pages (ie beatport etc.) CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 22:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not all of the citations are to self-published sources. The source at Fuzz Magazine, a Belgian electronic music magazine in Flemish, seems to be independent. It is an interview, so most of it would only qualify as reliable under Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Also two citations that might have been independent are deadlinks. --Bejnar (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails on notability, coverage is simply not wide enough. Semitransgenic _talk. 14:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. Questionable sources listed as references. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cool name. I can't find anything to support its notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 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. postdlf (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of circulating currencies by value[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highest-valued currency unit for a discussion on an older, similar article. No prejudice against a merge to List of circulating currencies, although in practice this would be impractical since it would mean the merged list would have to be updated every day (as mentioned in the linked AfD discussion, this is not easily attempted). Ineligible for G4 as the content of this article is different from the older one (and the old article wasn't deleted anyway). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impractical to keep up to date. Googling would surely provide superior and up to date info.--220 of ^Borg 03:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't recall ever seeing an ordering by unit value come up in currency discussions, articles, etc. Also wildly hard to keep current, see. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 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 04:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramshackle Glory[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, per WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. There appear to be no reliable sources online, only user-submitted reviews and/or student newspapers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All I can dig up are concert listings [17][18][19] and non-staff reviews at PunkNews [20][21] and Sputnikmusic [22]. I'm not seeing the types of coverage that would show that this group meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow talk 02:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 03:14, 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 20:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamienica przy ul. Warszawskiej 5 we Wrześni[edit]

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

No indication notability, per WP:NGEO. There are hundreds of thousands of rank-and-file protected objects of no particular note. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This is I think the worst example of the messy articles created by the SPA editor(s) I described at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive260#New_user_using_multiple_accounts. In this case it's machine translation of pl:Kamienica przy ul. Warszawskiej 5 we Wrześni, without any copyediting. I think that the building is notable, as it is a zabytek. However, the article is a mess, and maybe, just maybe, getting this mess deleted will convince the author to stop creating socks every other day, talk back to us, or at least raise his standards a bit. PS. User:Staszek Lem: please tag your future deletions on talk with WP:POLAND or such so they can be included in our Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts or such. PS. Based on [23] and [24] I have been able to identify the source of those articles: high school students in Poland... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Piotrus A discussion in WT:NGEO#Inherent notability of protected objects convinced me that simply because some object is protected heritage does not automatically makes it notable for wikipedia purpose. (BTW, can you express your opinion in the poll about making WP:NGEO a guideline?) Staszek Lem (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:18, 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.

[1] Adrianna A. Semmens, [http://www.humanecologyreview.org/pastissues/her122/semmens.pdf Engendering Deliberative Democracy: Women’s Environmental Protection Problems], Human Ecology Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2005

[Bookchin-Resignation-2] Murray Bookchin, "Advisory Board Resignation Letter," Democracy & Nature, Vol.3, No.3 (1997), pp. 198-202. Retrieved 24 May 2014.

[3] " Editorial Board Response To The Resignation Letter," Democracy & Nature, Vol.3, No.3 (1997), pp. 203-211. Retrieved 24 May 2014.

[4] Worldcat for Democracy & Nature

[5] Worldcat for Society & Nature

[6] “Miar Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals”. Journal scored an ICDS of 6.279

[7] William A. Katz, Linda Sternberg Katz, “Magazines for libraries: for the general reader and school, junior college college, university, and public libraries,” (R.R. Bowker, 1997) Google Books.

[8] Leo P. Chall, “Sociological Abstracts” Vol. 51, issue 6 (2003) - Google Books.

[9] “International Bibliography of Sociology Vol.52,” - British Library of Political and Economic Science - Google Books.

[10] “International Encyclopedia of Civil Society,” edited by Helmut K. Anheier, Stefan Toepler- Google Books.

[11] “Serials in the British Library,” (British Library, Bibliographic Services Division, 2001) - Google Books.

[12] “Independent Publishers, vol. 17,” (Jenkins Group, Incorporated, 1999) ) - Google Books

[13] “Miar Information Matrix for the Analysis of Journals”. Journal scored an ICDS of 6.279

[14] “Gale Directory of Publications and Broadcast Media,” Vol. 131, issue 1 (Gale Research, 1997) - Google Books.

[15] [ http://www.researchgate.net/journal/1469-3720_Democracy_Nature “Research Gate Index”]

[16] “On line Library of the Open University of Malaysia”

[17] Charles Masquelier, Critical Theory and Libertarian Socialism: Realizing the Political Potential ...” - - Google Books.

[18] “Education under the security state: defending public schools,” - Google Books.

[19] Scott W. Fitzgerald, “Corporations and Cultural Industries: Time Warner, Bertelsmann, and News ...” - Google Books.

[20] ”Immigration, Integration, and Security: America and Europe in Comparative ...” - Google Books.

[21] Simon Tormey, Jules Townshend, “Key Thinkers from Critical Theory to Post-Marxism - Google Books.

[22] Kerry T. Burch, “Democratic Transformations: Eight Conflicts in the Negotiation of American ...” - Google Books.

[23] “Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture ...” - Google Books.

[24] Albert J. Mills, Gabrielle Durepos, Elden Wiebe, “Encyclopedia of Case Study Research: L - Z; Index” - Google Books.

[25] Andrew Dinkelaker, [http://www.quadrant4.org/thesis/bibliography.html “The New Frontier in Democratic Theory and Practice: Organizational Forms that Simultaneously Optimize Autonomy & Community”]

[26] “Anti-Americanism: Comparative perspectives,” - Google Books.

[27] “World in Motion: The Globalization and the Environment Reader,” - Google Books.

[28] Jhan Hochman, “Green cultural studies: nature in film, novel, and theory,” - Google Books.

[29] “Environmentalism: Critical Concepts,” - Google Books.

[30] Frank Huisman, John Harley Warner, “Locating medical history: the stories and their meanings,” - Google Books.

[31] “Watch Yourself: Why Safer Isn't Always Better,” - Matt Hern - Google Books.

[32] Jhan Hochman, “Green cultural studies: nature in film, novel, and theory,” - Google Books.

[33] David Goodway, “Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British ...,” - Google Books.

[34] “World in Motion: The Globalization and the Environment Reader,” - Google Books.

[35] David Ingram, “Rights, Democracy, and Fulfillment in the Era of Identity Politics ...,” - Google Books.

[36] “Eastern Europe: Politics, Culture, and Society Since 1939,” - Google Books.

[37] “Library Juice Concentrate,” - Google Books.

[38] Damian F. White, “Bookchin: A Critical Appraisal,” - Google Books.

[39] Nader N. Chokr, “Unlearning Or 'How NOT to Be Governed?',” Imprint Academic (January 1, 2009) - Google Books.

[40] Robert A. Saunders, “The Many Faces of Sacha Baron Cohen: Politics, Parody, and the Battle Over Borat,” - Google Books.

[41] Saul Newman, “The Politics of Postanarchism,” - Google Books.

[42] “Defining Technological Literacy: Towards an Epistemological Framework,” - Google Books.

[43] Ernest Beyaraza, “Global ethics: cases from Africa,” - Google Books.

[44] Derek Hodson, “Looking to the Future,” - Google Books.

[45] P. R. Hay, “Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought,” - Google Books.

[46] “The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Culture,” - Google Books.

[47] “Masters of War: Militarism and Blowback in the Era of American Empire,” - Google Books.

[48] “Changing Anarchism: Anarchist Theory and Practice in a Global Age,” - Google Books.

[49] “Critical Perspectives in Politics and Socio-Economic Development in Ghana,” - Google Books.

[50] “Capital, Power, and Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean,” - Google Books.

[51] Professor Poe Yu-ze Wan, “Reframing the Social: Emergentist Systemism and Social Theory,” - Google Books.

[52] “Resistance, Space and Political Identities: The Making of Counter-Global ...,” - David Featherstone - Google Books.

[53] Theodore Kokkinos, “Economic structure-functionalism in European unification and globalization of the economies,” (Peter Lang, 2000) - Google Books.

[54] Tony Bennett, John Frow (editors), “The SAGE Handbook of Cultural Analysis,” - Google Books.

[55] Iain Watson, “Rethinking the politics of globalization: theory, concepts, and strategy,” - Google Books.

[56] James Gifford and Gabrielle Zezulka-Maillous, “Culture + the State: Landscape and Ecology,” - Google Books.

[57] David A. Gabbard, Alain Beaulieu (editors), “Michel Foucault and Power Today: International Multidisciplinary Studies in the History of the Present,” - Google Books.

[58] “The Sociology of Zygmunt Bauman: Challenges and Critique,” - Google Books.

[59] “Toward a New Socialism,” - Google Books.

[60] Paul Warren James, “Globalization and Economy,” - Google Books.

[61] Robley E. George, “Socioeconomic democracy: an advanced socioeconomic system,” - Google Books.

[62] R. James Sacouman, James Sacouman, Henry Veltmeyer, “From the net to the Net: Atlantic Canada and the global economy,” - Google Books.

[63] Karin Dalhues, “Treehugging 2.0: Powerful Niche Media in the Battle for a Better Future?,” - Google Books.

[64] Olanike F. Deji, “Gender and Rural Development: Introduction,” - Google Books.

[65] Judith R. Blau, Alberto Moncada, “Freedoms and solidarities: in pursuit of human rights,” - Google Books.

[66] Carrie Friese, “Enacting Conservation and Biomedicine: Cloning Animals of Endangered Species ...,” - Google Books.

[67] “Toward a New Socialism,” - Google Books.

[68] S. A. Hamed Hosseini, “Alternative Globalizations: An Integrative Approach to Studying Dissident ...,” - Google Books.

[69] Nick Garside, “Democratic Ideals and the Politicization of Nature: The Roving Life of a ...,” - Google Books.

[70] P. R. Hay, “Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought,” - Google Books.

[71] Derek Hodson, “Looking to the Future,” - Google Books.

[72] Ernest Beyaraza, “Global ethics: cases from Africa,” - Google Books.

[73] “Education under the security state: defending public schools,” - Google Books.

[74] “If Classrooms Matter: Progressive Visions of Educational Environments,” - Google Books.

[75] Richard Vernon Kahn, “The Ecopedagogy Movement: From Global Ecological Crisis to Cosmological ...,” - Google Books.

[76] “Learning the Virtual Life: Public Pedagogy in a Digital World,” - Google Books

[77] “Critical Pedagogy in the Twenty-first Century: A New Generation of Scholars,” - Google Books

[78] “Schooling and the Politics of Disaster,” - Google Books

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]