Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 May	6 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Henderson (politician)[edit]

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

simply a mayor of a midsize town. No indication of anything other than the coverage you would expect for a mayor. fails WP:NPOL. John from Idegon (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small-town (12K) mayor without much strong evidence of notability under WP:POLITICIAN — notability is not generally presumed for mayors until a city is at least 50K — and relying a bit too heavily on primary sources and blogs and not nearly enough on reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. We often delete the articles, and sometimes redirect them, to the city's article; in this case, a redirect would only confuse casual readers. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 12 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 Elite Model Look. kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elite Model Look International 2012[edit]

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

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

redirect to Elite Model Look, which already lists the event so there's nothing to merge.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Non-notable minor event with no lasting historical significance - does not warrant a standalone article. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (Non-admin closure). Will redirect to Chris Sawyer. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

31X[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:CORP. Even if the Android and iOS port of Transport Tycoon is notable (which is not established), notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator in favor of redirect. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:33, 10 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) 19:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chris Sawyer - Although I don't like the idea of sending to AfD within 20 minutes of creation instead of boldly redirecting yourself, this should obviously point to its founder and notable staff member Chris Sawyer, where the company is already mentioned. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is a case of WP:BEFORE. This title plainly would be a fine redirect and isn't a candidate to be deleted outright. As for the company, it didn't pass a search engine test or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 15:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khayal Zeynalov[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested with the rational I'm seeing numerous media interviews and mentions of him, relating to him being the main keeper of Kapaz PFK. I'm concerned that a full search, would find evidence that he meets WP:GNG. Also, he played in UEFA cup game, some AZ teams are fully pro. The coverage he has received is routine sports journalism, which is insufficient for WP:GNG. The fact that some Azeri clubs are fully pro is not relevant to WP:NSPORT, and the UEFA Cup match he played was in qualifying and therefor does not confer notability either. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hang on ... I thought we had a criteria that if one had played in a cup match between two fully-professional teams, one was deemed notable. But now I'm not seeing it. Am I losing my mind? Or is that simply if one is in a fully-professional league? Nfitz (talk) 02:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not losing it, but the criteria doesn't apply here. What I assume your thinking of is the rule that generally domestic cup matches between two clubs who play in fully pro leagues confer notability. The Azerbaijan Premier League is not confirmed as fully pro and the UEFA Cup is not a domestic competition. The reasoning behind the rule is that most domestic cup competitions are structured in such a way that FPL clubs don't meet in the early rounds. By the time they can meet, cup matches typically receive as much, if not more, coverage as typical league match. This reasoning doesn't apply to the UEFA club competitions. The qualifying rounds receive significantly less coverage, therefore there's no WP:GNG exception for playing in them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, the past consensus has been that playing in a Cup match between two teams that are each from FPLs is enough, not merely two professional teams themselves. Giant Snowman 12:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I proposed deletion as referred to in the nominator's rationale. These concerns remain. C 679 05:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Rockmont for Boys[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As was explained when the nominator's prod notice was removed[1], this is an NRHP-listed property, listed as "Black Mountain College Historic District" but known as Camp Rockmont since the 1950s. [2][3] The camp is described in one source as "the largest private boys camp in the Southeast" [4] and is also the site of the Lake Eden Arts Festival [5] as well as other events (e.g. [6][7][8]; many more can be seen via searches). Merger of this article and the Black Mountain College article might be appropriate, but deletion is not. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You said there that Black Mountain College is NRHP listed, not this camp. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's wrong. The NRHP listing is listed as the "Black Mountain College Historic District", with "Camp Rockmont" listed as the alternative common name for the registered property.[9] The camp has occupied this property for 50 years. It's part of the history of the property. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is most certainly not wrong to point out that "you said there that Black Mountain College is NRHP listed, not this camp". In fact the exact words you used were " This is relevant to NRHP-listed Black Mountain College...". And indeed the NRHP listing of "Black Mountain College Historic District" seems to be adequately catered for by our article Black Mountain College, which includes the NRHP listing (ref 82001281) in its infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator appears to be going through a list or category of summer camps and nominating them all for deletion, indiscriminately. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surprise Lake Camp for example, where a summer camp that really obviously meets wp:GNG is also nominated for deletion. And this also seems to be an egregious nomination. I assume wp:BEFORE standard was not met for this Camp Rockmont for Boys article. I voted Keep also for similar reason at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Ondessonk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling Creek Camp and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forest Lake Camp, too. --do ncr am 20:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC) (stricken, per Pigsonthewing request at my Talk page} --doncram 22:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust that whoever closes this AfD will take into account your partisan canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolute nonsense. Please do try to explain where there was any "canvassing" at all. In several AFDs on summer camps that Pigsonthewings has nominated, i have pointed to other ongoing AFDs about summer camps, pointing out some relatedness between the AFDs. This seems appropriate, there is no canvassing to user pages or to any Wikiprojects. Nonsense. --do ncr am 00:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC) (stricken, per Pigsonthewing request at my Talk page} --do ncr am 22:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NRHP listed camp. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above: the NRHP listing is of "Black Mountain College Historic District"; and seems to be adequately catered for by our article Black Mountain College, which includes the NRHP listing (ref 82001281) in its infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article on the college doesn't cover any of the Lake Eden site's history after 1956, so it's obviously inadequate. I don't think merging the two subjects makes much sense either. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - If The article on the college doesn't cover any of the Lake Eden site's history, perhaps that's because it's not that significant to the site's NRHP listing; or at all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NRHP listed camp as well as plenty of coverage demonstrating passing WP:GNG. It appears the nom is just nominating camps from a list without any regard to WP:BEFORE. --Oakshade (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above: the NRHP listing is of "Black Mountain College Historic District"; and seems to be adequately catered for by our article Black Mountain College, which includes the NRHP listing (ref 82001281) in its infobox. You again need to be reminded that WP:AGF has not been suspended. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as every commenter above shows that the nominating statement " no evidence of notability", was incorrect. If nominating statement had been correct, it would be a valid ground for deletion--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:38, 14 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. Consenus (based on policy) is to delete the panda ₯’ 22:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Services of Wilts & Dorset[edit]

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

Not a notable or encyclopedic topic. Mostly only verifiable from primary sources. Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL Charles (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Non notable bus crap. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why this is being nominated for deletion now after existing for four years, the page is in accordance with WP:NTRAN. Also I find your message strange "Non notable bus crap." considering your profile says "My Interests on Wikipedia are: Buses..." Mainline421 (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We go by notability, Not how many years they've been running, There's a difference liking buses and liking bus companies and their routes..... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point about how many years the page has existed was that if it did violate the criteria for an article on Wikipedia (which it doesn't) then it would have been deleted already. And it has existed even longer than that on the Wilts & Dorset page it was moved to it's own page so someone clearly though it had encyclopedic value. (which it does) Mainline421 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it had "encyclopedic value" & was "notable" we wouldn't be here now would we?....-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can and does change over time. What happened in the past makes no difference.--Charles (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know about the rules of wikipedia but i have always found this a useful and interesting page especially considering there is no complete route list anywhere else now. Also maby a bit ot but the page was up to date yesterday why has it gone back to how it was before? Sorry for bad grammar im using a phone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.173.142 (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Transwiki to Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is unsourced, it's only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. Just remember all the rules, and be prepared to kill all the bus route articles :) Timothyhouse1 (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's absolutely no reason why this article should be deleted WP:NTRAN states "Transportation services, and associated items, are notable if they have been discussed in multiple, independent sources" and "Intercity bus services providing regularly scheduled, fixed-route services on multiple routes between two or more major cities or regions are likely to be notable" WP:WikiProject_Buses/Bus_route_list_guide states "Generally, if the bus routes in an area descended from streetcars, a list is appropriate, and if the system did not exist at all until the 1990s, it is probably not. In between those extremes, use your own judgment." The subjects are discussed frequently in (not reputable)independent sources and press. Mainline421 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses/Bus route list guide is tagged "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." It is worthless. It is unlikely that this particular set of routes will be widely discussed in reliable secondary sources outside of the immediate area, as is needed to meet the general notability guideline.

Keep We have many, many, articles of this type, and they are standard features. WP incorporates many of the features of an atlas. even to local detail. What we do not do is make articles on the individual routes. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them have actually been deleted now by strong consensus. We have Wikivoyage to cover travel related topics and there is no reason to keep this type of unstable and constantly changing material which is only of local or specialist interest and as a guide.--Charles (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. My gut feeling (although I can't point to any policy to back this up) is that individual bus lines are not notable, both because of their ubiquitousness and because the routes are so ephemeral. I looked up a few local bus services that I'm familiar with (Bee-Line Bus System, Rockland Coaches, New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, MTA Regional Bus Operations). The trend seems to be that routes are mentioned in the main article, but not a distinct article about them. On the other hand, trains do seem to get articles about individual routes (Vermonter, and all of Template:Amtrak_routes). Are train routes inherently more notable than bus routes, or do the train geeks just have a stronger lobby than the bus geeks? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of each perhaps. Rail tracks are fixed in steel rather than just following general roads and are not subject to frequent changes like bus routes. There are also a lot more local bus routes of no interest outside their immediate area.--Charles (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheMesquito^buzz 18:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as almost none of the content is based on secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete WP:NOT a bus directory. COmpany may be notable, and a high level overview of areas covered may be appropriate in the parent article, but listing every route is insane. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a fine article to me, meets all necessary guidelines by my book. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to follow Wikipedia policy rather than your book.--Charles (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That just means "my opinion". In my opinion the policies are all followed and don't require deletion of this article. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (shout) @ 22:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , based on sources provide in article this is passes GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- .... But fails everything else, It actually fails GNG too!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:16, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, this fails on everything. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I and Thou (band)[edit]

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

Notability is not clear, no claim of notability is made. RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Martin Buber gets another fifteen minutes of fame but really the name-dropping in this one-album band article signifies not enough notability (yet). Mangoe (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the one who created and added references to the article, I had hoped to keep quiet on this AfD but due to the dearth of response I shall add my $.02. I had never heard of Martin Buber or his work until I started researching the band and the album for the article. Searching was tricky, as a search like 'I and thou speak' gives a lot of irrelevant and false hits, and even putting 'I and thou' in quotes doesn't help much. I was able to get much better results and found a lot more online resources when I ran searches like '"I and Thou" "Jason Hart"' or '"I and Thou" Speak review'. Most of the musicians who contributed to the album are artists or members of bands that have articles on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, one of the references indicates the album Speak was named album of the month in July 2012. One of the references (which unfortunately I cannot seem to locate now) was an online version of an article that appeared in a prog rock print magazine. mwalimu59 (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jason Hart. I'm not sure Hart's article is reliable either, but there are no references for this band and I can't find better. The sources listed are largely blogs and not reliable, and at best they would serve to show that the album itself is notable (and the band does not inherit notability from the album coverage). There isn't much to merge, but the Hart article should at least mention this band once. I'd be in favor of deletion of the Hart article goes too. czar ♔ 16:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheMesquito^buzz 18:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't really think reviews are very reliable sources, and reviews are what this article relies on, because the other sources are partisan. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Partisan sources (as long as they are reliable) can still help to establish notability per WP:BIASED: "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources..." Spinning Spark 08:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BAND criteria #6: "contains two or more independently notable musicians". Two members have articles and two more belong to bands that have articles. Spinning Spark 08:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bad guideline. Not every little collaboration is worth writing about independently. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confident that those two musicians in question are independently notable (especially based on their current sourcing), but we'll let that play out as normal czar ♔ 04:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they are not notable then they should have been nominated for AFD first, or else the whole set nominated for deletion/merge together. Spinning Spark 10:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that would have been nice, but it's not a requirement. Anyone could make pages for the other two musicians right now—doesn't mean that they have independent notability by virtue of their articles' existence. The point I'm making is that a point to BAND#6 has to attempt to show that the two musicians are notable, not just that they have pages. czar ♔ 13:07, 11 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 Maxposure Media Group. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Arauz[edit]

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

Self-authored puff piece/curriculum vitae for a non-notable publishing industry person. If you have any doubt about who wrote it: the entire thing is the work of an SPA called EditingMaxposure (talk · contribs), and as you can see the subject of this article is the boss of Maxposure Media Group. Put his name into Google and you get zilch - apart from this article, of course. It looks like it has a lot of references, but they're mostly bad or refer to the company, not the guy. — Scott • talk 23:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Subject is not himself the focus of multiple pieces of independently-published journalism which would allow for verifiability. Leaving a redirect will allow those searching for the name to find what they need to know on the company page — which is presumably a notable subject. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm weakly okay with that as well, although it's not my preferred option. — Scott • talk 16:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Olaf Davis (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maxposure Media Group. Source searches demonstrate that the subject does not meet WP:BASIC. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Northamerica1000: Quick question - if he's not notable enough for an article, why is he notable enough for a redirect? — Scott • talk 17:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject's name is a potential search term. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maxposure Media Group: Redirects are cheap, and that article does legitimately give some information about him. PWilkinson (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Jatomi Fitness[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (companies). Some coverage in low-key, niche sources. Awards that are similarly niche and haven't generated any significant coverage. In other words - advertisement spam. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Olaf Davis (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH per coverage in mainstream (non-niche) publications, such as The Star and Yahoo News. It is also likely that additional Polish-language news sources cover this company. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently the person who originally created the article was a sock of User:Elandroid. No thoughts on notability, but figured I should probably make any incoming editors aware of this factor. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:46, 6 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. Ianmacm's policy-based argument is certainly the strongest. This is not sourced, it fails GNG, and even redirect is improbable the panda ₯’ 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SEXINT[edit]

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

This article seems to be based only on one blog post. I can find little to no mention of it in any other sources. Furthermore, other sections of the article seem to indicate the author is engaged in synthesis, as those sections make no mention of the database the article seeks to describe. Parrot of Doom 17:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked cites this media report, written by Gleen Greenwald and others, who have been reviweing the NSA files. It's not just a "blog post". In particular, this image, this other and this are used as a source that indeed the NSA has a database which contain references to "online promiscuity". There are other references in the Wikipedia article too. This is a notable subject which should be included in Wikipedia. The article can be salvaged. --177.20.130.9 (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to meet the general notability guideline. It's been covered by The Huffington Post, Arstechnica, among other reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arstechnica link has nothing to do with SEXINT. And the Huffington Post article does not contain the word "SEXINT". That can only be found in the blog post. Parrot of Doom 18:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I made the article partially because multiple other individual programs have articles as well. While not much information is known at the moment, I feel that it is vital to document. As for the sources, as was mentioned the original source is Greenwald who has been the main co-respondent in the Snowden-NSA issue. Ogma the Scholar (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to moving the article to rename it, but Afd should not be used as article cleanup. If you wanted to discuss moving the article/merging it, that should be done on the talk page. my !vote is to Keep, but rename. to something more suitable. It meets the general notability guideline, per its coverage in reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blog shouldn't be used as a source, since it's just a promo blurb that links to a more complete version at http://justsecurity.org/2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-waiting . It's still problematic that the word "sexint" only appears in the headline and is found nowhere in the meat of it, which hints at an attempt to make up a new sensational term to encapsulate various NSA behaviors. While those behaviors appear to be sourced reasonably, including the cataloguing of sexual behaviors as potential vulnerabilities, the existence of a specific "SEXINT" database isn't. Maybe the article should be renamed (to what?) or merged with existing NSA database articles. 99.58.57.1 (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to edit my comment with the following, I'll just post this here: Furthermore after reading the 'Guide to Deletion' (I'm new) I have a couple ideas. It says there are three criteria: Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. (also copyright). I'm not sure which specific one this doesn't meet. I would definitely argue that it is verifiable and doesn't contain original research (check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Snowden#Release_of_NSA_documents and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept). As for Neutrality, I would definitely argue it is objective and factual. If this is contested, the best alternative I can offer would be expansion.

Now to add to it: the post at Standford.cyberlaw is a 'promo post' but also a bit of a summary: 'we’ve learned that the NSA creates profiles of porn viewing, online sexual activity and more from its vast database of Internet content and transactional data as part of a plan to harm the reputations of those whom the agency believes are radicalizing others through speeches promoting disfavored—but not necessarily violent—political views.' While you're correct that perhaps there is not a 'sexint' database, it appears to at least be referring to a specific type of data (such as SIGINT or HUMINT). In which case the article simply should be changed to reflect this (in my opinion) as I think having this as a distinct class of data/strategy named as such is also quite important [the profiles and collected sex related data would be the 'SEXINT']. This quote is also at the beginning of the justsecurity article; I do believe Stanford Law School is more credible but since it links to the larger post as well, I feel as if it ultimately doesn't matter which article is used.Ogma the Scholar (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only verifiable fact this article contains is that someone released secret documents that suggest the NSA has been keeping tabs on individual browsing habits. Please find me any reliable source that supports the notion that a "SEXINT" database exists, because when last I looked, the article contained none. Even the Huffington Post makes no mention of a database. And that, in my opinion, makes it a non-article. Parrot of Doom 20:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've since edited the article to reflect the usage of the term 'SEXINT'- it refers to the intelligence gathered. I had misunderstood the articles (I got kind of excited, can you blame me?) and thought that they were specifically talking about a database. Ogma the Scholar (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwald (along with his two coauthors) is the original and only source. That's how the Snowden disclosures work — Snowden gave the confidential documents to only three journalists (and only Greenwald and Poitras have complete copies of the files). Those journalists go to some lengths to keep them confidential. The journalists vet the documents, and decide what part of the documents to make public (if any). Unless other journalists are given access to the source documents, all the other articles are just circular reporting.

The other articles may be useful for establishing notability, but they don't aid in verifiability. --Hirsutism (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that this is occurring is notable and has been made by a reliable source. If there's another source questioning the validity of the information, we should include it in the article to keep it balanced. The fact that the claim has been made is notable and verifiable, whether or not it can be validated through other sources. Deleting the article is the wrong approach to this. Tagging it as needing more balance would be sensible if there's a source to cite with another side of the story. If the term SEXINT hasn't been used by the other sources covering the disclosure, it should be renamed. strcat (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwald is generally considered reliable. Asking for a second source is unreasonable. Why is this even a discussion? The content of the article is obviously good enough, but the name seems to be a very unofficial neologism. IMO the content should be merged into the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group article, since the original Greenwald article talks about it as just another JTRIG dirty trick. Thue (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I recommend making the article more similar to SIGINT or LOVEINT? My apologies for not realizing that the articles were referencing a specific database like MUSCULAR or XKEYSCORE, this has to be rectified regardless. I think that since the above -INTS are datatypes with their own wikipedia articles, SEXINT deserves it's own as well. It's pretty significant. Ogma the Scholar (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LOVEINT. Only one of the sources actually mentions SEXINT, and much of the article is really about LOVEINT and similar programs anyway. Gamaliel (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOVEINT refers to unauthorized insider misuse of intelligence tools, directed at unauthorized targets. "SEXINT" is authorized use of intelligence tools, directed at authorized targets. I think they're very different. --Hirsutism (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then the article and the sources should reflect that. At this point, they do not. Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article a bit to reflect that it is a term coined by that journalist (whoops she's much more notable than a journalist) and such. I hadn't read these posts. I somewhat agree that a distinction with regards to it being authorized or not should be made evident on the article, the problem is that I don't think that there is necessarily a significant distinction in real life. On top of this, I think the main distinction is in how they are used: LOVEINT is for past relationship interests, SEXINT is specifically 'user X likes A B and C. Let's tell their spouse'. Ogma the Scholar (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo are we ready to close the discussion yet? (not trying to be pushy!)Ogma the Scholar (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Afds normally run for 7 days unless there is a unanimous consensus either way (from what I've seen). So no. Tutelary (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to LOVEINT. Clear WP:GNG issues here. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, this is an obscure neologism that does not need its own article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article is notable, not the neologism. It should be given a new name and reworked to avoid focus on a term rather than the underlying newsworthy issue. I would rename it and start on that work now, but I'm not sure if that's considered appropriate while an AFD discussion is ongoing. strcat (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename the article from a neologism. The content is quite distinct from LOVEINT. It covers the NSA spying on pornographic habits for blackmail, while LOVEINT is an article about NSA employees spying on their romantic interests without authorization from their superiors. strcat (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the content of the article is what should be focussed on- what actually happens instead of "this is a term that is used to describe something" and then a history of the term or some other such obviously redundant purpose. I don't think a renaming is necessary as it was used by a significant person on the issue and may not have even been created by them- we should find that out. If the article is to be renamed, I wouldn't cry. I don't think it /needs/ to be renamed, but I don't think the name is necessarily perfect or ideal. Ogma the Scholar (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ogma's comment just above me and strcat's comment of 20:15, 5 May 2014. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Amoudah Cinema fire. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amoudah is Burning[edit]

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

As far as I can tell from the one English source, this is a script that was never made into a movie, not a published book. Slashme (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, I haven't been able to find anything much about the script/movie/book/whatever with this title that would qualify as a reliable source. However, such sources might exist in Kurdish or Arabic, that I can't find. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Merge into Amoudah Cinema fire. The book is not very notable but the fire should be. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on fire per above comment, a reasonable suggestion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Amoudah Cinema fire. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bandy in the United States. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Bandy Association[edit]

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

Already covered adequately in the main Bandy in the United States article. No independent reliable sources to establish notability. I had merged/redirected this into Bandy in the United States after a short discussion at Talk:List of bandy clubs in the United States. The merge was reverted. Rather than start a revert war, I bring this to AfD to form a wider consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the present sources are sufficient to establish the notability. Bandy boy (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is only one source on the page and it is a primary source that just mentions it is part of the international federation which doesn't establish notability. I did a search of google for sources and could not find anything that would indicate that it has notability. I did not find any independent reliable sources. -DJSasso (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have made a very thorough search. I have added some more sources now. Bandy boy (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are reliable, independent secondary sources which establish notability. A perfunctory listing in a directory, a mention in an advertisement that somebody plays bandy, a paid chamber of commerce listing, and the FIB directory. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are. You really try to make things sound lesser that they are, don't you? Is there some kind of prestige in this for you? Bandy boy (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Bandy in the United States -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bandy in the United States. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bandy in the United States. I can't see how this is notable enough to justify a stand-alone article. Stalwart111 00:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, significant, important, should have its own article even if it's short because all oyther national governing bodies have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprucetwig (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep, a national governing body for a sport is notable and the information is verified by reliable sources. Bandy guy (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a policy-based assertion or just your opinion? Being a national-level organisation wouldn't seem to be an inclusion criteria. Anything to suggest this passes WP:GNG? Stalwart111 14:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is about the souces, and they are reliable. A national governing body for a sport recognised by the IOC is not just any national-level organisation. Bandy guy (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing about national governing bodies at Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Do you think that they are generally not notable? Should we delete the ones linked from Football association if they are stubs? I think this should be discussed at a wider level. Bandy guy (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National sports organizations are not inherently notable. To use ice hockey for example many in the southern countries that are recognized by the IIHF have been deleted over the years. Just being an organization doesn't confer notability, articles need to be written about it. If you can find a few sources with in depth articles discussing/describing the organization then it would likely be notable. If you can't then it likely isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give examples of national governing bodies for ice hockey which have been deleted? Could you explain why they should be used as examples as to why ABA should be deleted? Bandy boy (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your earlier comment; no, WP:GNG is not just about reliable sources, it is about significant coverage in reliable sources. If you could provide instances of significant coverage in reliable sources we wouldn't be having this discussion. Stalwart111 22:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should direct that comment to Bandy guy, not to me. Anyway, as far as I can see, Wikipedia has articles about every full, associate and affiliate member of the IIHF and also about some non-members. (Some of these articles have less sources than this one.) So I don't know which organisations DJSasso refers to, when he writes that some of them have been deleted. Bandy boy (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps I should have said the earlier comment, rather than your earlier comment. But the point remains the same. Using the inclusion of other organisations as justification for including this one is never a good idea. Each sport has a different organisational structure which might make some national bodies targets for significant coverage while others just busy themselves in the background with general administration. Some such organisations may manage all levels of a sport from grass-roots to international competition while others may exist to manage one competition or event. In the same way, some national organisations exist to manage highly publicised sports (NFL, NBA, NHL) while others exist to manage sports that might occasionally make it on to ESPN4 like darts and orienteering. A great many people are interested in what the National Football League (as an organisation) is doing and so there is plenty of coverage of the organisation itself. Less so the National Dart Association. The test here is WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH, not some magic arbitrary "every national organisation is notable". Stalwart111 00:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noone has said that "every national organisation is notable", but that a national governing body for a sport may be notable. DJSasso is the one who wanted to make comparisons to national governing bodies for ice hockey, and then I think DJSasso should be able to show us some example of an IIHF member whose article has been deleted, because I can't find one. Bandy boy (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bandy in the United States: Bandy is barely recognized by the IoC (it was a demonstration sport in 1952 with Finland, Norway and Sweden participating, but that's it), and Americans haven't participated in Bandy in the Olympics. Per this article. "In the United States, perhaps 300 men, 50 women and 200 youngsters play bandy. All of them live in the Twin Cities, except for a handful from Duluth who drive down on weekends," so I don't see a strong claim for inherent notability. As the association doesn't appear to meet the General Notability Guidelines, I have to vote delete for now, with no prejudice against recreating the article if and when Bandy becomes recognized enough in the US for this association to meet WP:GNG. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahecht, what do you mean by "barely recognized"? A sport is recognized or it isn't, there's no in-between. Bandy is a recognized sport and the Federation of International Bandy is a member of the Association of IOC Recognised International Sports Federations. Bandy boy (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's comment Please note that the Bandy boy, Bandy guy, and Sprucetwig accounts are subject to a sockpuppet investigation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is something Cúchullain has done only because he doesn't like that people doesn't share his opinions. Bandy boy (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cúchullain hasn't expressed an opinion here for others not to share. He has posted a sock puppetry investigation because he suspects sock puppetry. It doesn't help your cause to suggest that the SPI was launched because of a difference of opinion, only to confirm that all of the keep opinions above are at least meat puppetry, if not sock puppetry. Stalwart111 23:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said that Cúchullain has made an opinion in this discussion. I do not "suggest" anything, I make a statement based on obvious behavour which Cúchullain has not denied. Bandy boy (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bandy in the United States per Ahecht's comments with no prejudice against recreation at a future time if it gains greater recognition. Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bandy in the United States. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bandy in the United States due to lack of significant coverage of this association in reliable, independent sources. Also, block all confirmed sockpuppets and meat puppets. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:45, 10 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. Clear and obvious delete all as per discussion the panda ₯’ 22:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Stratford Road bus Corridor[edit]

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

Clean-up templates do not seem to be having any effect on the author of this article, it remains a rambling, unsourced collection of travel information and photos. Neither is there any evidence, apart from Wikipedia mirrors, of the existence of "Bus corridors" in the West Midlands. They seem to be an invention of the author to justify bundling a variety of routes that go in the same direction. Fails WP:GNG and definitely falls into WP:NOT.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail WP:GNG and fall into WP:NOT for the same reasons as above:

Sionk (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom - All unneeded bus cruft. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I have found multiple reliable sources for a transportation. It appears to pass GNG. The issue is sourcing many of the articles remain unsourced which needs to be added and improved. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is these "Corridors" don't exist, which is a pretty fundamental reason to delete the articles. Sionk (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect have you read the noms rationale as he states "Neither is there any evidence, apart from Wikipedia mirrors, of the existence of "Bus corridors" in the West Midlands"?..... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They sort of exist, but only in the West Midlands Local Transport Plan: [10]. Not so much bus corridors as more general transport corridors, and certainly no sign that they've been picked up on outside of local government.

Delete all. Buscruft. There's always tonnes of it. I used to know a bus enthusiast so I can see why... Szzuk (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as lacking independent sources with in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I did not see any item in WP:NOT of which this falls afoul. I also do not agree that this does not satisfy WP:GNG, given that the routes are referred to in government documents and on bus timetable sites, as well as occasionally in other media. I think, in fact, that each route could have a case for its own article under GNG, but that this is a more informative way of structuring the information. Fun with aluminum (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the above and past precedents that bus routes are not generally notable enough for individual articles like these. Imzadi 1979 → 01:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Buscruft. If there is no reliable secondary sourcing that these "corridors" exist this is verging on a hoax.--Charles (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Concerns have been addressed. WP:NAC --- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj Bhan DAV Public School[edit]

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

Speedy tag removed by a third party. Promotional article. - Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CsD removal smells of sockpuppetry as the first edit of a new account, but as I understand it secondary schhols are deemed to be inherently notable & this article is not irredeemably promotional.TheLongTone (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have cleaned the page up to address the promotional concerns. We keep high schools because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Indian sub-continent. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and allow time for local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Schools are kept. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and Wikipedia:Notability (high schools); longstanding precedent that verifiable secondary school articles are allowed a Wikipedia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Sutton[edit]

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

Notable for one event. WP:1E Tentinator 16:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Harsh (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How so? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable: a search reveals widespread significant coverage of recent events [11], [12], [13]. (three out of the four proper English newspapers). If his fundraising efforts were not considered noteworthy he would not have received coverage of this nature: doubtless a deeper search would reveal many older news stories. Btw what is the 'one event' referred to in the nomination?TheLongTone (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], etc. Regarding WP:BLP1E, which event would this pertain to: his illness, the funds he generated for the Teenage Cancer Trust, breaking a world record in assembling the most people to make a heart-shaped hand gesture, or the internet trolls that have hounded him? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following reason, which I'm afraid is a bit macabre: As I understand it, his illness is terminal and he is only expected to live a few more months at most. Thus when by the time he dies, the media won't have forgotten about him, and so his death should be fully reported. There should be no further major events that occur to him after he is dead. Therefore we can predict that the article will be sufficiently WP:FUTUREPROOF, and there shouldn't be any WP:BLP1E problems. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is essentially one event, but that one event is Stephen's illness, and his fund raising/public awareness campaigns related to his illness. His campaigns have received significant coverage in the UK press, so much so that this warrants an article in some form. It could be argued that there should be an article on his illness instead, however that article would be inextricably linked to a bio of Stephen, containing the same material, hence a bio. So keep this, with its current title. Martin451 15:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:ONEEVENT is really meant for those who are only in the news briefly for a single reason, but Sutton has been the subject of media attention for an extended period. He also plainly passes the notability requirements for the remarkable success of his fund-raising campaign, and the support he's had from high-profile figures, up to and including the Prime Minister himself. Robofish (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. Speedily deleted by MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) at 22:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC). (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Lahoud[edit]

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

Notability is not established. Fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 15:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G12 as a copyvio of http://www.the-saudi.net/gallery/Nabil_Lahoud/index.html. this wayback machine page from 2010 proves that the cited page predates our article, which was created in 2012. Tagged as such. 109.79.82.55 (talk) 20:54, 5 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. SmartSE (talk) 19:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Coory[edit]

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

Unremarkable person, a google found no reliable sources, doesn't pass notability guidelines. Seems like a nice guy but not famous enough for thie encyclopedia. Mat ty.007 15:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Might become notable, but currently I don't see him meeting any of the criteria. _noisy jinx ^huh? 15:38, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Harsh (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Harsh (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article creator appears to be the subject or someone with a COI. --Finngall ^talk 17:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unable to find independent sources. Added one cite from BLA which appears to be a former employer. — Brianhe (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2014#District 8. As per consensus. Deleting prior to redirect to prevent additional attempts to promote non-notable candidate the panda ₯’ 22:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Strouse[edit]

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

Article fails WP:POLITICIAN. Only routine coverage of non-notable candidate for office. Tiller54 (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2014#District 8, which should (edit: not) have been removed. Lock if necessary. Dru of Id (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the re-direct only because he unilaterally re-directed an article without going through AFD. Are you saying it's appropriate to re-direct an article without going through AFD? This is a genuine question, since I did not think that was the case. Anyway, there's no need to lock the page, since I won't undo the result of AFD. Orser67 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's processes are actually designed for AFD to be the last resort whenever possible, rather than the first. A redirect that's been disputed does need to then come to AFD for clarification rather than being re-redirected a second time, but it's not at all mandatory that AFD has to weigh in before somebody can deem it redirectable in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing the notability Bali88 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect A redirect is a usual outcome for candidates to a national legislature per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well, I know I'm going to lose this one, but again, he has significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, which is prong three of wp: politician. WP:POLOUTCOMES specifically mentions an outcome where a candidate was deemed to meet notability reqs. And I do think candidates, when sufficiently covered, are notable. Orser67 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Every candidate in any election will always garner some degree of media coverage, because local media have a public service obligation to grant equal time to candidates in a local election. Our standards here are different, however. While we do allow some "special case" flexibility for an unelected candidate to be considered notable enough on that basis alone in rare cases (mainly a candidacy that turns into a major national media firestorm on the order of Christine O'Donnell), we do not allow for every candidate in any election to be presumed notable on the basis of routine election coverage alone — unless there's a legitimate claim to be made that the candidate has become a topic of significantly greater than usual encyclopedic interest, a candidate normally has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough for us. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unelected candidate with no strong claim of passing WP:POLITICIAN. No prejudice against recreation if he wins the election, but a candidate is not entitled to an article on Wikipedia just for having his name on the ballot. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per normal practice, he doesn't exceed notability threshold otherwise, yet.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Institute[edit]

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

I would have tagged this for speedy deletion as A7, if it hadn't been for the fact that the article has been around since 2008 (and speedy deletion as an advert was declined when the article was new). Zero indication of notability, and I can't find a single source that offers non-trivial coverage. bonadea contributions talk 14:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any evidence of notability Bali88 (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Same. _noisy jinx ^huh? 15:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some sources Epoch times, Chicago Marathon, Best College Ranker. As this is a school there is at least one RS. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I saw those sources when I nominated the article - the first one is a trivial mention, the second one is a press release (or equivalent) and the third one a ranking site. --bonadea contributions talk 16:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 17:54, 9 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 01:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Max Hord[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBOX and GNG. The only source is a link to his pro fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX ...William 15:27, 7 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. Clear delete the panda ₯’ 22:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tehran Football League 1969-1970[edit]

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

Season articles for a local league without any evidence of notability. This division was not the highest in the country by far, but at most the third highest, the chamoions being promoted to things like the 1971–72 Local League, 1978–79 Iran Football's 2nd Division, Iran Football's 3rd Division, ... Fram (talk) 07:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated are:

Tehran Football League 1968-1969
Tehran Football League 1970-1971
Tehran Football League 1977-1978
Tehran Football League 1978-1979
Tehran Football League 1979-1980
Tehran Football League 1980-1981
Tehran Football League 1981-1982
Tehran Football League 1982-1983
Tehran Football League 1983-1984
Tehran Football League 1984-1985
Tehran Football League 1985-1986
Tehran Football League 1986-1987
Tehran Football League 1987-1988
Tehran Football League 1988-1989
Tehran Football League 1989-1990
Tehran Football League 1990-1991
Tehran Football League 1991-1992
Tehran Football League 1992-1993
Tehran Football League 1993-1994
Tehran Football League 1994-1995
Tehran Football League 1995-1996
Tehran Football League 2003-2004
Tehran Football League 2004-2005

Delete : I appreciate your hardwork, I agree that these events are not well referenced, in fact these one liner pages always seemed isolated to me. Isolated from notability. OccultZone (Talk) 08:03, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - hard to see how these fulfil WP:NSEASONS, as a local level amateur league. Fenix down (talk) 14:18, 7 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 01:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The canary press[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Created by a single purpose editor. I found nothing in major Australian news sites news.com.au and abc.net.au LibStar (talk) 10:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too young to have become notable yet. --Randykitty (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and RK, too young, failing WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 16:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indeed seems to fail CORPDEPTH/GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 15:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KR (rapper)[edit]

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

I came across this via a speedy deletion and there were just enough usable sources to keep it from meeting a speedy end. However even after looking for sources, I couldn't really find that much coverage as a whole to really show that KR passes WP:ENTERTAINER. There are difficulties searching due to the stage name being KR, so if anyone can find enough coverage to establish notability, I'm open to persuasion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - do not see any criteria met for WP:MUSICBIO--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fails MUSICBIO. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:05, 5 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 01:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhong Xang Yajiaumo[edit]

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

Article is completely unsourced and likely a hoax. I've failed to find any information about this rebel, except on Wikipedia mirror sites. Other articles created by Hiroshima12 have all been deleted, including Yashikaru Izuwa, Tong Lee, and Legends of Tanakashi: Dynasty of Blade. Zanhe (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no indication of notability, it's unverifiable, and it does look look a hoax. --Cold Season (talk) 16:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG with no sources found. The Romanization is also suspicious, as is the lack of a corresponding article in Chinese Wikipedia. I would expect this type of article to derive from zh wiki. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched but found nothing reliable. It is a possible copyright violation. The movie mentioned, Legends of Tanakashi: Dynasty of Blade, does exists and I suspect the editor who wrote the article based it largely on the story line of that movie. Rincewind42 (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 7 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 Dervish (band). (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Kelly (musician)[edit]

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

Non notable as far as I can tell -- simply being a member of a notable band does not, without more, make one notable by wp purposes and does not therefore make a stand-alone article appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge - His bio could be included on the band's page. No evidence of personal notability Bali88 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of what is in those two short sentences is not supported by the ref, so not subject to merge, though a redirect may well work. Epeefleche (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I am indifferent to the inclusion of a dedicated article apart from Dervish, but I do maintain the subject's notability. Some sources I've found offering insight to Kelly himself include Irish Music Magazine, his solo work cataloged at Allmusic, and the primary source at dervish.ie. I will also note that the latter may have been closely paraphrazed in previous revisions of the article. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Musik. A few questions. The primary source doesn't count towards notability, I believe. And Allmusic doesn't have a bio on him -- as it does on more notable musicians, as best I can see ... is that correct? Just the equivalent of discogs. And as to Irish Music Magazine -- I have trouble finding the editorial review necessary to categorize it as an RS -- am I missing it somewhere? --Epeefleche (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The primary source may be used to support simple things not WP:LIKELY to be challenged, such as where the subject is from. My reference to Allmusic was merely to say that we could credibly list the subject's discography. Discogs is user-submitted content, so not quite the same. I am clueless as to the reliability of Irish Music Magazine, but it's clear it can be considered a third-party. In the end, we need to show that subject is notable apart from the band, which admittedly may be questionable. The Leitrim Observer looks good. If more reliable sources can be found covering his solo work, that should suffice. Otherwise per WP:BAND a redirect to Dervish (band) is the most reasonable. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dervish (band). The subject may arguably meet WP:BASIC per Irish Music Magazine, Leitrim Observer, but the Leitrim Observer article may not have quite enough coverage. In this manner, overall available coverage about the subject may not be enough to cross the WP:BASIC threshold. Since there isn't anything to merge, !voting to redirect. If more sources are found, please ping me here or notify me on my user talk page. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as per WP:MUSICBIO;

"Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable" Murry1975 (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination does not present a valid argument for deletion, and there are no delete !votes present in the discussion (other than the nomination). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Raza Khan[edit]

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

unremarkable Summichum (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep : One of the most influential muslim. OccultZone (Talk) 07:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He just appears in one article which list 500 influential Muslims. This article is the only reliable one, anyways even that does not make him notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 08:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, he has made notable appearances on a number of Islamic channels, you have to look around. OccultZone (Talk) 08:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This nomination appears to be among a series of attempts to delete articles with which the nom disagrees. Broadly, it looks like a pattern of disruptive editing by an agenda oriented account engaged in some sort of intra-Islamic factional edit war. This is being addressed by a number of editors and Admins. The nom is currently blocked for two weeks for persistent edit warring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I hate to say this, but there's strong arguments on both sides ... so much so that I have to call "no consensus" as opposed to "keep" or "delete" the panda ₯’ 22:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UFO sightings in outer space[edit]

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

3rd time is a charm?

Seriously, folks, news of the weird is not a valid form of sourcing for WP:FRINGE articles such as this. We need validation from independent sources. That is not forthcoming. This is simply an admixture of synthetic original research and undue focus on ufologists. That the DRV was in favor of "restore" is absurd on the face of it because there was no consideration of these fundamentally problematic points. The sources being used are not high-quality enough to justify this article. jps (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article was restored per this Deletion review. The version we are looking at is completely different from the one nominated prior. See, AfD 2, AfD 1.

Strong Keep the nominator for reasons unknown chose to ignore multiple sources, the tone of the article is also highly skeptical. This article was written to document incidents where reliable sources (astronauts and trained witnesses) reported Unidentified Flying Objects during space exploration and high attitude flights. This article does not claim that they are of extraterrestrial origin

Here are the sources in the article:

IBTimes
Huff Post
NYTimes
IBTimes
IBTimes
NBC News
These sighting were also covered in Condon Report and by James Oberg
Sighting outside of the ISS launches the program "NASA's Unexplained Files" and was covered as part of the Science Channel's "Are We Alone?" series.
It is also an element in science fiction The Astronaut's Wife and Space (The X-Files)

This is a widespread, everlasting, and recurring event in space exploration. There are additional sources within the article. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Huff Po has a whole section of content on UFOs and Bigfoots that is no more reliable than The Weekly World News and thats the stuff you are citing. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

If you are to change the article please make sure all sources stay on the page. If you have issues please state them on the AfD not remove sources from an article undergoing AfD. Huff Post is considered RS section does not matter unless it is a blog, even then is may still be considered RS. Please breakdown each source and tell me how International Business Times NBC News, Fox News, and Popular Mechanics is not RS. These sources have been review by User:Jc37 and User:WilyD during the DRV. The nominator is claiming OR and SYNTH, please show me how that is true, because as far as I see the only rationale for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are all News of the Weird/Silly Season puff pieces, blogs (the claimed NYTimes piece is a blog, for example). This is just not the way we can write Wikipedia articles. It's simply not a topic that has generated the sources necessary to be able to write a straightforward piece. jps (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate, multiple sources are from IBT, Popular Mechanics, Fox News, and the others, suddenly they are unreliable when the nomination favors deletion. The standards have been set, we cannot say that sources are reliable in some cases and not others unless it is a blog. The NYT is a blog, but the others are not and subjected to editorial review. Not one line in the article is synthesis. They are directly stated by the source. Your suggestion that they are silly is ridiculous and seems more like a personal opinion than the standards set by GNG. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how you can't see the problem with these sources. IBTimes is clearly publishing sensationalistic puff-piece articles in their science section based off of evidence posted on YouTube! This is not what a reliable source looks like. The HuffPo blog source is simply awful and the NBC News source is obviously a News of the Weird piece. You don't have good sources. You simply don't. jps (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and prevent from being re-created. It merely combines a variety of incidents without a source that connects them, hence it violates notablity and synthesis. Terrible title too - it sounds like a 1950s drive-in movie. TFD (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, this subject has been studied in the Condon Report and by James Oberg both prominent with in the field. There are also multiple first hand accounts from experts in the field including astronauts and pilots. We cannot over look those. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification It appears that there is a misunderstanding between the nomination and arguments against it. The nominator is suggesting the sources were written in the weird or joke section of reliable publications. For example certain sections of major publications focus on fringe and are not considered reliable because of dubious first hand accounts, such as a man in the woods with no credibility claiming he witnessed the unexplained. This is not the case. Sources are not only in the main section of these publications, but reference first hand accounts from creditable, highly trained associates including astronauts and expert pilots. Further, the claims were subject to systematic and scientific analysis that have been reoccurring throughout space exploration. This article does not claim that they are alien in origin, it documents the notability of astronauts reporting unexplained phenomenon during missions and the analysis of these reports thereafter. The premise of this AFD may be flawed and I ask the nominator, closing administrator, and further participants to reconsider the basis on which this article was nominated. Per notability of fringe:

A fringe subject is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents

This passes and hopefully address any issues going forward. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- It is abundantly clear that the mainstream sources do not take this topic seriously. The ones that do are the ufologists, but we don't use ufologists to establish what topics are notable enough for inclusion. This is in addition to the problematic ways in which you cobbled together completely unrelated stories into an original research piece. This is simply not what Wikipedia is for. jps (talk) 05:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How mainstream media "takes it" has never been a requirement for an article documentation and reporting is what we look for. Please point examples where I have "cobbled together completely unrelated stories into an original research piece". Valoem ^talk ^contrib 05:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is a mishmash of your WP:SYNTH and we definitely cannot be accommodating WP:FRINGE reporting like what you have included in that article. Please read the guidelines. jps (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TFD: no reliable source connects the incidents. (Maybe UFO and FRINGE sources like CUFOS, JSE & New Frontiers do...but they are not independent or reliable) - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not connect the incidents. It documents their occurrence. There are sources in google books citations 31 - 40 which mention all incidents in one source. I have already stated plenty of reliable sources. These seems more like arguments for clean up than deletion. If a list is more appropriate that can be edited. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some minor clean up for any possible synth. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply juxtapose two different and unrelated stories in the same article just because you think they are similar. That's the essence of WP:SYNTH. Since you have no source which documents "UFO sightings in space", you don't have a leg to stand on in writing this as a Wikipedia article. jps (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's nowhere near the essence of WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTH is juxtaposing things to argue a point of view when that point of view is not justified by sources. The page is not trying to prove any thesis about UFO sightings, it's simply juxtaposing a number of reports. As Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not says, "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition". --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is arguing a point of view: that this hastily and shoddily researched collection of anecdotes are related. jps (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know that "other stuff exists" isn't a super solid justification, but there are a gazillion "UFO sightings in..." articles on wikipedia. Given the extensive amount of writing on the topic, it seems to be a big topic, something that people are interested in, something that people are writing about, something that people are reading about. What makes "UFO sightings in outer space" any different from UFO sightings in China or UFO sightings in America? Secondly, I'm not sure by what you mean by "mainstream sources do not take this topic seriously"? An unidentified flying object is an unidentified flying object. Perhaps if it was a bunch of tweakers who reported seeing some lights you could say that that wasn't a reliable reporting, but an astronaut reporting flying objects is the same as an astronaut reporting what the temperature was outside when he was in orbit. Do you mean mainstream sources don't believe they were aliens? I doubt the astronauts did either, so I'm not sure why its relevant. Secondly, I agree with Valoem in that I don't think it matters who takes it seriously. If a group of people are interested in it and it gets considerable coverage in the media, it counts. I don't believe in phrenology or polygraph testing and many people believe them to be pseudoscience. I don't believe in scientology or hinduism either, but they have had an impact on society and that counts as notable in wikipedia. Bali88 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFRINGE disagrees with your claim about simply relying on media coverage. The coverage has to be serious coverage. This is not a topic that has received serious coverage. jps (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NFRINGE this article passes and has received serious coverage. Your personal disagreement does not reflect wikipedia guidelines. I can repost the guideline if you would like. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:30, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to questionable sources like HuffPo, the article is unduly weighted to sources that are unmistakeably fringe:

Anything by Light Technology Publishing ("Our Cosmic Ancestors"? Really??)
Anything by William J. Birnes (he's way out on the fringe of the fringe)
‪Chris A. Rutkowski‬'s book ("best and most disturbing UFO stories"?)
Don Berliner's UFO conspiracy book ("The shattering report that stunned the world's top leaders!!!!")
Richard Dolan Press (a UFO monger blog and selfpub operation)
Real UFO's (an unreliable UFO believer site)
New Frontiers in Science (a fringe pseudoscience venue)
Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration (admittedly fringe focus)
"vgl.org" (Some guy's fringe conspiracy website?)
Paranormal Borderlands, Fox TV (notably unreliable)

There may be more, but I think you must see the problem here extends beyond the obvious synthesis. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Valoem: This is not the place to take writers of articles as wretched as this to school. The commenters here have been clear what the problems are and I can only surmise that you have a comprehension issue with regards to their attempted explanations. If you can't figure out the problems, then Wikipedia may not be the place for you. Alternatively, if you have additional questions as to why your sources are terrible, please feel free to ask at WP:RSN. jps (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Borderlands in the first hand interview found here. The rest of the argument is for clean up. Again I ask you to revisit:

A fringe subject is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, in at least one major publication that is independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents

Covered by James Oberg (extensively), IBTimes, Fox News, and Popular Mechanics (all RS). I find it discouraging that editors come here with the intention to delete this article due to inherit bias and no intention of analyzing rationale as their minds have been made. Even when disproved the continuation of the same argument is not conducive. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it discouraging too. It seems like their pov is that the only people taking UFO's seriously are UFOlogists and that's a problem because ufologists are unreliable. Basically "I don't take this topic seriously, so anyone who is interested in it I can't take seriously". Not exactly an unbiased viewpoint. Imo, it's only borderline fringy. A UFO is simply an unidentified object. Maybe if people are trying to say they're alien space ships or something, but the fact is if you see something in the air and don't know what it is, it's a UFO. Nothing fringy about that. Bali88 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with unreliable sources is that people may question whether any one specific sighting didn't happen, I don't see why we couldn't just find an alternate source for that piece of information or delete that specific entry. There's no reason to throw out the entire article when there's an established set of articles on wikipedia of UFO sightings in different locations. This is a pretty well documented topic, one that is widely discussed, debated, has television shows about it. UFO discussions are a big part of our culture. It's definitely tougher to find reliable sources for UFO stuff because of how its perceived, but it's a notable topic and for whatever reason wikipedians have decided to split up UFO sightings into geographic location. I don't see any reason to delete the page. Bali88 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TFD. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Three deletion discussions in three months is crap. Whoever recreated this article should be admonished for trying to pull a fast one and for wasting the community’s time. It is abundantly clear that the community does not think that this topic deserves a dedicated article. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Synthesis, based on material that doesn't remotely pass WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Colapeninsula, "WP:SYNTH is juxtaposing things to argue a point of view when that point of view is not justified by sources. The page is not trying to prove any thesis about UFO sightings, it's simply juxtaposing a number of reports. As Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not says, 'SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition'" Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I call complete crapdoodle on any claim that the article is not attempting to advance a proposition or idea. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. You might as well have an entry about sightings of fairies. Skeptic2 (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Salting is the only way to stop propagandist fringe articles like this from coming back. While UFO sightings may be slightly more culturally acceptable than leprechaun and fairy sightings, they are equally fringe, and require extremely high quality sources, not pop culture UFO books. Since there is absolutely no serious academic or scientific support for this topic, the only thing we can possibly say is that fringe groups believe in it. That's already covered in various other articles. It does not need to be repeated in its own article. Wikipedia is not here to be an advocate for fringe viewpoints. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The language you're using concerns me. I understand the salting concept. It's been created a couple times after being deleted without solving the underlying issues. But why are you so concerned that it never comes back? When I vote on an AFD, even if I vote to delete the article, I often tell the author what the article needs to be kept and encourage them to fix it. If they are unable to produce what is needed, I'll encourage them to find a place for a mention in other articles and if that doesn't work, I'll encourage them to find another place online to post about the topic. My concern is the quality of wikipedia articles and how well they fit in with policies. While it's not our job to advocate fringe viewpoints, it's also not our job to delete articles because we think the ideas are incorrect. Also, I don't think academic or scientific support is really what we should focus on here. It's good enough that the topic is culturally relevant. I don't think there is academic or scientific support for the bible either and Freud was clearly a hack. But they're relevant because of the cultural influence. UFO's have impacted our culture regardless of whether mainstream scientists believe they have some scientific significance. Google UFO's and you get millions of hits. There are dozens of articles about UFO's on wikipedia alone. There are a number of very successful television shows about UFO's. Ancient Aliens has very high viewership. Thousands upon thousands of books on UFO's. UFO's are a culturally relevant topic. Now, if there is an issue with the tone of the article or the reliability of the sources, that should be focused on, but I don't see why we would require that this particular topic have more strict requirements for sources than other articles. The ufo sightings articles on wikipedia seem to break it down by region. I don't see why this specific article is being repeatedly deleted and the rest being kept. Bali88 (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So i take it we are just ignoring these sources:

IBTimes
Huff Post
NYTimes
IBTimes
IBTimes
NBC News
Fox News
Popular Mechanics
These sighting were also covered in Condon Report and by James Oberg

The Popular Mechanics is directly from the Science space section. Until someone can explain why these sources are problematic I am seeing only WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Remember this is not a vote. Each of this sources must be analyzed individually because they are mainstream and reliable. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT please review above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 10:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a minor subset fo claimed UFO sightings, it is not significant. The purported sources don't identify the notability of the subject any more than news stories about a celeb on holiday justify articles on "Celeb in Barbados" or whatever. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since this has been up, many, many sources have been identified. At this point, the subject (as fringey as it sounds) meets notability requirements. As such, I have changed my merge vote to a keep voteSpirit of Eagle (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If any of these flaps are notable I would have expected them to be mentioned significantly in the articles about the relevant missions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of UFO sightings in outer space. Who wrote this hoax article? If there is any significant it can be merged into the UFO article. QuackGuru (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - by Valoem's reasoning. It was reviewed before recreating. Ufo stories by astronauts have also been long documented. The sighting of Ufos may be physical or psychological phenomena, and aren't being claimed to definitely be alien craft. If we treat it as urban legend the topic can still be covered.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/48790315/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/debunking-myths-about-neil-armstrong/#.U2iuuSgf7rZ
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/02/nasa-unexplained-files-are-we-alone-science-channel_n_4880334.html
http://www.ibtimes.co.in/articles/459798/20130422/ufo-sightings-nasa-international-space-station-video.htm
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/GT07_061.PDF, http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_09_1_carlotto.pdf
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/4319637
http://www.space.com/22431-nasa-astronaut-sees-ufo-near-space-station-video.html

Amongst others by International Business Times and Huffington Post are indisputable reliable sources. Are significantly more sources needed than the bare minimum when a topic becomes idontlikeit? - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 10:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The HuffPo is NOT "indisputable reliable" - it covers bigfoot sightings for godsake. And the NBC source says definitively that the incident was NOT a UFO sighting and so cannot possibly be used to justify an article about UFO sightings. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like you're looking at this the wrong way. You're saying these fringy things aren't reliable because they don't have reliable sources. Then one is pointed out you say it's not reliable because it covers fringy things. Basically, there's no source that could ever possibly count because as soon as one covers it you say "well this isn't reliable because it covers this topic that I don't believe in". The logic behind that is flawed. I don't believe in aliens and I don't believe in bigfoot. But the fact that a mainstream news paper is covering them proves that they are culturally significant. That is all that's needed for a wikipedia article. Bali88 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing me of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is absurd. In the context of WP:FRINGE evidence is not a requirement, neither is being covered during the mission, arguments suggesting that we didn't hear about this all over the news is ridiculous and has never been a requirement. The question remains whether this has been covered in mainstream media and has been analysed through serious investigation. Coverage in the Condon Report and James Oberg passes. It is WP:OSTRISH to claim that one or two sources have issues when five or more reliable sources remain unquestioned. The fact is there are plenty of sources that warrant an article on this subject. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:FRINGE considers a theory notable even if it is proven a hoax (that is a fundamental of the guideline page). It depends on the coverage received by mainstream sources, which this has. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 13:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that but you have provided no coverage that there is actual coverage of the "hoax of sightings of UFOs in space" - there are sources discreditings/dismissing/or otherwise showing each of the individual incidents is not what the UFOologists claim it to be, but no significant coverage of the strung together incidents. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Big foot, Bermuda Triangle, 9-11 conspiracy theories, Birtherism, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, Holocaust Denial etc... These are just a few of the articles on grossly fringe topics that we have on Wikipedia. For the record, I don't agree with the guidelines in WP:FRINGE. I think they are far too accommodating. But thems the rules until they aint. This subject is no more bizarre than the ones I just listed, and the article certainly cites RS sources. A casual glance at some of the above discussion strongly suggests that many are indeed WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. If those kind of votes were allowed this would be a strong delete from me. But they aren't. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remain vigilant about sourcing. Whether you believe in aliens or not, astronaut sightings of UFOs are a notable cultural phenom. Here are a few more good-looking sources: http://books.google.com/books?id=JOpq1LOGrr0C&pg=PA264, http://books.google.com/books?id=elTRUCZQWRcC&pg=PT60, http://debunker.com/texts/astronaut_ufo.html -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainy J: You seem to be using a very broad definition for "good-looking source". The second one, "Aliens and Man: A Synopsis of Facts and Beliefs", looks totally loony - incoherent, with constantly changing font, layout, etc. The third link is dead and I can't even find the content on Wayback Machine. The first one seems reasonable, though. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Aliens and Man" is published by Algora Publishing, which seems a reputable enough publisher, although I agree the formatting is strange. http://debunker.com/texts/astronaut_ufo.html is working fine for me.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainy J: Well, regardless of the publisher, "Aliens and Man" is not a reliable source. But the third link works for me now - in fact, I had already added it to the article. I don't know why I couldn't access it earlier - maybe there was an attempted NASA coverup! RockMagnetist (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any 'notable' instances to List of reported UFO sightings. There may have been some notable instances but I'm not convinced that makes the topic notable in of itself. We have other places where the subject of alleged UFO sightings is addressed and to have an article dedicated to this particular facet would be overcoverage. Would also suggest protection since this is the third distinct page of its name which has been brought to AFD. --W. D. Graham 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be kept, basically because wikipedians have separated the other sightings into geographic locations (UFO sightings in China, sightings in Brazil, etc). There are a dozen or so like it. I think "outer space" is just another variant. But if this article ends up being merged, I think it might find a place as a subsection of UFO sightings in the United States. It's not technically in America, but the sightings are by Americans on American missions. :-) Bali88 (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The POV here is sufficiently neutral. The correct meaning of NPOV (and ofr that matter, SPOV) is that an objective presentation of even the most folly-ridden subject will permit people to judge accurately. The FRINGE advice about sources is irrelevant here--when discussing a subject we need to use sources that cover them. If we limited ourself to serious sources, it would totally eliminate about 90% of our coverage on some forms of entertainment. This should never have been deleted--it was always fixable. I think this utter nonsense, but it's highly notable nonsense. We cover the world as people see it, including the idiocy. I'm not even going to attempt to list the subjects WP covers fully that I think idiocy; personal views about that are irrelevant to whether we should have an article. DGG ( talk )

there is no "if no reliable sources cover the subject we can use unreliable sources" exceptions to WP:RS and WP:V. that's just plain silly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per good sense of DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - I have added some references in Further reading. One of them, Astronauts and UFOs: The whole story, is a reliable reference that should also put to rest the SYNTH argument. Indeed, there are several articles by Oberg that are reliable sources - and if you don't want to take my word for that, see what the NASA Lunar Science Interim director says here. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As an addendum to my Keep !vote above I will suggest that adding the word "Alleged" to the beginning of the title might be justified based on the extremely controversial nature of the subject. Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UFO stands for unidentifed flying object, and it doesn't have to remain unidentified to qualify. I know there is a lot of confusion over the meaning of this term, but a clear definition in the lead can take care of that. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. A lot of people use UFO and alien spacecraft as synonymous terms, which is incorrect. Now, some of the people interested in the topic may think aliens are involved, but that's not what a UFO is. I think "UFOs" that get later identified should be included in the article if they generated significant discussion and literary and news coverage. As long as there is a discussion of what it was identified to be. A definition of UFO in the lead is appropriate. Bali88 (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, there's been a lot of talk about "serious sources" in this conversation, what exactly is a serious source? How does that differentiate from another type of source? Bali88 (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- a clear example is [21] in the HuffPo's "Weird News", the section that features " Dumb Crime | Weird Sex | UFO | Conspiracy Theories | World Records | Bigfoot| Anatomical Wonders | Zombie Apocalypse | NSFW" is not a "serious source" - it is the equivalent of Weekly World News, without the benefit of being able to use it to line your birdcage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Massively notable nonsense is still massively notable. We do cover pseudoscientific nonsense, provided it is done in a NPOV and serious fashion, and it is clearly covered as such. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For a clear statement of why there should be an article on this subject, here is a quote from James Oberg [22]:

While critics may attack the character or intelligence of many UFO witnesses, they cannot use these tactics on American and Russian space pilots. Where UFO photographs can be accused of distortion and forgery, photographs taken by astronauts and processed by NASA must be of the highest trustworthiness. Hence, most UFO scholars consider the family of astronaut UFO sightings to be one of the strongest bodies of evidence in the past thirty years.

Hence this is a far from arbitrary subset of all sightings. It is currently structured like a list, but as an article it could have a coherent discussion of the Condon Report, forgeries and hoaxes, allegations of cover-ups by the government, the environment in which sightings occur, and so on. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other reliable sources such as the Oberg one? I could be convinced to change my !vote to keep and rename "Meme of astronaut UFO sightings.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain the "meme" thing further. I'm not sure how it applies to this Bali88 (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"most UFO scholars consider the family of astronaut UFO sightings to be one of the strongest bodies of evidence in the past thirty years." the only thing connecting these individual hoaxes together is the push by ufololgists to attempt to give some type of credence to their fringe ideas. otherwise the topic/article is just WP:COATRACKING one discredited claim onto another without any reliable sources making the connection. the connection in the WP:GNG would be the reliable sources analyzing why these particular hoaxes have come into popularity as a meme. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources identifying this as a meme? Otherwise, it seems like calling it that would be original work. Also, I don't think we need to keep looking at this as either it's scientifically credible or shouldn't exist on wikipedia. It's notable because it's something that people talk about widely, the same as why any band is notable or why any crime story is notable. I don't think anyone involved in this discussion actually believes there are alien spacecraft involved in the UFO sightings. We're voting based on the fact that it's a notable interest in popular culture. Bali88 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From COATRACK: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject". This article is about UFO sightings in outer space, so any UFO sighting in outer space is not tangentially related. Note also that "a largely critical article about a subject that really is discredited is not covered by WP:COATRACK; see the policies laid out at WP:FRINGE for more information." That describes this article well. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it is stringing together and claiming as "unidentified" multiple events in which the objects have in fact been identified so even under that perspective it is coatracking. More debunked UFO claims this time with links to astronauts would also be appropriate title-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even the top expert on the subject, Oberg, simply calls them UFO sightings. You seem to be worried that someone will come away with the wrong impression, but that won't happen if the article is written well. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Astronauts have reported anomalous and unexplained objects!" type junk news filler stories FAR exceed the number of objective scientific sources on the subject, I can understand the concerns that the article would quickly become a fringecruft magnet. Both how it's written and choice of title are key to avoiding the wrong impression. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do share those concerns; but that is matter for the article's talk page, not here. In an AfD, we should remember that COATRACK is an essay, not a policy. The policy that coatrack articles violate is NPOV; but as pointed out in DISCUSSAFD, 'The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.' RockMagnetist (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't these phenomenon been discussed together in books, magazines, websites and tv shows? The fact that, however fringy, they have been discussed as a whole makes it a singular phenomena. Maybe one astronaut is debunking a singular incident that he himself was involved in, but this is not original work by a wiki editor. The wiki editor is discussing the work of others who discussed the collective sightings. Also, I don't think you're going there, but just to be clear, you're not saying this is coatracking because the title doesn't explicitly state that they have been debunked, right? It seems like your major beef with the article is that it doesn't say clearly enough that aliens don't really exist. If that's the case, we can work on the body of the article (the title should not contain that reference, btw) Bali88 (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that fringe and non reliable sources have "linked" things together is not sufficient. WP:GNG requires RELIABLE sources to have covered the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[23] and [24] mostly citing Oberg. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding them to the article as I find them. Two particularly good recent finds are the chapter on astronaut sightings in the Condon report and the bio of Armstrong by Hansen. Yet another article by Oberg, in The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters, is useful because it has an extensive list of sightings with a discussion of each one. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the work you're putting into this! Bali88 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bali88: You're welcome. Sometimes I get involved in a deletion discussion and discover that there's a lot of good material out there. ~~Finding it is much more satisfying than just saying "per DGG".~~ RockMagnetist (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding sources to the article. I don't think it is helpful to make snarky remarks about other editors, it discourages them from taking part in Wikipedia.Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You're right, that wasn't appropriate. Sorry! RockMagnetist (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Sagan's Demon Haunted World to the reading list isn't so helpful, but replacing HuffPo, etc. in the text with academic sources would be great. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Demon Haunted World has about a page on the Moon landing, but the web previews don't show the page numbers, so I just listed the whole book. It doesn't add much, but it's independent. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge-I just don't think this is notable enough to be its own page. As stated above, the incidents listed could be moved to List of reported UFO sightings.PHENYLALANINE (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Just don't think" isn't an argument. By the general notability guideline, the topic needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. SInce @WDGraham proposed merging, several high quality sources have been added to the article, so there are no longer any grounds for saying it is not notable. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether those sources address the topic itself, or just specific incidents. If they just cover specific incidents, then what establishes the need for this specific article to cover them, rather than putting them in an existing article. I'm not doubting that some notable sightings have occurred, I just think existing articles can cover this. --W. D. Graham 10:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WDGraham: It's strange to find this question posted directly above the answer. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In such a long discussion, important details can be overlooked, so I will summarize them here. There are now at least three reliable, independent sources that discuss UFO sightings by astronauts as a coherent subject. These are Astronauts and UFOs: The whole story by Oberg; the Condon report; and the bio of Armstrong by Hansen (they are all in Further reading). These put to rest the nominator's arguments for deletion - lack of notability and original research. I haven't seen any other arguments that are relevant to deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has happened twice now, for similar reasons. Looks like original reaearch. Nerd in Texas (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal sockpuppet account which has been indefinitely banned. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, specifically, "We cover the world as people see it, including the idiocy." There are no ghosts, but people see them; we cover them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep meets WP:GNG, has no issues that would warrant deletion. this AfD is saturated with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid criteria for deletion. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Covers two important topics:
1. Initially unexplained visual phenomena in space flight (could be a move target? )
2. The proposed mainstream explanation(s) for the phenomenon

The article does not cover

Fringe explanations for the phenomena
Media reaction
Conspiracy theory over the mainstream

If these were shown to be significant, then they could be included - but arguing for deletion on the basis of something not in the article is facile. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC).

keep per WP:GNG, and because most arguments for deletion are "i don't like it" or reasons for cleanup, which AfD isn't. Diego (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete and Salt: While the article stays purged of WP:FRINGE, it's essentially a WP:COATRACK of "stuff astronauts saw and remarked about." That's innocuous but not very encyclopedic -- we wouldn't have an article of "jokes told by astronauts." But of course it won't stay purged of WP:FRINGE stuff; it will be a magnet for speculation and synthesis and pseudoscience. Nothing is lost by dropping this trivia, and nothing is gained by keeping it. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we wouldn't have an article of "jokes told by astronauts. - We would and we should, if it was a notable subject.--cyclopia ^speak! 22:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I showed above, it's not a coatrack, and even if it were, that's rarely grounds for deletion. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, wikipedia doesn't ban or even frown upon articles that contain fringe topics or pseudoscience. They are just as much a part of the human experience as anything else. If a topic is notable enough to be covered by newspapers, books, tv shows, etc, it's notable enough to be in wikipedia. Secondly, 'maybe someday the article might not fit within wikipedia guidelines because people might post stuff that is fringey and unscientific' isn't really a good argument to delete it. Any article could have crappy edits and if unhelpful edits are made, it takes like two clicks to put it back. It sounds like a variation of WP:Idontlikeit.Bali88 (talk) 03:35, 16 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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engineered information[edit]

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

Obscure or unknown term. Unable to find references except mirrors of this article. Bhny (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I think I've figured out who the sole reference refers to but this phrase is not used in conjunction with that name. I don't see a way to salvage the current content, as the article was created in a single edit seven years ago by an editor who hasn't been active since, and all subsequent edits have been tagging/untagging and minor formatting changes. Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any references to this term outside of wikipedia. Bali88 (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm a software engineer and I've never heard the term. A Google search returns the Wikipedia article, another wikipedia article and then an article on hardwood flooring! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visakhapatnam Metro[edit]

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

Seems like a promotional ad, also it is a proposed rail. Wgolf (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-the person who created it also made the same page-put a speedy on it. Wgolf (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL - a project that was recently proposed (and by recently I mean February of this year) and doesn't seem to have much coverage beyond routine speculation, at least in English sources. I'm sure it will be worthy of inclusion as an infrastructure endeavor once it actually leaves the "maybe" phase but not right now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FreeRangeFrog - Nothing but speculation, I suggest it be created once something more concrete comes up. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have deleted almost all the article as cut-and-pastes. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:01, 11 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 01:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Taher[edit]

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

Not sure how being a president of a squash club is notable. Does not seem to something that go under a political thing. Unless if there is more he has done, this should be either a merge or a delete. Wgolf (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's president of a sporting club, but that doesn't give him automatic notability. He lacks the coverage needed to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To be fair, Al Ahly is more than a squash club but a leading football club in its country. However its presidency is not automatically notable and in the absence of evidence of other achievements by the subject in his own right, and noting that the sole reference even describes him as "Little known", he fails WP:ANYBIO. (There also appears to have been an accumulation of articles around the officials of this club, noting President of El-Ahly and President of El-Ahly Sports Club, both I think of debatable notability.) AllyD (talk) 06:13, 5 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 Britney Spears discography--Ymblanter (talk) 07:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Essential Britney Spears[edit]

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

Although there is one review at Allmusic, it itself, this is a pretty unremarkable release of previously released music. There is nothing new here and coverage is very limited. The article services little purpose but the track listing. Per WP:NALBUMS it is not notable. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 15:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Britney Spears discography which mentions it: we don't need an article on every compilation of an artist's work, particularly when coverage is so limited and there's no substantial content. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Colapeninsula. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since it there is too little content to meet WP:NALBUMS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:31, 7 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bratislava Business Center[edit]

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

Either delete or userfy looks to be the best for this one. Its a short article about 5 different buildings that don't even say what they are for and what this business center is. Wgolf (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced list of locations with not even a claim to notability. Any material on these could be developed in the Bratislava#Economy article if necessary. AllyD (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V. No one knows if this is wp:notable, in fact, five buildings like this could easily be notable, so no prejudice to re-creation. Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 6 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

View London[edit]

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

Advert for a non-notable website/review guide. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:PRODUCT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert. Their are a dozen or so View websites, for example View Birmingham. The umbrella company doesn't have a page, I'm not sure why this particular page got on wp. No refs. A web only company...Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Cortana Easter Eggs[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 11:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 11:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. 11:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 11:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this article is not notable (notability is not inherited) and the article itself is a huge list of trivia and an instance of copyright violation of one source.

Wikiquote might accept this article, however. (Although copyright violation might still be a problem.) Codename Lisa (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Perhaps including one or two of those predetermined answers as a note within the Microsoft Cortana article would be just fine, but such a list just isn't good enough for having a separate article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: But, consider making it a section on the Microsoft Cortana article. 70.97.195.217 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: This information would be great on the main Cortana article. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 03:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Copyright violations, no information could be merged apart from the first sentence and a few of the answers. UltraMario64 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Festival: Live in London (EP)[edit]

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

Generally non-notable release per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 22:40, 6 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Rivera (General Hospital)[edit]

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

Article fails to meet the requirement of the WikiProject for Soap Operas for character articles. Article is not written to give a real-world prospect that other articles have given, and proven to achieve, and lacks a severe amount of reliable sources on the subject. The storyline and character history are written as if to give "storyline trivia" about the character of Carlos Rivera, which is frowned upon by the project. A previous article at List of General Hospital characters (2010s)#Carlos Rivera suits the character just fine. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stuartyeates. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:16, 12 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BetterDoctor[edit]

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

Non-notable company. References are not from independent reliable sources, and smell like press releases. I found nothing substantial in a search. The company was founded in 2012; this article was written in 2013 by an SPA who immediately recreated it after speedy deletion of an earlier version. MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was contributed by a WP:SPA account User:Aritulla; the company co-founder is one Ari Tulla; I am adding a WP:COI notice. AllyD (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch; I missed that. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am finding nothing beyond the kind of product announcements coverage which is the basic requirement for any start-up of this kind. Lacks evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking independent coverage and/or WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. If I'm gonna bitch about sources, then I might as well check to see if anyone has actually dug up any more for the article, which they have. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unicity Mall[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only sources are: an article that mentions only in super-extreme passing; a WP:PRIMARY source on the mall's architect; an unreliable looking tourism website; and a WP:ROUTINE coverage of a crime at the mall. None of these meet the usual acceptable coverage for shopping malls. Last AFD closed as "no consensus" after two relists. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 02:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several links of interest on the Google Books page. Unicity Mall is listed in the 1996 List of Major Malls. The 1975 Canadian Geographical Journal shows that this was a "regional mall" with 480,000 sq ft, which establishes that this was a "larger" mall, where WP:OUTCOMES says that larger malls are normally kept. The mall was torn down, but notability is not temporary. In the article, I don't see a source for the list of stores in the mall, but that number of stores is consistent with a larger mall. Like so many articles, this topic would benefit with someone with access to local newspapers. Unscintillating (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: So you think the sources are just gonna appear by themselves? The Source Fairy is gonna suddenly make someone randomly have access to local news? Base it on what we can find, not what we might possibly maybe could find. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown, using verifiable evidence, that the former mall has a presumption of wp:notability. If you are saying that the article's WP:V source insufficiency reaches to the level of WP:Deletion policy, then you may have a point, but I don't know. However, as per [25], admins seem predisposed to avoid deletions or even incubation for articles on wp:notable topics that fail WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: So we can build articles out of ghost sources? You know what, I think the local paper wrote a bunch of stuff on my mom back in the day. Clearly she is notable. There's no way to prove it, but ha ha, no way you can't, either. Also, major WP:TLDR in the discussion you linked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here from before 2008, and WP:N changed in late 2007 so that it is no longer a content guideline that requires sources sufficient to write an article. What it requires is evidence. To answer your question, "We want readers to be able to WP:V verify that Wikipedia articles are not just made up." As for the long link into WT:V, the point remains that the lack of community support for WP:V does not revert WP:N to the days when it was a content guideline. WP:V itself is a core content policy that requires that article content be verifiable. Unscintillating (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating: So where are the sources that you're so dead set exist? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 10:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NTEMP. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VMS Mosaic: Sources. Where are they? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it once met WP:OUTCOMES for malls, then it will always meet WP:OUTCOMES for malls. VMS Mosaic (talk)

@VMS Mosaic: That doesn't answer my question. Sources. Now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uh. Now!!! You mean right now? This very instant right now? How about tomorrow? Maybe the week after next? Next decade maybe? Right. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per VMS Mosaic and Unscintillating. This was a regional shopping center per the definition here. WP:OUTCOMES applies. Notability is not temporary. Me5000 (talk) 18:10, 7 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. Few of those arguing keep make reference to the presence of independent sources, and those arguing delete state that such sources are few and do not address the subject directly in enough detail to provide material upon which to base the article. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 19:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Hardcastle[edit]

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

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

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

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

I couldn't find any articles or stories that were independent and reliable about the subject in question on Google News and Google. Therefore it fails WP:NWEB and thus is elligible for deletion. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 02:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are references from Eurogamer, Edge, Joystiq, Radio Times, Metro etc - notability has definitely been asserted through widespread coverage in major publications. Also, I found every one of these via Google and Google News, so unsure why you are apparently having problems. Nik thestunned 08:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject only got mentions in Eurogamer, Edge, Joystiq, Radio Times, Metro, etc. Mentions are most often not enough to assert notability, as per first bullet point of WP:GNG. I've found nothing in Google News searching Daniel Hardcastle -wikipedia or NerdCubed -wikipedia, so I'm not really sure what you're talking about there. I appreciate your vote. Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 10:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally the way I found those sources lol (though I have had troubles since they removed the "archive search" I have to admit...) so don't know why they're no longer showing. Nik thestunned 11:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources only mention Hardcastle in passing. Joystiq has one sentence, which mentions someone describing him as a "big YouTuber", which isn't enough of a claim of notability; Radio Times is an article about an interview he did with Steven Moffatt, and says nothing about Hardcastle - not everyone who interviews a famous person is themselves famous; Edge has one sentence, describing him as a "YouTube personality", which again isn't a significant enough claim to notability. Clearly, he has some kind of following on YouTube, but not enough for reliable sources to discuss his work in depth, and not enough to meet our notability criteria. Moswento ^talky 10:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nice amount of source coverage for this comedian. — Cirt (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But the source coverage consists of a few passing mentions and a few sources sharing one of his interviews (without offering commentary on his work). Moswento ^talky 09:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not enough secondary sources to pass WP:N comfortably, but the article meets other parts of WP:N well enough to grant a pass. SpeedyAstro (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what other parts of WP:N this article meets? Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 07:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." There are enough sources that just give a mention to give some information, (what is there to give? You can learn a lot about this person from his own fan following and channel, so secondary sources don't really have to analyze it) but not enough high-depth sources. Unless something happens, this page may stay a permanent stub, but, in my opinion, it is notable. Barely. SpeedyAstro (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a lot of sources, yes, but most of them aren't about him and can't reasonably be used to build more information into the article. —Soap— 01:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a promotional article with no reliable 3rd person sources sources for notability. "[A notable game developed] attributed the success of his game to a number of people, including him" is not a accomplishment suitable for an encyclopedia, DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Daniel has a large following on YouTube spanning several million users. I think this in itself grants him notability. 217.23.235.99 (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As the user just above me said, this page is purely promotional and is only gaining him notability, not informing users. Most of the sources are straight from Hardcastle himself. Bailmoney27 ^talk 16:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As you mentioned above many of the sources are from Hardcastle, who better to give information about a man than the man himself.
Delete. That is precisely the reason why this article is being considered for deletion - there need to be reliable third-party sources. Dan can say whatever he wants about himself, but that doesn't mean it's true. There needs to be confirmation from sources other than the subject themselves. Xomm 22:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
It should be noted that this deletion consideration vote has been linked^[1] on Dan's official subreddit today, so there may be a new voters coming in who are very biased. Just thought I would warn everyone. I'm not voting nor using my normal account because I know my vote would be biased. 198.71.103.80 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.reddit.com/r/nerdcubed/comments/24sw3u/dans_wikipedia_entry_is_being_deleted_hes_not/

Delete. I do feel biased towards keeping this article, but at the same time, the only sources that are available are ones that come from Dan himself or ones that barely mention him. Unless this can be addressed, this article should be deleted.
Keep. My POV is biased, but the article seems well-written and sourced properly. Dan has 1.6 million subscribers which to me speaks of notability for itself. Amunak (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are not enough third party sources with enough information for people to educate themselves about Daniel Hardcastle other than his own videos. If all you need for an article is your own videos as a source, anyone could make an article about themselves. 81.170.232.68 (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Compare the article to the likes of Total Biscuit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Biscuit among others who are of a similar field. While it may be shorter or not as detailed it could be improved or updated with various content.
Delete as no indication of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page has been linked to Reddit with a suggestive title. While I will not assume bad faith, it is fair to be notified that single purpose accounts may contribute to this discussion. http://www.reddit.com/r/nerdcubed/comments/24sw3u/dans_wikipedia_entry_is_being_deleted_hes_not/ Tutelary (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP OMG YOU CAN NOT DELETE THE PAGE OF SOMEBODY WHO IS SO SEXY. I CANT. I CANT EVEN. ---JuneSpaLove4eva — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junespalove4eva (talk • contribs) 02:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)— Junespalove4eva (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Dan has had a pretty big impact in the gaming world, influencing the futures of quite a few indie games, for example. I think that's worth some notability. Also, it's not as if this page is just a page about some random guy. Dan has a rather huge following of over one and a half million people, with over 750 videos uploaded. If this online celebrity isn't worthy of his own page, are any of them? Rakki9999111 (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His popularity isn't the issue. The problem is verifying information about him. If you can find articles or substantial mentions about him, that come from third party sources, then put them in the article and there won't be cause to delete, as it is, it's a stub article and its very poorly sourced. CaptainPedge | Talk | Guestbook 10:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IM GUNNA SAY THIS AGAIN WE NEED TO KEEP THIS PAGE. I KNOW DAN WOULD SAY THE SAME. HES MY BOO! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junespalove4eva (talk • contribs) 01:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Eventhough I am an avid supporter and subscriber to nerdcubed, it can not be overlooked, that the lack of anything substantial makes him appear as non notable. As much as the fan base might want a page on wikipedia for him, this is not the venue for such articles if they do not fit what Wikipedia requires. If you search for nerdcubed under news on google, nothing, nothing, returns. If you search for him by name, very little returns and nothing indicating notability. That said, video's such as The_Crazy_Nastyass_Honey_Badger have a page and even the creator when he doesn't even have over 200k subscribers or anything notable apart from a viral video that is less then amazing. I have seen many articles on wikipedia in my time that are significantly less notable than Daniel_Hardcastle and as such, we as a community, can not in good faith delete this article because of a lack of news articles. There were a lack of news articles about the holocaust during WWII, as such, would this community have said "Because there are no news articles showing notability, the holocaust will not have an article?? I know this is a bit of an extreme example, but there is NO compelling reason to have the article deleted. I suggest that instead of deletion, we give the community time to come up with a more valid group of sources and other information that will point at notability. I purpose a template and give the community 30 days to make it suitable to Wikipedia standards. I will also note, that some of the reason that there is a lack of articles is due to Dan not being very socially involved. He is slightly reclusive and as such, because he has not agreed to interviews or the like, we can not condemn this article because the subject in question, doesn't like being in the center of attention. Jab843 (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC). In response to there being a lack of articles, under Wikipedia guidelines, notable is not the same as famous, I do not see this article going against Wikipedia guidlines. Jab843 (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep The article in question revolves around a person who has a notable following Samuel Tarling (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tweet by Daniel Hardcastle himself says to delete the entry: https://twitter.com/DanNerdCubed/status/464313803396898816 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.70.86 (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tweet merely says he doesn't care either way, also, this is a discussion among wikipedia editors, if you are posting without an account, please do not do so as you are most likely not knowlegable about why this article is being debated and are adding nothing significant to the discussion. Jab843 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jab843, any IP editor and brand new user has the same amount of privilege and sway as any administrator or even Jimmy Wales. They can formulate arguments, but they have to rooted into policy. Given the fact that the IP contributed to this page, they are by the very definition considered an Wikipedia editor. Please don't bite new comers, and assume good faith. Albeit, the appropriate response is that while he doesn't care, it's a discussion of policy and guidelines, not votes. Tutelary (talk) 14:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that they have the same rights, I am merely stating that they are, on the whole, unfamiliar with the policy that we are debating and are speaking from the heart, not wikipedia. And I am more than aware that this is a discussion not a vote. Jab843 (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacing in depth coverage in reliable sources. Lots of mentions and quotes in reliable sources, but not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yikes, what a mess. So this broadcaster is certainly not unknown and is mentioned (operative word) in a few sources as an influential Let's Play recorder [26][27], but mostly in the comments, which doesn't count. The article would need actual coverage of the subject himself and not a series of mentions of the notable guests he has had or what things surrounding him have gone on to do. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test or have more than cursory hits in a video game reliable sources search. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 04:05, 11 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. → Call me Hahc21 06:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeniffer Dake[edit]

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

Non-notable motivational speaker. The article relies on primary sources, and she gets approximately 100 Google hits, which leads me to believe that there really isn't any coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm having a hard time finding coverage in independent reliable sources. Willing to change my mind if they can be shown to exist.TheBlueCanoe 02:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps the author can work on the sources, but as is, I can't see the notability and could not find reliable sources demonstrating notability. Bali88 (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough independent reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no indication of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 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.

[1] ttp://www.reddit.com/r/nerdcubed/comments/24sw3u/dans_wikipedia_entry_is_being_deleted_hes_not/

[1]