Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 May	7 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 18:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harima United[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 22:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see the notability Bali88 (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a very parochial organisation, without even a WP:ja entry. (And it does not actually give the original Japanese name) Imaginatorium (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstration of notability. Same applies to the similarly promotional Harima Sake Culture Tourism article created by the same SPA. --DAJF (talk) 14:03, 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 snow keep -- Y not? 11:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of Jews in Kurdistan[edit]

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

Nominating for Tilobittes who gave reason refers only to Jews in a region and not a nation like other Jewish groups have been described. there is already a page where this article should be a part of.. Not support nor opposition. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 22:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article meets WP:Notability and is in line with similar articles like American Jews. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 22:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No reason to delete has been given. Andrew (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for that, but user put a AFD tag on it, so I changed it to this to accommodate them to give a case. They haven't commented yet. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 22:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep .... I'm completely confused with what the nom actually wants ..... Anyway as above no valid reason for deletion .... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per Andrew Davidson. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The logic for the proposed deletion is seemingly a variant of WP:OSE, if there is a significant cultural variation regarding the History of Jews in Kurdistan, then let there be an article about the History of Jews in Kurdistan. Besides, we have articles galore formatted in a non-national format, such as History of Jews in Alsace, History of Jews in Opatów, and etcetera, if we're playing the OSE game. An article should be judged on it's subject matter, notability, and merit, not upon whether it describes the history of Jews within a region rather than within a nation. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 01:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another odd deletion nomination "helped" by someone who takes no responsibility. Solarra, IMHO, no one should "help" this way. --do ncr am 00:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed it, again apologies for the confusion. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 00:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, decently well sourced, and has plenty of information -- don't see a reason why it would be deleted. Adamh4 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do we have a policy to punish the nom for this foolishness? There is no legitimate reason given for deletion. There was no discussion on the talk page prior to this nom. The nominator has been here long enough to know better. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notable and well-sourced. History of Jews in Kurdistan, like History of the Jews in Iraq, History of the Jews in Turkey, History of the Jews in China, etc. etc. are not regional analyses of the Jewish diaspora, but significant histories that document the unique customs, practices, and liturgy that developed in each of those formerly insular communities, and that each family continues to practice in their new homes in Israel and America. Yoninah (talk) 10:33, 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 speedily deleted by User:FreeRangeFrog per CSD A7 and CSD G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KC See[edit]

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

No media coverage has been given for reference. Mys_721tx (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I've tagged this as A7. It's blatantly just someone's CV. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 00:16, 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 Speedy Keep per SK#1, nominator has withdrawn their deletion request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karate Baka Ichidai[edit]

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

The only source is a mention in one sentence in the obituary of one of the creators. The other sources I found don't seem to be reliable and provide significant coverage. I'll admit I don't know or care much about manga, so perhaps there are better sources (or they're more reliable than I think).Mdtemp (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wish to withdraw my nomination. I hope that someone will add the sources below to the article. I still don't think manga should be considered part of the martial arts project, but that's a separate issue.Mdtemp (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to wait to weigh in until more people familiar with the genre have commented. A google search turned up a lot, so it may be more notable than the article is conveying. Bali88 (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This passes WP:GNG. Not only was this a manga that was adopted into an anime and then two films (one in 1977[1], another in 2002-2003 (a two-part film[2])), it's even become a pachinko game[3]. Searches of article databases find pieces on the manga in such popular magazines as Shincho 25, Shukan Sankei and Shukan Asahi. Standard reference books have entries on both the manga and the anime[4]. Frankly, especially since it was written by Ikki Kajiwara, the most famous manga gensakusha in the 60s and 70s, this was a big hit and sparked a boom in interest in the martial art (one of the major karate schools cites this in their history:[5]). Michitaro (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per excellent analysis and sources provided above by Michitaro. Clearly notable. Cavarrone 06:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Clearly it would help if the references were actually added to the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems noteworthy enough, considering that wp:ja has three pages. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:16, 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 18:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Southworth[edit]

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

Unsourced article (except for a link to IMDB) about a martial artist who fails WP:MANOTE. There's no supporting evidence for notability as an actor.Mdtemp (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage from any reliable sources and doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 20:27, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Bloom[edit]

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

None of the martial arts claims have any supporting evidence. There is one article in Black Belt that appears to be significant independent coverage. The other two BB mentions appear to be in sections where anyone can submit and so they don't show notability. If someone can show independent sources that he's a 3 time world champion of a significant organization I'll withdraw this.Mdtemp (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Search didn't find enough to meet WP:GNG and world championship claims are unsourced.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The martial arts claims are unsupported by independent sources and there currently isn't enough to show he meets GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:00, 13 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 18:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rabago[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable martial artist. He doesn't meet WP:MANOTE and the only source is to his obituary at Forest Lawn so he has no independent coverage. Being in martial arts HOFs does not show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete My search didn't find support for him meeting either MANOTE or NACTOR. I also didn't find significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If such coverage is shown, I am willing to reconsider my vote. Papaursa (talk) 04:05, 13 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 18:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Nelson (martial artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. His IBJJF awards were for winning medals in the older age divisions at levels below black belt, so he fails WP:MANOTE. The only significant coverage was on sherdog for his battle with cancer, but lots of people battle cancer--that's not enough to show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom. I don't see sources that show he meets MANOTE or GNG. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 13 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; nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian privilege[edit]

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

Falls under WP:SOAP item 2 is mostly opinion, although backed by sources article is written in a style that precludes any basis of privilige for non-christian denominations Amortias (T)(C) 18:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator On advice of comments will attempt cleanup - if someone can close would be appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amortias (talk • contribs) 22:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes, it is the opinion of numerous notable figures, cited in reliable sources, that Christian privilege exists. Thus, the topic is notable. If the article is biased, that is a reason to clean up the article: opinions should be rewritten in the voices of their sources. For example: "Jules diBigname stated Christians always get the front row tickets." Not "Jules diBigname observed Christians always get the front row tickets." The first is diBigname's notable opinion, the second is WP:SOAP. AfD is not for cleanup. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This issue/concept is quite important, any neutrality issues can be cleaned up later. Staglit (talk) 21:33, 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. Consensus to delete. Can be userfied if requested to me, or at WP:REFUND the panda ₯’ 22:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Winning In India[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Sources are either primary or press releases, the one independent source has insufficient depth to establish notability. Drm310 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, article creator is likely one of its authors and therefore has a WP:COI. --Drm310 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable as nom, sources do not establish notability (one labelled as a review is nothing of the sort: the other is a press release)TheLongTone (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's only one source that is independent (two are firsthand and one has nothing to do with the subject matter) and as established above, the one independent source is neither reliable enough nor sufficient enough to warrant notability. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 23:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until after the book's full release and more reviews by independent press. The creator is the co-author and has all but identified herself as such on her own Talk page. While this is a blatant COI, this is the editor's first foray onto Wikipedia and she might be a valuable editor otherwise in the future; perhaps she didn't know any better. Also there's no way of knowing whether the book will be notable or not until it is fully released and reviewed. Could be that keeping the article userfied and onhand might be worthwhile in the future. Softlavender (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 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 keep. I'm closing this early per the snowball clause; I don't see any likelihood of an outcome other than keep based on the discussion so far. —C.Fred (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation academies[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NEO Verdad (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a shockingly misguided nomination. For more insight into the nominator's mindset, who seems to think that this term was invented by Wikipedia (!?), see this comment on the article's talk page. Then see the extensive discussion and coverage of this topic by name without scare quotes in reliable sources dating back forty years and more: [6], [7], [8], [9], and on and on and on.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article does not fall under WP:DICDEF. This article doesn't provide a simple dictionary definition; it quite obviously discusses the subject's history extensively and provides a wealth of reliable sources on the details of the topic. Furthermore, the term is most certainly not a neologism as per the sources linked by User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah above. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one thing, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:NEO" is a sentence fragment (or two), not a well-supported argument for deletion; for another, this article is no more a dictionary definition than is the article on, say, "Jim Crow laws". 18:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Segregation academies were a well-documented response to desegregation. Hundreds of other articles link to the article. The article is important and should remain in Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. In its current form, the article violates WP:NEO. I apologize for the previous sentence fragment. I find the continued use of scare_quotes and terminology like, "so-called" and "dubbed" indicative that the term is a neologism. Regardless of the date it was first used... (And I stand corrected. My fears are assuaged . The term did not originate on Wikipedia. Thank you, alf laylah wa laylah)... sources using the term uniformly include scare quotes, etc. I disagree with alf laylah wa laylah's assertion that the sources do not. And I encourage participants in this discussion to view the cited sources. I don't mind the article not being deleted. But, It seems to me it needs serious overhaul. For example, the Allen v Wright case, which forms a large portion of the article, makes no mention of the term. And so on, and so forth.Verdad (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 00:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Important topic, clear notability. (If the decision is to Keep, I would recommend renaming the article in the singular, as per WP:TITLE, to Segregation academy.) DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure why it was nominated. Obvious keep. Bali88 (talk) 00:10, 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. postdlf (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Issuer Identification Numbers[edit]

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

This list is essentially unsourced and because of the nature of these numbers being unpublished, will always be original research. Does not seem to be a notable list. There was no consensus on deleting 6 years ago, deletion should be addressed again. Bahooka (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article as mentioned above, these numbers arent all credit cards as listed in the overview, some credit cards (mine included) dont have any of these numbers at the start. Without repeated updates by banks and building societies and other organisations there is little or no way to keep this list up to date Amortias (T)(C) 18:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This might be appropriate on WikiSource, but it's clearly not an encyclopedic article. Without citations it's just original research. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Save I have stumbled up this after trying to check a card number that I have been given for payment, the number had been written down wrong and this table helped me correct the situation as I could not get in touch with the card owner. It saved me time and also the inconvenience of having to contact the owner. I and many others will find this table informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.203.199 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if it's not verifiable it could just as easily be misleading. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 23:08, 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 18:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes cemetery[edit]

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

Names people of cemetery, no Sources, and other problems like being poorly written Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 15:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...nothing to indicate that this is any more notable than any of the 50 (and that's only counting as far as the Ks) cemetaries in Henderson County.TheLongTone (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as very poorly written, and per nom no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:32, 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 NAC - speedily deleted. ukexpat (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Neeley[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO Cwobeel (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 17:58, 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) 01:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indelible Grace[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. No independent sources listed. jps (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KEEP, per WP:MUSIC #6: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" Hokie RNB 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - HokieRNB beat me to it. It clearly meets MUSICBIO 6. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSIC #6. -- 101.117.109.4 (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. This organization also gets many mentions in Google Books, some notable blogs, and some newspaper coverage [10]. I think the article should be named "Indelible Grace Music", though. Hoppingalong (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MUSIC #6. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 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 keep. A snowball won't melt in the Styx before this gets deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Cartoon Network[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a television guide. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. They are also indiscriminate. Sefcik (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After close note (Redacted 'extended content' dropdown box which consisted of 344 "List of programs on network" articles or individual network articles besides this one, some of which don't even exist, which were part of this nom for the sake of pageloading and reducing 'what links here' pollution. Linked for full clarity.) Nate • (chatter) 07:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia of Knowledge and generally it is better, in my opinion, to include such things. Listing TV programs is not making Wikipedia a TV guide, and in my view makes the project better as a whole. While a lot of these articles have serious issues, I believe that it is better to clean them up than deleting everything. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 14:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reason reasons as above Digifan23 (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This resembles the sort of stuff sock operator Finealt was up to, i.e. aggressively redirecting, blanking, nominating for deletion. Note please that this is a five day old account whose first ten edits contained at least six gibberish edits to their user page (read: an attempt to quickly get autoconfirmed.) Confusing how a brand new user would find the maintenance of these articles to be difficult. I question the earnestness of this nomination. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no valid reason for deletion, My guess is it's a sock but should probably AGF. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Ridiculous nomination by known block evader, completely bad-faith. Nate • (chatter) 01:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever type of Keep will quickly put an end to this nonsense. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:49, 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 18:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signs of Mahdi in Bible[edit]

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

Basically OR, the one source used (under 2 different names) is neither a reliable source nor does it mention Judaism. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as duplication of Mahdi, as with previous creations of this article. btw, what version of the Bible is "Depending on their waists, their lights reflected glow, and you like who you expect to kill his lord when he returns from the wedding, and it is hitting me up every time a prompt to Again he said. Khvshabh it is because he awakens, he finds that Mr. slaves. So you're also vulnerable because they do not believe in time that you use the Son of Man comes" from?TheLongTone (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator, and TheLongTone's note of curious translation. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as borderline incoherent nonsense. One citation is Wikipedia itself, several of them are Google Translate and it's clear that much of the content was Google Translated. This isn't even original research because to call it so would be an insult to research. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it makes some grammatical sense to me, but it's one person's made up work and conjectural essay. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Mahdi#Possible_Biblical_interpretations Gaijin42 (talk) 17:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving (novel)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ - The article has no sources.. fails practically any criteria in existence.. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 00:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Weak Keep with new revisions by Tokyo Girl. Still definitely some work to be done. Flipandflopped (Discuss, Contribs) 15:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've found multiple reviews for the novel from both its UK and US releases. I've cleaned the article up and it should now pass WP:NBOOK. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well, it took three years, but it looks like the article finally got some references. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:11, 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 speedy close due to wrong forum. Please take this matter up at redirects for discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 02:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flam[edit]

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

searching Flam directs here and not to Flam (disambiguation) --palmiped | Talk 12:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. AfD is not the right venue for this issue. There is no rationale for deleting any of the articles listed at Flam (disambiguation); the only question being raised is whether Flam should continue to point to Drum rudiments#Flam rudiments, or instead should point to Flam (disambiguation) (or less probably to the heavily-visited Norwegian town of Flåm, which might arguably be the dominant topic based on Google hits). The correct places to discuss this would be on the article talk pages or, if that seems impractical, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but not here. (Note: as part of the closure, the AfD notice now sitting at Drum rudiments should be removed since there is no suggestion that the article should be deleted.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:21, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Travails and Tribulations of Geoffrey Peacock[edit]

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

Probable hoax, couldn't find a single reliable source about this book. Fram (talk) 12:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it was added to Template:Aldous Huxley in 2008 (!)[11] by User:Tjmayerinsf. Fram (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~: Probably not a hoax, as some passing mentions do crop up on searches. But the lack of available sources; even if the book really exists; makes it non notable. I came across this, but it might be a case of WP:CIRCULAR.-- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 13:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link you cited is circular sourcing as you suspected, that entire page is copied from Science, Liberty and Peace, and the mention of this article on that page is copied from Template:Aldous Huxley. 109.76.199.245 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 13:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think its a hoax, the Open University have it in their bibliography, but clearly not notable, all I can find are mentions in lists. I assume if it was of any merit or interest it would have been reprinted.TheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not in the British Library, National Library of Scotland, or Library of Congress. I'm not convinced it exists; certainly fails notability requirements for books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a little skeptical about its existence. It's not notable outside of the author, that's for certain, but what concerns me is that we don't really have a lot of truly hard evidence of its existence. The problem is that a lot of places, and I mean a LOT of places will pull bibliographies straight from Wikipedia. I believe that Open University is one of the places that does take some material from Wikipedia, and I know other places that will just cut/paste the Wikipedia article as a whole onto their website. This is why we'd need more than just a bibliography list before I'm entirely certain that this isn't just another hoax that has assumed legitimacy because sources report on it... because they saw this article and figured they should update their materials. It's a little telling that there's no mention of this anywhere in any biographies of Huxley, not even in passing. You'd think that at least some author somewhere would mention that Huxley wrote a second children's novel, especially if it's in such limited supply. Since the article asserts that there is one copy in a school in Germany, I'm going to contact the school to see if a copy actually exists. I'd recommend leaving this open for a little while longer, so I can post whether or not the book actually exists. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I heard back from the school. They have no record of having a book by that name. This leads me to believe that this is actually a hoax, as the school would have some sort of knowledge of the book in question. I think that this is just a case of someone trying to use Wikipedia to perpetuate a hoax, which isn't anything new to us. I recommend that we remove the article and the mention of the book from the Huxley article as a whole. The only places that seem to list this book or mention it at all are places that seem to have clearly pulled from Wikipedia itself. Delete as a hoax. It's just very, very telling that there's absolutely nothing out there about this book in any format other than it being included in a basic bibliography list, especially given the vast, vast majority of sources out there that cover the author himself. This is pretty clearly a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: We should probably list this at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia, especially since it did bleed into some other sources that drew from the Wikipedia articles. This is pretty much the epitome of why schools say that WP shouldn't be used as a source in and of itself. I hate that they say that, but this is kind of the reason why they have to say it in the first place. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:41, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, and no source or useful article content, irrespective of whether it's a hoax. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:56, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Langer[edit]

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

s written, this article does not show how the subject passes the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) requirement. Pinging User:David Eppstein who deprodded the prod - please explain why this is "clearly notable". This bio just tells us he is a professor and a fellow in several societies; I am not seeing how this suffices for notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "Fellow in several societies" is a triple pass of WP:PROF#C3. In addition searching Google scholar for "author:jm-langer" finds several publications with over 100 citations each, probably enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- @David Eppstein: C3 specifies "highly selective and prestigious" societies, or an elective position in one that is "a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor". C3 names three examples: National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society or an elective position within IEEE - all indeed major and (outside IEEE) household names. Our subject is ~~a member of APS (which anyone can join by paying a membership fee), which clearly doesn't count for anything.~~ He is a member of Warsaw Scientific Society (a substub, but notable per pl wiki sources), which according to pl wiki has a selective membership process (I cannot find it described on its website); in any case it is also not a national level but regional-level organization (at least based on its name); it is also not a household name in Poland, unlike let's say Polish Academy of Sciences would be and as such doesn't appear to be "major". Finally, he is a member in Academia Europaea, an article of (as written) dubious notability, and while it claims to have "membership is by invitation only" (citation needed), it is hardly a prestigious, household name, and again I wouldn't call it "major". As such, as believe C3 does not apply,through I'll ping User:DGG for a 3O. Regarding citation count, I'll ping User:Randykitty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is not a member of APS, he is a fellow of APS. Those two are very different things. APS is a major discipline-specific society similar in importance to IEEE and being selected as a fellow is indeed a high honor. And Academia Europaea is a highly selective Europe-wide academic society, similar in spirit to a national academy. I have no detailed knowledge of the Warsaw Scientific Society; it might be less selective, but it doesn't look it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fellowship in APS seems like a valid criteria, through I am not sure it suffices in itself. Can anyone comment more on the significance and notability of Academia Europaea? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - APS Fellow is sufficient all by its own self. It is a long-standing convention that Fellow rank at any of the major technical societies suffices. Agricola44 (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fellow of APS is sufficient in its own right. (This needs to be determined society by society, and merely being selective is not enough-- the way of determining the selectivity is by seeing to what extent it correlates with other criteria) The Academia Europaea is new to me, and I think I need to be ashamed to have to say it. About 90% of the living members list have a sufficiently full CV to judge. Of these, in fields with which I have some familiarity, at least 80% are unmistakable notable by our usual criteria, and it seems clear that probably the other 20% would be also if their publication record were examined. I conclude it is a sufficient criterion. It is also a very useful one for WP, because it includes the humanities--we should be able to quickly add three thousand articles, thus remedying at least for Europe some our our subject biases (at present, we have only about 5% of them; even the deWP has about 8%) . We can add them very quickly indeed, if we decide that copying the list of positions and honours is not copyvio, as lists of facts without any creativity. As for the Warsaw Academy, I am unsure of its relative standing to the Polish Academy of Sciences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- Comment Judging on my experience, I'm sure the real percentage of Academia Europaea members already covered by an article is much higher than that, but many of those articles haven't been inserted into the related category yet. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for admin attention. Given the preceeding comments, I am withdrawing my AfD nomination. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comment above. Agricola44 (talk) 13:39, 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 keep. As with the Cartoon Network one, WP:SNOW applies here. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon (UK & Ireland)[edit]

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

Indiscriminate list of programs for one channel. Fails WP:V and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Most Nickelodeon channels air similar shows. I am also nominating for the same reasons:

Sefcik (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these articles have been repeatedly nominated for deletion previously (often by freshly-minted aliases of sockpuppet users like User:Finealt) with the bogus claim that "Most channels air similar shows". Certainly in the case of Nickelodeon UK and Nickelodeon Australia/New Zealand that is manifestly not true as their programming mix, particularly in earlier years, was markedly distinct and different from their US parent, and the articles reflect that. Shaky basis for deletion matching previous sock behaviour - can't support. Bonusballs (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Normal standard lists of a type which are kept by consensus. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does this fail WP:V? Many newspapers and magazines publish TV listings, and many websites such as tvguide.co.uk and theguardian.com provide similar TV listings. For British channels there's also in-depth coverage in trade magazines like Broadcast. Here's a newspaper story saying Nick UK acquired Life With Boys, the first show on the list.[12] I'm sure you could do the same for most other shows on the list. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Block evasion by banned user Finealt (talk · contribs), clear patterns and previous nominations in the past suggest their handiwork. Same nom reason pushed several times by their socks, and bad faith. Nate • (chatter) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no valid reason for deletion, My guess is it's a sock but should probably AGF. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They've hit List of Sam & Cat episodes with a deletion already made many times by FA; signs are clear that it's them. Nate • (chatter) 01:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't saying anyone's lying .... I very rarely assume good faith with anyone so I was attempting to show some for once in my life :). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Calling shenanigans on n00b editor who seems to be rubbing the community's nose in their inconsistencies with keeping/deleting "List of" articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mera Naam Chin Chin Chu[edit]

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

Not enough sources to prove notability. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Mera Naam Chin Chin Chu

~~Redirect - partial merge~~ to Howrah Bridge (film)#Music. While it appears written of in multiple book sources covering 1958's Howrah Bridge and the Indian film actress Helen Jairag Richardson, we are NOT going to find English news sources specifically about only this 1958 Hindustani song. However, it makes sense that it be spoken of within the article of the film which brought the song attention. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a 1958 Hindi song, this has quite good number of English online sources available to establish notabilty, including the mentions in the books that Schmidt provided. From personal experience, it is one of the biggest hits in it sgenre, and also signioficant for first major break for Helen as a performer. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep through an acknowledgement of Dwaipayan's knowing Indian film and music far better than I and, in understanding WP:NTEMP, we will not find current coverage of a song that was notable in 1958 for actress Helen Jairag Richardson... a fact that CAN be verified even 56 years later. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notablity is not a issue for this song. One of the popular songs of hindi in late 50s. Dr meetsingh Talk 17:26, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Mota[edit]

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

I speedied this as non-notable, but the creator doesn't accept that, so nominating for deletion now on that basis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Very weak keep - Looking at the references provided, there seems to have been a good deal of national coverage. What she does might be trivial, but the coverage makes her somewhat notable. _noisy jinx ^huh? 11:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Looks fine to me. Googling her name gives multiple third-party sources, including Today, BusinessInsider, TeenVogue, Huffington Post, People, ABC, and Daily Mail. I'd say it's not that notable overall, but she's notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.174 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable blogger. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be enough national coverage to me. If this is not notable I do not know what is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.208.110 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 7 May 2014‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well, I don't like it. I don't think we should have individual articles on YouTube celebrities that luck into mainstream coverage during a slow news day. But she satisfies the GNG, and that's what's important. If someone wants to start a discussion on the talk page about moving and rewriting this article to focus on hauling instead of an individual hauler, I might support that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As no significant historical, political or cultural impact with serious self propaganda for advertising reasons. http://instagram.com/p/nZJu_AmQVZ/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debasish Dey (talk • contribs) 10:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it because this page here is overwhelmed with personal opinions, and it's completing ignoring GNG. The case of the matter here is that we have something that's proven to be reliable through third-party sources, not something we accept as worthy personally. Based on the cited sources, the article stands very well. Some people need to realize that self-propaganda, hype, sensationalism, and reason for attention are all irrelevant -- notability is fact, and it has been proven. Lassets (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first edit from a new account Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to pass general notability, though just about. Mabalu (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see significant coverage from multiple sources independent of the subject. That's GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey, I am a big fan of Mota and ever since I heard she had a Wiki page I decided to check it out, but noticed that it's being considered for deletion. I don't want to be bias by claiming to keep the article up because I'm a fan, so I did the fair thing and checked out the sources. I saw L.A. Times, Today, ET, Teen Vogue, and Business Insider, and wondered why this article is being considered for deletion in the first place (all aforementioned sources are more than enough to take the cake). So, to confirm this I will, unbiased, say that this seems notable from the sources and coverage to say keep up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.100 (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for general acceptance of the general notability guidelines, mostly acceptable reliable third-party sources that prove notability (note: notability isn't synonymous with popularity), and good national and some international info on her could be found. 202.85.238.87 (talk) 19:10, 13 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. Consensus is clear that a standalone article makes no sense. Arguments between delete outright and redirect lead to having to recognize that this is a neologism - hance, consensus as a neo is to delete the panda ₯’ 23:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game cake[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cakes are made to look like all sorts of things, and maybe video games are a common theme, but I'm not seeing sufficient sources out there to show many people recognize "game cakes" as a particular phenomenon somehow different from say, "movie cakes," "animal cakes," etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Comment - (this may be a candidate to be merged) selectively to cake decorating ~~cake~~. Amazingly, there is some coverage of this topic in reliable sources:

Yahoo Games
Huffington Post
Delish
Food Heaven (passing mention)

However, the depth of coverage does not appear adequate enough to support a stand-alone article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addended my !vote above after further consideration. Modification and addition denoted in strike and parentheses. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very selectively. I agree with the two previous users; while there might be some mentions of the concept in some reliable sources, the depth of coverage isn't even remotely enough to let this stand as its own article. I propose, though, that instead of being merged into the cake article, it would be more appropriate if the selective merge was done to the Cake decorating article instead. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cake decorating as a more precise merge target; addended my !vote above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete outright: Cakes can be made to represent anything (take the Wrigley Field cake, for example). None of these need their own Wikipedia articles; none of these need mention in cake p b p 16:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about the merge target of cake decorating, rather than cake? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 8 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) 19:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cake decorating. I generally agree with pbp, but I'm not outright opposed to a selective merge, as long as it doesn't turn undue. Like pbp says, this is but one of the whimsical designs available. I'm actually somewhat surprised that that article isn't swamped by pictures of cake decorations in the form of trendy hipster toys like the iPod, iPhone, Wii, etc. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no sourced content to merge. "Game cake" is a neologism not in widespread use. The references say that cakes decorated like this exist, but that's not exactly helpful or notable. No sigcov, no lasting notability. Not useful as a redirect. czar ♔ 15:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to cake decorating. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 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 17:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton Jaguars[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur team Neil Hampshire (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 23 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 ♔ 16:26, 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, czar ♔ 04:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody plays this professionally in the UK, I've never heard of it as an amateur sport till just now, the league they play in doesn't have an article on wp, there are no refs in the article and nobody can even be bothered to write delete in the afd, its that non notable. Szzuk (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amateur club in an amateur league for a sport not played professionally in the UK. Quentin X (talk) 15:22, 13 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 David Choe. The only "keep" is non-poilicy-compliant. Consensus is to redirect the panda ₯’ 23:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DVDASA[edit]

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

non-notable podcast. appears to be purely for advertising purposes, written almost entirely by single-use accounts who have removed a previous AfD notice. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are some recent blogs from e.g. Gawker that mention the podcast in passing as the place where the primary person, David Choe, publicly responded to rape allegations, but this does not seem to me to warrant an entire article for the podcast itself. I notice that the article creator, XSpencer, also works on the David Choe article, which also reads like something of a press-bio. I suspect a great deal of CoI/PR here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all social media links and external links from the main article. According to the Reliable Source Noticeboard, Gawker is not a reliable source so I will not include it. The controversy in question stems from an article from another tabloid, XOJane which is also not listed as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashashash (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DVDASA is a popular podcast with notable hosts and guests. Its Wikipedia page has a similar format to other popular podcasts. This page provides a helpful reference and compendium for the content produced by DVDASA.Jarsh32 (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have been completely unable to find reliable sources necessary to establish the notability of this podcast. I have had discussions with Hashashash on our talk pages that were not particularly helpful in identifying RS or establishing N so far, which others are welcome to refer to. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 12:31, 24 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 ♔ 04:42, 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, czar ♔ 04:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources. With only 150 Google hits, the pickings are a bit slim. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David Choe. If the existence of this article revolves around coverage of Choe, that material belongs at any putative biography of him. None of the sources I've found provides in-depth coverage of the podcast. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG and has been covered in reliable sources [13], [14], [15], and [16]. They cover controversial topics and is unique. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG's criteria are not met with brief mentions in reliable sources, but require significant coverage of a topic in reliable sources, and says "it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage." Looking at the four sources you cited:

[1] from Gawker is an article about Choe's controversial discussion on a particular episode of DVDASA, but the article includes the term DVDASA only in a followup response from David Choe, not in Gawker’s own coverage.

[2] from LAist is an article about the same incident as the Gawker article, and provides almost no information about DVDASA itself; it is mentioned in only one sentence: "Choe hosts a podcast with porn star Asa Akira called DVDASA."

[3] from Liberty Voice is an article about the same incident as the Gawker article, and provides little information about DVDASA itself; while the term is multiple times (e.g. "During an episode of DVDASA..."), the only info about the Podcast itself are its cohosts and the brief description that it's "a dark-comedy podcast that claims to help youth with relationships and sexuality".

[4] from BuzzFeed is an article about the same incident as the Gawker article, and provides no information about DVDASA itself.

Redirect to David Choe. Insufficient significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources to meet GNG. No mentions in books.google.com or scholar.google.com. A normal web search turned up several reliable source articles that mentioned DVDASA, but most were in passing (i.e. about a person interviewed on DVDASA) or controversial "rapey" comments by David Choe on a particular episode of DVDASA. A Daily Beast article has significant coverage about DVDASA, but that's just one source, and WP:GNG requires significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources; if there were a couple more articles like that, I'd switch my vote to Keep, and I'll be checking back if anyone finds other sources to propose. Note that the prweb.com reference currently cited in the article is a press release, which is not an independent reliable source (it would count as a primary source, like citing dvdasa.com itself). Agyle (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of freeware[edit]

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

There are literally thousands of items that can fit, many non-notable. The ChampionMan 1234 03:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. The ChampionMan 1234 03:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, which states "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative". This list is complementary to Category:Freeware and subcategories therein. If this list becomes too long, it can always be WP:SPLIT into new articles per type (e.g. image viewers, email, etc.). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But the nominator didn't nominate on the basis of duplicating a category. WP:NOTDUP only negates that rationale for deletion; it isn't itself a keep argument (i.e. "existing category doesn't mean delete the list" isn't the same as "existing category means keep the list"). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless someone can point me to a policy saying lists should be deleted if they're too long. Restrict to notable items. (I guess there's an argument that it's hard to verify, but any review should list the price or absence of price.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SAL talks about lists not being too broad or too narrow. It does not go into much detail and certainly doesn't say "delete if too long," though. Nonetheless, to say the argument that a list topic is too broad isn't a valid argument to delete is to say List of everything is ok as long as it's limited to notable items. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Clearly notable & the list is fine. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that the topic seems unmaintainably wide, but it's a valid topic for a list. If it gets too big, it can always be split. The biggest problem right now is the lack of citations. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everyone above have been arguing the list is notable, but why? How is a focus-less list of ALL (notable) freeware programs notable? I am boldy saying it's not, and surely the individual software's notability doesn't make this list notable. It's probably a good time to also note that current list seems to have multiple issues and has been made by someone very subjectively. How do we decide what makes it to that list and what doesn't? Trillian is on that list but it's not even a freeware (it's a freemium). The same is true about Recuva, CCleaner, and Winamp (all on the list, all are FAR from being "freeware"). Just looking over some of the other category, why is IE, Chrome, and FF conveniently left out of the web browsers section? Overall just another poorly crafted unfocused list of no real notability. --CyberXRef^☎ 15:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is a useful list. Yes, I know that is not a reason for keeping anything, and some editors say it is an argument for deletion. I am free to express my contrary opinion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I'll join the minority here [weakly]. The question is whether the subject is sufficiently narrow to be the subject of a stand-alone list. Places, people, and software are all notable per se, but we don't have List of places, List of people, or List of software because they're far too broad. Instead we have Lists of places, Lists of people, and Lists of software as navigational aids to narrower topics. The question, then, is whether "freeware" is similarly too broad. I say it is. Counting all releases of all software ever produced and factoring in the various gray areas involved in defining such a term as freeware, the number of potential [notable] entries is massive and unmaintainable. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a reasonable argument, but we could always tighten the inclusion criteria if necessary. Also, the difficulty in defining the term is easily offloaded to reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The lead from our article on freeware:
  - Freeware (portmanteau of "free" and "software") is software that is available for use at no monetary cost or for an optional fee,[1] but usually (although not necessarily) closed source with one or more restricted usage rights.[2][3][4] Freeware is in contrast to commercial software, which is typically sold for profit, but might be distributed for a business or commercial purpose in the aim to expand the marketshare of a "premium" product. According to the Free Software Foundation, "freeware" is a loosely defined category and it has no clear accepted definition, although FSF says it must be distinguished from free software (libre).[4] Popular examples of closed-source freeware include Adobe Reader, Free Studio and Skype.
  - Tightening the inclusion criteria for this list would divorce it from the way we cover the subject, which is intensely wishy-washy (first time I've used those two words together, I think). What about software whose developers make money via a pay-what-you-want (optional) model? What about commercial software later released into the public domain? What about ad-supported software? What about open source software produced by a commercial entity that helps to make them money in indirect ways? Two of the three examples at the end (I'm not familiar with Free Studio) are software available for free...that encourage premium upgrades. Where is the line between freeware and freemium then?
  - I'm being annoying now with my rhetorical questions, I know. Just trying to reinforce my point that it's much too broad and ill-defined for its own list. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 07:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, they're legitimate questions. I had the same thoughts, too. I'm generally more forgiving when it comes to lists than I am when it comes to other types of articles. There are certainly articles in PC magazines and web sites that discuss lists of freeware as a concept, and that satisfies WP:LISTN. For example, we could populate this article with entries from those ubiquitous "top 10 freeware" lists from reliable sources, such as PC World, PC Magazine, and CNET. That means that we don't have to make any decisions about what counts as freeware. They've already done the work for us. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:32, 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 merge to Beresfield railway station. The strongest arguments about having a separate article reflect discussions of WP:EVENT, and show a consensus against. No strong argument was made against including some material at the station, nor the creation of a redirect. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beresfield rail accident[edit]

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

fails WP:EVENT. ranks very low in the history of rail accidents. no injuries and no deaths. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's sad that four people were injured as a result of this accident (three of them seriously), but it has not had lasting significance. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just because there were no deaths does not mean that the accident isnt notable. Sure, death give weight to the case for notability, but they are not a requirement. That said, the main reason that the accident is notable enough to sustain an article is that it resulted in a change of procedure by the train operator. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Fails EVENT & is a non notable incident. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for reasons as mentioned by Mjroots. Mo7838 (talk) 09:52, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ A change in procedures by a single regional operator is not a significant lasting effect per WP:EVENT. National industry-wide changes would be, but almost every accident report produces some local recommendation. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Beresfield. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above (to Beresfield railway station). I struck out my delete because it's already discussed in the railway station article so merge or at least redirect is best. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Beresfield_railway_station,_New_South_Wales. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:02, 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 keep. Consensus is that this is a Keep - a very weak keep, but a keep at this time nonetheless the panda ₯’ 23:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OSIP[edit]

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

Sources do not constitute significant independent coverage. The sources that are independent are just a passing mention; the sources that are actually about the topic are non-independent. TheCascadian 02:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is useful. As I am currently writing a sip client I only found this SIP lib and think it is awful that WP has only one article about sip libraries. There is no other sip lib currently in WP. For me this article contains much information which I am interested in. IMHO it would be better to find more appreciated sources but to create a AfD. --Txt.file (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [[17] and [18] and offline sources listed in reference section of the article. ~KvnG 06:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced that the sources cited amount to significant discussion in secondary literature. And if the wikipage contains information useful to software developers, well, WP:NOTMANUAL. GoldenRing (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the sources given under 'references', the first one is just a link to download it and has no other information than a list of files, the second one is a license that does not appear to mention the article's subject anywhere (searched for OSIP with the find tool), the third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh ones are all primary sources i.e. the websites of companies that promote this product, the eighth one doesn't have an awful lot in it, the ninth one only briefly mentions Antisip (but not OSIP), the tenth one is another primary source, the eleventh one does not mention OSIP, and the twelfth one is an email from a mailing list. The others are books which I haven't bothered to check. The first-person language - 'we did this and that' - also needs to go. Finally, an afc submission remarkably similar to this article was declined multiple times for various reasons. I would !vote one way or another except that I know diddly about afd and I'm too lazy to check the book sources, but at the very least, the 'we' business and the download page being used as a 'source' should be taken out. Cathfolant (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also just noticed the intro doesn't seem to summarise the article and isn't at all sourced. That can't be right. Cathfolant (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have removed many references to avoid the page to be a manual (WP:NOTMANUAL).

I have also removed the links that seems inadequate and all third party and commercial software. I kept the notable ones (which appears in wikipedia).

About above comment "The first-person language - 'we did this and that' - " : those are quotations from books. They can't be changed. Those are reliable sources only and prove the notability. At no place "we" is used beside in the quotations. So the comment is very unfair and not applicable to the article.

eXosip article was rejected a third time. However, it seems unfair to use such argument. New wikipedia authors have to learn and make their experience.

Aymoizard (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't clear that they were direct quotes from books. If that's true they should be formatted differently or something. They could also be paraphrased - a section consisting entirely of material pulled straight from books seems a bit odd. Cathfolant (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the citation from books format to clarify the fact they are quotes from books.Aymoizard (talk) 14:18, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The book references only give examples of the oSIP library in use. They don't, in my opinion, provide "significant coverage" of the oSIP library sufficient to assert notability per WP:N. Nor does anything else mentioned in the article as it currently stands. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak Keep. I still feel the encyclopedia would be better served with an article about GNU projects rather than individual articles about barely notable projects, but I agree that the Linux Magazine reference asserts notability. Now can we please clean it up? —gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a few additional sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OSIP&diff=608947545&oldid=606479087 Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jodi.a.schneider. Do you care to register an opinion as to whether we should keep or delete the article? ~KvnG 13:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It meets GNG and appears to be widely used; there are scholarly citations far beyond those mentioned in the article.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:12, 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 delete. I'm not officially calling this a merge, but If somebody wants to include some information from this article in Mayor of Faversham, that would certainly fall under normal editorial discretion. If you need reference to the deleted text, any admin will be able to get you a copy in your user space. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Knowles (politician)[edit]

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

I've searched the major UK newspapers for more sources but can't find coverage to support any claim to notability other than what is presented in the article, ie Mayor of Faversham, Freedom of Faversham, Alderman of Faversham. On the face of it this seems to fail WP:GNG due to the coverage being essentially either local or a passing mention. Seems to fail WP:NPOL because it is a position of Mayor of a relatively small town (compared with say Mayor of London/Liverpool/Manchester which would be clearly notable). The absence of national coverage I think underlines this. Other examples of articles on Mayors of Kent towns seem to exist where there was an additional claim to notability such as being an MP of the national parliament, or one case of a famous murderee who was written about for that reason - but in this case I can't see what the claim could be based on. _nonsense ferret 18:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only briefly a mayor for a small town. No evidence he's done anything remarkable or noteworthy. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Sionk (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we normally delete the bios of mayors of small cities/boroughs, absent national attention, per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mayor of Faversham The mayor of Faversham stub could incorporate some of the basic info, the sources and the picture. Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 4 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted to see if there's any additional support for a merge as an alternative for deletion, since the merge !vote came late to the party.

Merge to Mayor of Faversham. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled by this vote. In the absence of any significant content about the position itself outside a list of people who have done that job, isn't Mayor of Faversham effectively a stand alone list which should follow WP:NLIST meaning that we apply WP:BASIC to determine whether we should include a given mayor in the list? If we agree that Knowles is not sufficiently notable for a standalone article, thus failing WP:BASIC, then copying the content to that list seems not to be based on the guidelines. --_nonsense ferret 11:45, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their deletion nomination and there are no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (alt) (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phyllis King[edit]

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

* Delete: Questionable notability. Quis separabit? 02:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC) * Delete and/or merge with Ivor Cutler: Non-notable in her own right, apparently. Quis separabit? 02:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: see withdrawal of nomination below. Quis separabit? 15:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 23 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 ♔ 04:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a published author, and in respect of these book and magazine sources. --John (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the article has been greatly improved since the AfD was listed, I think it clearly passes notability. --John (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK: nomination withdrawn in light of improvements and prima facie case for notability. Quis separabit? 15:13, 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) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Ellsworth[edit]

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

Insignificant person, written like an autobiography Staglit (talk) 22:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He led a handcart company, in fact the first handcart company, this was a major innovation in trans-continental transportation on an organized scale. This might not justify the article as it is, but being head of the first handcart company seems to qualify as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 25 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 ♔ 04:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John Pack Lambert. A question about the article "as it is" in terms of justification. What would make sense in terms of further documenting, interest. For example, the "ferry" built on the North Platte was the first one in that area, I can probably find more information but that seems like fluffing this article up vs. just "telling the story". Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellsworthpc (talk • contribs) 20:08, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Need a lot better than findagrave . LibStar (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per John Pack Lambert. A very cursory search found this and this to support the claim of notability.TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John Pack Lambert and TheLongTone. I am One of Many (talk) 06:37, 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 No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 17:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McElroy[edit]

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

A biography about an artist that seems rather impressive at first glance but lacks evidence of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. The article claims for example that Mr. McElroy has been involved in the production of some kind of notable Barbie-related art, however there seems to be nothing out there about this more significant than a few local news stories and self-generated content (eBay, Pinterest and Amazon sales pages), despite wording that seems to imply the work was done in conjunction with Mattel. The article is full of rather puffy comparisons to notable classical painters based on a website's listing of his works for sale next to other prints. There's a rather misleading claim that Texas Monthly magazine "profiled" the subject, where the article (the reference is a dead link, this is correct) was actually written by him and is actually a series of anecdotes about Ross Perot. And further coverage listed is about Perot, not McElroy. Notability is not inherited or gained by trivial association. Claims of celebrities purchasing his art are not verifiable but in any case also do not necessarily confer notability. Rounding up the provided references are a press release and links to a website that sells his paintings. I do not believe the subject meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 23 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 ♔ 04:43, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:21, 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) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azim Rizk[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the sources does more than briefly mention him, or give a brief list of appearances, apart from a page at comicsalliance.com, which gives a brief joint interview of several people, including Azim Rizk, and that does not constitute substantial coverage. (Also, it is not entirely clear to me, but it seems that that site may be a promotional site which posts content on behalf of the subjects of the content.) The first page of hits from a Google search contained this Wikipedia article, IMDb, Twitter, Facebook, Wikia, Tumblr, a site which describes itself as an "unofficial fan site", a page on www.tvguide.com which merely gives a list of espisodes, Linkedin, and YouTube. The next few pages of hits were no better. A PROD was contested by an IP editor, with an edit summary which said "He's currently on a notable Children's Television series", but notability is not inherited, and there are many people who do not themselves satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines despite appearing on television programmes that do so: we need direct evidence that he satisfies those guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep as WP:ENTERTAINER.Babita arora 09:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-He is not a major name, but still good enough for an article as it seems. Wgolf (talk) 20:55, 26 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 ♔ 16:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable person, Even the programmes he's been in aren't even notable neither. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:37, 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, Mz7 (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep We do have articles on just about everybody in Power Rangers Megaforce. I am One of Many (talk) 06:51, 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 keep. As this AfD is now 10 days old and there have been no new replies in 2 days, I am going to be WP:BOLD and close this. The subject continues to receive heavy coverage, as I have noted just now, when checking Google News search. Given that the keep arguments in this AfD outnumber delete arguments by 3 to 1 and given that the continued heavy coverage of the subject that I found just now bears out the keep arguments, there is no point in keeping this AfD open any longer, so boldly closing. Non-admin close. Safiel (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Alamuddin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted at AfD, recreated, speedy re-deleted, and brought to deletion review. Bringing it back to AfD now as an administrative action, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 April 28. I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the editor who wrote the original article on 4 April 2014, which was deleted on or around 14 April 2014. At that time the objection was to her notability, based on articles about her online. In my view there was then and there is now enough online material about her to grant her notability status. The other argument by those who supported the deletion was that she was borrowing her notability from George Clooney. However, looking at the bigger picture, she is worthy of our attention even if she broke up with Clooney tonight. Finally, her notability (online media coverage) is only going to increase from today going forward. We, the Wikipedia editors, have nothing to lose by taking the time to look for the online sources that support her notability and adding them to the article. Thank you. Fsmatovu (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For whatever reason, she has enough interest from the public to have many secondary and tertiary sources from reputable publishers. She has represented a few high-profile cases as well. — Hasdi Bravo • 16:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- well sourced already with credible claims of notability, and it's not WP:CRYSTAL to note that more sources are bound to appear very shortly. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not (and it's not for us to be judging the so-called "celebrity" side of things), there are sufficient secondary reliable sources, and more will be coming along very soon. Edwardx (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dont want to beat a dead horse, she is notable prior to the engagement. Kanatonian (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Ms Alamuddin has generated some news, she is not notable for an entry in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not just a repository of facts culled from newspapers. I specifically address this page and this problem in this article: http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedia-is-not-a-newspaper/ -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Alamuddin is not notable in her own right. her legal work is not notable. I count one TV appearance before she got engaged to Clooney. The only notability you are conferring upon her is because she is engaged to a movie star, so mention her in brief on his page. Her future notability is not a consideration. If that were the case, why don't you add everyone on the planet just in case they become notable one day? Also when you have to look for sources to confirm someone's notability that means that she is not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and should not be a place where editors regurgitate any old information from a newspaper. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets gng and rs. She has recurring accomplishments and is thus not just news. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 04:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There will clearly be many people curious to know who George Clooney's partner is and a google and wikipedia are usually peoples first choices for information. I therefore believe it is in the public interest to have this information available and see no reason why people would be so adamant to delete this page when this is clearly a noteworthy individual whom people are likely to want more information regarding. David.Baratheon (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 00:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Looking at the info already given and well-sourced in the Wiki article and in her resume at the website of her Chambers, she has been involved in a number of high-profile cases at the ICC, which made her notable prior and without the relation to GC, and without the "news" angle (lawyers are hardly ever front-page news, unless they are specializing in a field that is bound to be front-page news in detail).--Zipor haNefesch (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ms Alamuddin has not achieved notability in the context of her legal career or in her own right which is the intended subject matter for the proposed Wiki entry. At the present time she is notable only for being George Clooney's fiancée. The media / tabloid reports of her legal achievements to date also appear to have been exaggerated and therefore, if properly fact checked, are not reliable sources of information.

e.g. She has been widely reported as being a 'top' barrister and is said to be at the 'top of her career' but this is not plausible as she was only called to the bar in November 2010 and would also have needed to complete a period of training (pupillage) after being called:Bar Directory Search for Miss Amal Ramzi Alamuddin

e.g. She has been widely reported in the media as being the barrister representing Julian Assange, however no published legal judgment exists which names her as one of his representatives - other barristers are named. Similarly, none of the other high profile work that has been attributed to Ms Alamuddin (according to media reports) has been supported by information from trusted sources such as legal judgments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonSugar21 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, LemonSugar21. I agree that the claim to notability can't be based on seniority in her profession: as you say, she is still a long way from achieving that. But I don't think the article is using the word or idea of "top", is it? The year of her call to the Inner Temple is a little misleading, too, because she was called to the New York bar in 2002 and has apparently had a lot of legal experience that isn't advocacy in court. Without the Clooney relationship Alamuddin would still have some notability, though arguably borderline. Given her human rights background – a long-standing interest of Clooney's – the volume of recent press pushes her over the line. It's instructive to look at the deletion discussion for Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge in 2005. At that time Kate Middleton had absolutely no notability in her own right, but it was decided that press coverage made her notable. - Pointillist (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Thank you for the welcome Pointillist and for the link to the discussion on Kate Middleton. I think this particular entry is distinguishable from Kate Middleton's entry because Kate Middleton's notability was directly as a result of her position as a girlfriend / long term partner to the heir to the throne. Royal girlfriends and mistresses have always been recorded throughout history, and such individuals have usually achieved notability simply for their relationship with royalty. While George Clooney may be considered 'Hollywood royalty' by some, I do not believe this case can be considered in the same league. My concerns regarding the media reporting on Ms Alamuddin's legal career is that the information seems to be coming from unverified (or unattributed) sources. I merely cited a couple of examples to illustrate that the news reports have not been accurate and are therefore unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LemonSugar21 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These are courtesy pings to notify all the participants at the first AfD (@Lady Lotus, @Johnpacklambert, @XXSNUGGUMSXX) and the DRV (@David.Baratheon, @TJRC, @Thincat, @WilyD, @Chris Howard, @Bracton, @Popeye191, @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, @Crisco 1492, @Snalwibma, @JASpencer, @Unscintillating) who don't appear to have !voted/commented here yet. - Pointillist (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if her only claim to fame was as George Clooney's fiancé (and it's not) she would be notable due to the press coverage that she has received, including the Radio 4 half hour documentary (which is a big deal). However she does seem to have had an influential involvement in various soft left legal spats such as Julian Assange and Julia Tymoshenko. JASpencer (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was pinged. I !voted to overturn the speedy at the DRV but did not give a view on the article. I have little doubt Alamuddin has received sufficient attention in the media about her professional achievements to meet WP:GNG. I also have little doubt that none of this attention would have occurred without Clooney. WP:INHERITED shows the difficulty WP has in dealing with such matters. John Schlossberg has had six discussions with three deletes (here), and is currently a blue link. Thincat (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she is notable for being George Clooney's girlfriend. If she wasnt, most of the reliable sources wouldnt talk about her. 3 of the sources arent even reliable. She fails WP:GNG and notability is not WP:INHERITED LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies the GNG through extensive substantial coverage. The "motive" for the coverage is irrelevant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per lack of independent coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Period I don't know where are all the delete comes from (probably from the lack of research)? I personally doubled the amount of refs, so I don't know where does the above editor come from with lack of independent coverage. Take a look: Daily Mail: 4 coverages, ABC News: 2 coverages, New York Daily News: 2 coverages, People Magazine: 3 coverages, followed by Us Weekly, IBT, E!, Radar Magazine, The Independent, The Irish Independent, and The New York Post: 1 each. That's more then enough for a speedy keep!--Mishae (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dailymail - unreliable source, New York Daily News - unreliable source, Us Weekly - unreliable source, Radar Magazine - unreliable source LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post is also not a reliable source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Don't know where you got that from but according to WP:RS, magazines and tabloids (newspapers) are considered to be RS. As a matter of fact even Wikipedia articles on them say: Daily Mail; United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper and take a note of the establishment date too: 1896. And New York Daily News is the fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in USA. I don't know about magazines, but according to you, only People is an RS and the rest is BS???--Mishae (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What!? "Reliable tabloid" is essentially an oxymoron. Daily Mail has also been repeatedly declared unreliable at WP:RSN. Sales do NOT equate to reliability. It's just marketing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't understand something? But then give me a good reason why they are not considred RSs in your opinion? Are the sources are left or right wing? I certainly didn't took them out from the opinion corner did I? From as far as I can tell, according to you, an RS is The New York Times, news media coverage, like CNN, Fox News, ABC, etc, and People Magazine, as the only RS in your opinion.--Mishae (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail has been repeatedly declared unreliable due to frequent fraudulence. FOX News has also been frequently criticized for fraudulent reports against liberals (notably numerous lies about President Barack Obama), so I'd say it's not a reliable source either. While political bias isn't explicitly said to make sources unreliable, I for one strongly discourage sources that are notorious for bias. People magazine I would also strongly discourage since when talking about things like celeb couples (such as when they report a couple has ended their relationship), they often favor one celeb over the other. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, lets assume that every source is unreliable, then whats the point of Wikipedia, if in your opinion if a source makes a single mistake, its no-no?--Mishae (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's very oversimplified. New York Times is most certainly reliable, and so are ABC and CNN. The problem is that most of the reliable third-party sources covering here either don't provide much on her own person and/or are mainly about George Clooney. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I'm almost at the end of the January 2014 discussion about the Daily Mail, and it said that the consensus agreed to use it for Sports and Celebrities with caution. So, here is the deal, give me a link of celebrity RSs that in your opinion are an RS and I will happily add them. Furthermore, in my opinion if an article contains an unreliable source, its better then no source at all. Plus, we can always back it up with a reliable source as well. Sounds like a plan?--Mishae (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forget that since we have BBC sources anyway which you have labelled as reliable so we don't need to worry about the daily mail. I dont understand why some of you are so desperate to get this article deleted when clearly people will want to know who she is. A simple google of "BBC Amal Alamuddin" brings up many results such as: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042cq8p David.Baratheon (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC) 00:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions per WP:ATA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this conversation involving the unreliability of the Daily Mail, and this one about stopping use of the Daily Mail. I think any magazine that calls itself a gossip source is not reliable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you got me on the Daily Mail, but then why it wasn't blacklisted??? By the way, can you give me links regarding the rest?--Mishae (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been blacklisted on WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mishae, having a large number of questionable sources isn't necessarily going to help here. It might be better to stick to the main broadsheets (in the UK, that's the Financial Times, Glasgow Herald, Guardian, Independent, Observer, Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Times, and Sunday Times), serious weeklies (e.g. the Economist, New Statesman, and Spectator) and the BBC. I think we would all agree that they are reliable, so if they discuss her and her career then it will establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is quite correct that their motive is irrelevant. Also bear in mind that there's no suggestion that Alamuddin wishes to have a Wikipedia article—she might be much happier without one (q.v. Seth Finkelstein I'm on Wikipedia, get me out of here). - Pointillist (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability seems clear. --do ncr am 23:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Lotus care to provide an analysis of the refs used or should I do so? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should give me a link where it says that the New York Post and New York Daily News are not an RS. If you will convince me, I will substitute them with The Huffington Post, a no-brainer RS.--Mishae (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post is known for bias and fraud in things like politics, science, medicine, and celebs. I wouldn't trust them under any circumstance. They're also a liberal equivalent of FOX News in terms of bias and distortion. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pointillist: Now, lets be clear, Wikipedians don't ask permission from their notables, if they want an article here or not. Like, Wikipedia is not an advertising agency, who asks: "Do you wanna be a part of this..."--Mishae (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know that. There just seems to be a slightly inappropriate tone emerging in some of the posts here, as if Alamuddin is claiming notability that she doesn't deserve. I just wanted to put the point that she might be delighted to see this article deleted and salted. In fact, perhaps she's one of the Delete !voters herself—but which one...? Spooky. - Pointillist (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. This is bordering assume good faith.--Mishae (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just mucking about :-) Pointillist (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@XXSNUGGUMSXX: If we will say "this not RS", and "this is not RS", we end up we conservative Wikipedia, where only anti-liberal media is allowed. Next CNN will do something stupid and you guys will say, its a BS not RS???!!! Like honestly, we need to have a boundary here, if such refs are not welcomed by Wikipedia, why we can't blacklist them? Besides, Fox News although biased is used on many conservative-related articles, starting from George W. Bush and ending with Rush Limbaugh and his gang of biased reporters such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. Care to explain the O.K. here?--Mishae (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly, I also wouldn't trust FOX News, which is highly conservative. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if its used on articles relating to conservatives themselves, like the members of the Republican Party? I personally wasn't surprised when I saw Dick Cheney article carry up to 3 Fox News RSs, to me its like, big deal. He is a conservative, the source is too. Same thing with The Huffington Post, saw it being used at the same article more then 3 times (6 I think). What about USA Today?--Mishae (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I wouldn't use FOX News and Huffington Post is because they often distort things with their political bias. There are non-distorting sources with political leans which are quite reliable, such as The Daily Telegraph (conservative) and The Guardian (liberal). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain me why am I seeing those highly conservative refs on every conservative related article????--Mishae (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but that isn't the focus for this AfD per WP:WAX. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your discussion points to one of the major flaws in Wikipedia: Wikipedia's policies and software do not allow easy distinction between the reporting of an event and the truth behind that event. It doesn't matter which source you use, it will have bias. There is reliable information in unreliable sources and unreliable information in reliable sources. The issue here, and on many pages similar to this throughout Wikipedia, is that newspapers are being used to source an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper. Taking reports from newspapers directly into Wikipedia devalues both the encyclopedia and the news. Ms Alamuddin mayy merit a line on Mr Clooney's page but she does not merit this page, which is made by editors who think news is notability. I discuss this further in the link I gave above.-- Sparkzilla talk! 05:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I perfectly understand your point, but here the issue: What sources are required for celebrities? Like, I see them being mentioned in People, Us Weekly, and other mainstream magazine when I go to local Cub Foods, yet over here people call them unreliable???? Like, celebrities don't get mentioned on CNN or ABC a whole lot, unless they are being invited by The View, but then it might add an undue weight by saying that Amal Alamuddin appeared on the View and said blah, blah, and blah about blah, blah, and blah. If you are so into redirecting, lets redirect Alexandra Kerry to John Kerry with all her films, although wait, she deserves an article because she is an actress, although not as famous as George Clooney, I guess.--Mishae (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WAX for how the Alexandra Kerry is not relevant to this AfD. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: I don't know where the gossip is from but removing RSs such as ABC News is unacceptable. As far as engagement goes, look here and here.--Mishae (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Times is definitely reliable, but Mirror is not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And neither he or she has confirmed it. A source says they were engaged, but it's just hearsay. Until a RS says they he/his rep or her/her rep confirms it, it's gossip. LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: Well, this ref suggests otherwise. Take a look at the title, or its another gossip?--Mishae (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sufficient to verify engagement, provides no explicit evidence. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure its sufficient, its a part of Personal life segment, otherwise its one sentence in a section. What do you mean that it doesn't provide explicit evidence? Isn't Star Tribune and Los Angeles Times are RSs or in your opinion they too just like the Mirror is a gossip? I thought you called them reliable???--Mishae (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm fine with the wording "According to her law firm". However, them celebrating their engagement isnt notable. LADY LOTUS • TALK 02:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Star Tribune isn't reliability, it's a concern of content. The problem with "according to a London law firm" is that it doesn't give the name of the law firm. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Lady Lotus doesn't mind it, RS is RS. Further question, is this and this considered to be notable content? Also, should I use this link double-ref the engagement?--Mishae (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, reliability isn't a problem for Star Tribune. However, it doesn't add to notability. Those other links don't add to notability either. They only quote anonymous "sources". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is trip to Tanzania and Seychelles any good? Like, its not Daily Mail, People is much more reliable I think.--Mishae (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely more reliable than Daily Mail, but again that source just contains input from unnamed "sources". XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I added CNN and The Chronicle, is Sunshine Coast Daily is considered reliable?--Mishae (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A trip to Tanzania? It's not encyclopedic and it's not even interesting. I'm just wondering if you are going to include information about every restaurant [19] they visit or party they go to? It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. And why is this discussion taking place here. It should be on the article's talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sparkzilla: Hah! You gave a link to Daily Mail which was removed from the article. I found the same info in The Chronicle, a much more reliable source. As far as restaurant goes, heck, if it will be mentioned in a reliable source, I will provide a room number at the hotel they will stay in too, along with breakfast, lunch, dinner and orgasm (if any will be reported by the news media). Maybe its not interesting, but can we have a view of the rest of the panel? Plus, I agree, it is an encyclopedia, but even Angelina Jolie article have something being said about travels to Africa and adopting kids from there and even helping them as a humanitarian worker. Like, really, I too care less what Angelina Jolie is doing in Africa, but you know, not everyone agrees with me. As far as discussion goes, you know, here my two cents, I updated the article with some reliable sources, and I hope it wont get deleted, since it shows plethora of reliable sources. If however, an uninvolved admin would like to delete it still, will he be kindly be asked to move the article into mine and creator's sandboxes, so that we can finish it up? Cheers to everyone!--Mishae (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can move it into your own sandbox yourself. Reports on celebs having meals together, staying in the same hotel, or what they do behind closed doors is regarded as trivial. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trip to Tanzania though is different, or its considered to be not news either?--Mishae (talk) 04:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what happens during the trip. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Part of their engagement, honeymoon I think, although it doesn't specify it. It was reported by The Chronicle and Sunshine Coast Daily. Look into the Personal Life section of the article, the refs are there.--Mishae (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a honeymoon is after the wedding. Angelina Jolie went to Africa on a high profile UN humanitarian mission. Just because something has a source, even a reliable one, does not mean it can be included in Wikipedia. Not only that but a blanket ban on particular sources is nonsense -- sometimes unreliable sources have reliable news (National Enquirer: John Edwards, Gary Hart, Rush Limbaugh) and sometimes reliable ones have unreliable news (Rathergate). Being in the news does not confer notability. Reliable sources do not confer notability. Ms Alamuddin is not notable in her own right, so it doesn't matter if you use a reliable source. If the New York Times reported she went to a restaurant that would still not make it worth inclusion here. If you want to report news, go to a site that lets you report news. This site is an encyclopedia.-- Sparkzilla talk! 04:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is getting off topic, this whole 'personal life' discussion needs to be on her talk page. This is strictly about if the article should be kept or not. That being said, unless it says their honeymoon (which is after a marriage) then I think just a vacation is certainly NOT notable. Engagement party. No. Marriage. Yes. Honeymoon. Yes. Anything else. No. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or gossip mag, we don't need to know certain details about them LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: and @Sparkzilla: I clearly agree with the fact that this is an encyclopedia, but the thing is is that since I am new to the whole celebrity topic, I don't know the difference between the inclusion of encyclopedic material and gossip mag. And I am not trying to make Wikipedia a fan site either, however we can assume that editors who edit article on sports are probably fans of specific team, otherwise they will care less. Lets be clear, I came to this article because it was mentioned for deletion, I add some bad refs but then I added some good ones, the result: an updated article, which hopefully wont be deleted or merged per some keeps including mine. I know that user Sparkzilla is against the article as a whole, and therefore is entitled to his opinion. What I don't want to hear is criticism from him about my old refs. All of us learn, and all of us make mistakes, and all of us jokes (i.e. my reporting on everything was merely a joke, and should have taken with a grain of salt rather then criticism). I don't criticize Sparkzilla for being blocked two years ago, do I?--Mishae (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reddcoin[edit]

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

There are no independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional sources are being added now. However, certain sources, such as blockchains, are both public and highly reliable. Bitcoin network has an explanation of the public nature of the blockchain. Mike Croteau 02:23, 6 May 2014 UTC

The blockchain is a public record of all the transactions using reddcoin. The fact people are using it does not mean it meets Wikipedia's 'notability' standard. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Outside, second party sources are now included throughout the article, as per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. These sources include reliable and impartial sources within the Cryptocoin Community to provide independent and reliable information:

CoinDesk.com
Coinwrite.org
CryptocoinChronicles.com
redditmetrics.com
altexplorer.net
BitcoinBarbie.com
CryptocoinNews.com
Cryptsy.com
cryptofrenzy.wordpress.com
todayscryptocoin.com
CoinJoint.Info
Times Square Chronicles (t2conline.com)

Please provide additional feedback if further changes and citations are required. This is my first Wikipedia article writing from scratch, and I modeled it after those for Litecoin and Dogecoin. Mike Croteau 04:12, 6 May 2014 UTC

Delete Did not meet WP:GNG criteria of significant coverage from multiple independently-published reliable sources (WP:RS). I removed a number of references from the article while evaluating sources due to their failure to meet WP:RS (e.g. forum posts, blog posts, primary sources that require technical interpretation). The only independent coverage remaining from a possibly-reliable source was from the "Times Square Chronicles" news organization at t2conline.com (I've never heard of them before, personally). Other possibly-RS sources found in searches include forexminute.com and business2community.com. The article as it stands depends heavily on primary sources, and it is not clear that the people and groups identifying themselves as Reddcoin are the same, or are promoting the same cryptocurrency; a non-reliable blog post mentioned that Reddcoin has forked into multiple versions using the same name. Agyle (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: business2community.com blog posts are open to public submissions, and syndicated unedited to sites like Yahoo!; these do not qualify as reliable sources. The t2conline.com article was written by a Joshua Plant, who according to this linked in profile claims to be an early investor in Reddcoin and a ReddCoin "Team Member". Given the undisclosed nature of his relationship, I would consider t2conline.com to not be an independent reliable source. This sort of potential deception, if perpetrated by the Reddcoin organization, may run afoul of US Securities regulations; at the very least, I would treat unfamiliar sources skeptically with regards to this topic. Agyle (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reddcoin is a cryptocurrency similar to Dogecoin that is starting to be noticed in the cryptocurrency community. It is much like Dogecoin. Reddcoin had one fork, but there is only one current blockchain and only one community called Reddcoin. I understand that some of the material on the page might have to be removed due to a lack of third party sources, but a small page with a general overview can certainly be maintained. the Forex Minute and Business 2 Community sources should be reconsidered as valid, third party, independent reliable sources. Mike Croteau (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as mere promotional and non-notable crud. Citation Needed | Talk 11:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Fails WP:GNG and although I will assume good faith, it appears that this page might serve as a vanity page to encourage people to adopt the currency. Tutelary (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources, not enough notability Adamh4 (talk) 18:30, 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.

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 06:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg horse[edit]

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

This has been copied from the Groningen horse article with the height changed, so I'm not sure of its accuracy. Google books search results suggest that there is (or was) a horse known as a Luxembourg horse, but the only fact available is that it "differs little from the French Ardennais", there's no information that it is a recognised breed. Peter James (talk) 20:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that this is a notable topic. The article is unreferenced, and my search for reliable sources was unsuccessful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found the journal mentioned by the nominator but nothing else. Can't see that there is enough to substantiate notability of this particular breed. Tellingly, there is a Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds but this particular one isn't listed. Stalwart111 06:44, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per above. -- Fauzan^{✆ talk} _{✉ email} 13:21, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Mukherjee[edit]

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

Only worked on 1 film back in 2006 that was not even notable, no awards, not even a nomination for anything. Maybe someday she will be notable, but not now. Wgolf (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Assistant costume designer" for one film is rather weak as the only claim to notability (to provide contrast, actors need to have played major roles in multiple notable films to be considered notable). Interestingly, a cursory Google search comes up with sources related to the Royal Wedding. See [20][21][22]. I'm not sure if this is the same Clare Mukherjee, but even so I do not think these trivial events make her notable per WP:BIO. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out. The first link is a blog entry written by the subject herself. The second source mentions the blog entry, and the third source is independent. Is it WP:GNG? Personally, I need more evidence. Mz7 (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all, she started as an Assistant costume designer in the film, but ultimately finished it off as the Costume Designer. I know that's not enough notability, but still. We aren't supposed to look at her own website, but it gives some insight. She's definitely a Huffington Post columnist and appeared in various newspapers and television channels during the Royal wedding as well as the Childbirth. Maybe she was given prominence as she was considered as a British Costume Designer in America (Los Angeles). She can be seen on Today.com, Fox, Huffington Post etc. DebashisM^Talk 03:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to her Huffington Post profile, she has contributed all of 2 blog entries to the site. At AfD, I am interested in sources above all else. Can you provide verifiable evidence of significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources? Significant coverage is necessary so we can write a verifiable article about the subject bigger than a stub. This is especially important considering that the subject is a living person. As of now, it's too soon and too early in her career for a Wikipedia article to be created—simply because biographical information just isn't reliably documented yet. Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:35, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Kyriakides[edit]

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

Notability; doesn't seem to meet WP:COMPANY; closest claim is " Harris Kyriakides is recommended for its Litigation, Real Estate, and Corporate and M&A Practice by Legal 500,[7], Best Lawyers International[8], and International Bar Guides.[9]" These are directories not of obvious import to this non-lawyer, and the claim is of questionable accuracy (for example, Legal 500 recommendation is only for Corporate and M&A, and calls the company "third tier".) Other links sound suggestive but are less so; the text at the US Embassy site, for example is in a realm explained "Inclusion does not constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service." Text from Embassy site is the same as for Best Lawyers site and Martindale site, suggesting all come from the subject; text at International Bar Guides is clearly written in the voice of the subject, and text at Chambers & Partners is noted as coming from subject. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability, just another law firm. TJRC (talk) 20:54, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 01:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable person →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a nit: it's not a non-notable person; it's a non-notable law firm, named after the non-notable person who heads it up. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Dorantes[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG with no significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage and fails NBOX.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:19, 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, TheMesquito^buzz 01:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non no table person. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:11, 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. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Jiang[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable academic. The article reads like a résumé and indeed the only cited source is the subject's résumé. He does not meet WP:GNG and though he has some awards I do not believe they are big enough, or that he has made sufficient impact, for him to qualify under WP:PROF. BethNaught (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it indeed reads like a resume and is cited to his resume. He's a Senior member of the IEEE but not a Fellow, so falls (just) short of meeting WP:PROF notability criteria. But he's obviously a possibility for Fellowship in the future. Not notable yet. Sionk (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there are some high cites on Google scholar for Ming Jiang, but I'm not sure that it is right person. Would the nominator like to come up with an h-index? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I think this is a reasonably accurate search. It at least seems to cut out all the other Ming Jiangs but I suspect it misses some of his publications. Anyway, it gets citation numbers (in some strange unsorted order) of 252, 226, 70, 46, 44, 43, 39, 29, 24, 24, ... and an h-index of 12. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That would be a reasonably good index for a pure mathematician. I am not so sure in computer mathematics. Too early? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Just to reiterate an obvious point: it's irrelevant what his h-index is if there are no independent reliable sources. We just cannot write a verifiable article without them, however much we might want to. This is of course particularly important for a living person. Deltahedron (talk) 06:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Comment~~ Chinese Wikipedia doesn't mention him. He has an entry on Baidu but that fails WP:RS. There is a lengthy quote from him at the Microsoft China Research website here but nothing else notable that jumps out from a Chinese Google search. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. So far I don't find the evidence for WP:PROF convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:27, 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, TheMesquito^buzz 01:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable person. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. -- 101.117.109.221 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 28 April 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. Even nom appears to have withdrawn their nomination. However, additional arguments - although wise and policy-based - are not strong enough to overcome the apparent consensus to keep the panda ₯’ 23:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, 2013[edit]

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

This article fails notability requirements, lacks references and appears to be original research. Also, the article seems to have been written for the sole purpose of bashing American law enforcement. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This list may be unsourced, but the sub-lists "List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States, [month] 2013" are referenced. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 01:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Looking at one of the months, November, it just reads as a news report of people who were killed. "Unidentified male" shot dead "Unnamed male" shot dead. All WP:ROUTINE local news coverage will list any of these events, and I see no real notability in compiling list after list of these articles. There is scope to have a stand-alone article on one individual, if their death had a long-lasting impact, but these are just POV-pushing lists. You don't need to record every single death in list form on WP. I know that none of the sub-pages are tagged for deletion, but this can be used as a test-case for establishing if these articles should be included here. Unless the nominator wishes to add them all to make a group nomination, of course. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think that the list pushes a POV. The top of each list specifically states that the list has no implication of wrong-doing and honestly looking through the list most of the killings look pretty reasonable to me. I would argue that this list is not WP:ROUTINE as anytime that a law enforcement agent kills someone it generates a flurry of news coverage. The items on the list might not be notable globally, but they are generally very locally notable and at least a few of them have led to long-standing coverage. If you take for example in the January list there is a mention of a guy named Saylor. His death has had long-standing repercussions in the community that I live in. Every few months he appears in a newspaper around here. People still talk about the incident and events are organised around preventing it from happening again. While I don't know for sure whether or not every killing by a law enforcement officer generates the same reaction, I imagine that most generate a reasonable amount of long-standing buzz. These events are relatively rare compared to other types of killings and I don't think they qualify as routine. I would argue that each of them is at least notable enough to merit a sentence or two on a list even if not notable enough to get an entire article each of their own. Zell Faze (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite the title states, this isn't actually a list of killing by law enforcement officers. All of the actual listed killings are in other articles. All this article contains is a table showing the number killed per month. The accuracy of this table is in question, as article lacks sources and has a "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness" tag. It seems like the table was made by the author adding up all of the killing with sources s/he could not, which is inherently inaccurate. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason that the table exists the way that it does is that it is meant to act as an index in order to access the other pages. Originally there was a single page per year, but as that page got to be too large it was split into pages for each individual month. You can see that discussion here. You are correct in how this table is created. Currently as people add items to the list the number is manually updated. (Personally, I would love to see a bot do this so that it would be more accurate, as people are indeed prone to miscounting.) I could add all of the sources to that table if you would like, but I think that would be WP:POINT as the each row in the list would have between 6 and 45 sources at a minimum. The sources for each of the items listed in the individual lists are on their pages. According to WP:CITE "sources are required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged". I don't really see the number of items in the list (which according to the table header is what the number in the table contains) being material that is likely to be challenged. I think that having the sources in their respective articles is enough. If it is decided that the sources either need to appear in this list or be removed entirely then I think it might be best to just remove the number and keep this article as a series of links to the respective lists for each month. Zell Faze (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Zell Faze. --do ncr am 00:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An unbiased source list of LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) related killings is a valuable item. [Date, Location (City, State), Officer Name, Deceased Name, Information Source] would be ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryCasch (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn/Keep In light of arguments put forward by Zell faze, I realize that my nomination was in error. I still recommend a clean-up of the entire killings by law enforcement section (seriously, we have 7 lists from months that haven't even happened yet and the table on this article should really highlight where the numbers came from), but deletion is not clean-up. Notability (or at least the point having this page) has been proven, so I no longer endorse page deletion. This would normally mean a speedy keep for this page, but someone besides me has voted delete. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm of the opinion that the months that haven't happened yet should probably be deleted. I'll raise a separate AfD for that though and link to it from here. I also agree that as a whole the lists could use cleanup. Zell Faze (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Other AfD filed. You can find it here if you'd like to comment. Zell Faze (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is original research and synthesis to state that 6 people were killed by law enforcement officers in December 2013, for instance, when the listing for each month is admittedly incomplete. This monthly numerical tally makes it look like far fewer were killed in December than in some other months.The numbers stated are inherently wrong and misleading. It is like having an article called "Number of churches in each US state," with a tally based on how many church articles there are for each state.(Not every killing or every church gets included in Wikipedia, so they should not be tallied). The coverage is uneven and is based on the interest of editors in adding killings they read about in media they see. If some reliable and authoritative source exists, such as the Justice Department, some news source, or some society watchdog group, which purports to be comprehensive, and they furnish such a tally, then it could be in an article. Edison (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article does not state though that 6 people were killed by law enforcement officers in December 2013. It says that the December 2013 article contains 6 entries. The difference between the two is quite profound. If there is issue with having the numbers there though they can be removed and the article retained. The coverage is in fact uneven and based on the editors noticing and being interested in adding items to the list, but that is how Wikipedia works in general. It is well known that in general coverage of topics on Wikipedia is uneven and based off of the interest of editors. This doesn't seem to be a problem in other topics and personally I don't think it is applicable here. Lists on Wikipedia don't need to be comprehensive either. The fact that the Template:Dynamic list, which is at the top of each article in the series, even exists is testament to that. Zell Faze (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The fact that the December list has 6 items in it is certainly not notable itself and is not something that needs to be published in a secondary Wikipedia article. We do not generally go around writing articles in mainspace about other Wikipedia articles, and it is inappropriate to have a list which merely totals up items of some sort in other articles, when there has been no coverage in independent and reliable sources of how many such killings Wikipedia editors have added for various months. If editors lose interest in the subject, then it will look like such killings have decreased, so far as the general reader is concerned. If we had a list by year which did the same thing this one does for months of 2013, per List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States prior to 2009 it would show none for 1983 through 1989, then 2 in 1990. It would show only ONE for the entire 19th century, and NONE for the 18th century., which would also be quite misleading.If that would be unencyclopedic, then this numerical tally is unencyclopedo\ic. Please DO take out the deceptive and unencyclopedic numbers of deaths per month from this listing. It is misleading synthesis. There is a clear implication, to the typical reader, that the number in this article is representative of the number of killings in each month. If you want a list of how many entries are in some articles, then add it as a subpage for the relevant project, for the information of project members. It is too self-referential and naval gazing for main space. Do we have any other lists which merely list how many entries have been put in some set of articles? They should also be examined carefully if they exist. If the numbers are removed, is there anything left then, other than the fact that there are 12 distinct months in a year? Let the listings for each month or by year stand on their own merits. Edison (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - notable? yes. WP:SOAP? maybe. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN. The topic of this list is not inherently POV despite suggestions to the contrary. See the failed AfD for the parent list for more details. James500 (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, as has been pointed out above, the list topic doesn't have inherent POV, although it will have to be watched to make sure that none creeps in. The lack of sources here in this list of articles doesn't strike me as particularly problematic, in much the same way that a lack of sources on a disambig page is acceptable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:28, 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 Snow delete per WP:SNOW. This is clearly original research, which we do not publish. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloned Dinosaurs and Their Ability to Survive on Earth in the 21st Century[edit]

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

A so-called "research paper", it is either WP:NOT#OR or WP:NOTESSAY ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:52, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator points out, this article openly claims to be a research paper, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. This bears little resemblance to an encyclopedia article, and is advancing an argument, rather than covering a notable topic in a neutral fashion. I made minor formatting changes to make it easier to evaluate the article, which has many other serious problems I won't bother to list or correct. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it stands is indisputably WP:OR. The remaining question is whether the topic is itself notable, that is whether there are sources that discuss if dinosaurs could survive today and which would allow a non-OR article to be written. There are some popular science sources[23][24][25] and forums/blogs/etc[26][27][28][29][30], but that's not enough. It would probably be better to discuss it in an article on hypothetical dinosaur cloning, which is a notable topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly a WP:OR essay. I agree with Colapeninsula that dinosaur cloning would be notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we were able to clone dinosaurs then it would be noteworthy, as we cant its opinion and future science that doestn contribute to anything taht should be on here Amortias (T)(C) 18:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Probably don't need another, but per all of the OR-related reasons above: delete. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SNOW, would someone like to do the honours here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 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 no consensus. SOME of these articles should undergo individual AFD discussions. The discussion does not clearly distinguish between those that should be kept, and those that should be deleted - and arguably, there's a clear mixture. the panda ₯’ 23:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Lovers[edit]

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

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

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

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

These all fail both WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. No significant coverage from any reliable third-party sources independent of the album. Should be redirected to Prism (Katy Perry album) or deleted. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator should have pointed out that here we have three articles that were 'Good Articles' until the nom delisted them and another that was previously kept at AfD in January. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake for not doing so. "Choose Your Battles" had previously been closed as a "no consensus", but is being renominated for deletion since all the "keep" votes were WP:ILIKEIT, WP:LOSE, and WP:MERCY, which are all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The other three were delisted from GA as they were too limited in their coverage, particularly in commercial aspects. Coverage from album reviews doesn't count as notable coverage, and neither does input from those affiliated with the songs' creation. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: To be honest, my previous comments have been partial on the subject (WP:ILIKEIT) and a bit on the WP:MERCY side as well, as I did most work on these pages. With that being said, I have read the notability guidelines for songs again and they clearly point out that this article shouldn't be here.

"Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." → Unless (at least two or three) sources that clearly talk about the song and not just as part of the album are added to this article, the article has to be redirected.
"Remember that while AfD may look like a voting process, it does not operate like one. Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself" → Regardless of the amount of "keeps" or "redirects/deletes", the strength of the evidence for notability is taken in consideration far more than just the votes.
Charts don't prove notability, to be honest. The last time this AfD was opened, Aaron (Calvin999), gave the example of "Lovebird" for only having charted in one country, just like this track. But far more sources are on that article: I can count at least nine solely regarding the song or something related to it (performances, music videos, etc...).
What information is here that can't be included in Prism? I'm actually working on the Composition section of the album right now, and after reading Love. Angel. Music. Baby., maybe some critical feedback (limited though) to each song can be written on Prism itself.

Remember that I was the one that expanded the articles and contributed substantially to them (not saying that Giacobbe and XXSNUGGUMSXX didn't contribute as well) but it's just so that people don't think I'm trying to wreck other people's works. prism^△ 14:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Composition info and critics' views can definitely be included in the Prism article, though yes it shouldn't go into excessive detail. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, GNG. They are fine as Wikipedia articles, and they provide details that an album article would not offer.. They should be allowed to exist, and even grow, and maybe even be reach Good article status one day. Sometimes we are too quick to zap articles. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, the reliable third-party sources that mention them don't give enough coverage to meet GNG. They only give short descriptions of the tracks. "They are fine as Wikipedia articles" is essentially an WP:ILIKEIT argument, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Same with WP:VALINFO ("they provide details that an album article would not offer"). Also, "they should be allowed to grow" is essentially an "I need more time to work on it" argument, which falls under the WP:MERCY section of arguments to avoid. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (especially Legendary Lovers). Simply put, they do pass WP:GNG. There are a few of the references that only mention the songs in passing, but there are also others, like this one, that mention the songs in more detail, which covers the "Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." criteria. A review doesn't have to have its complete focus on a single song. I completely agree with Another Believer above; there are way too many users who have a deletionist attitude towards articles. P.S. I will not be replying to anyone who feels the need to chime in on someone else's !vote in an effort to change their mind; it's not gonna happen. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you won't reply, Another Believer's vote consisted of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:MERCY, and WP:VALINFO, which are all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. These actually do not pass WP:GNG because the every reliable third-party source that talks about them (self-description from those affiliated with creation does not count as notable coverage) only discusses them briefly. One paragraph alone isn't exactly "significant coverage". Even if they did discuss them in more than just a paragraph each, and while song doesn't have to be sole focus, you've overlooked how WP:NSONGS states Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last point is the only thing I will respond to. It says that in the context of notability. And right after that, it clearly states: "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." There is clearly enough content on the articles for them to exist. In deleting these articles you would lose the information, there is no way any of this information would be merged into the album article. In additiona, it's most likely than one or more of these songs will eventually become singles (just like "Birthday" was), so more information will eventually become available. A year from now I might feel differently, but for now, I feel that the articles can continue to grow. — Status (talk · contribs) 03:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOSE and WP:VALINFO ("In deleting these articles you would lose the information") are both arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Expanding the article beyond a stub also doesn't make up lack of notability. WP:NSONGS indicates that song articles need to have enough information to expand beyond a stub AND have more than just brief coverage independent of their parent album ("a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria"). "One or more of these songs will eventually become singles" is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Essentially, looks like a case of WP:MASK. "I feel that the articles can continue to grow" is essentially a WP:MERCY argument, and WP:MERCY is also an argument to avoid. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can list all the essays you want, it's not going to change anything. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONLYESSAY is also an argument to avoid, whether you change your mind or not. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see where that was my reasoning for the article to be kept? The closing admin is the one who determines whether or not my !vote has a legitimate reason or not, not you (I'm sure you will be able to find an essay for that statement as well), so I don't understand why you feel the need to try to undermine another user's opinion that differs from your own. That is all. — Status (talk · contribs) 04:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't so much "undermining" as it is pointing out when arguments made are ones to avoid or when arguments use essays/guidelines/policies incorrectly. Arguments listed here are regarded as weak arguments. It is true that songs do not have to be the sole subject of articles, and it is also true that I alone don't determine legitimacy, but the coverage available is too limited per WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS (one paragraph isn't regarded as "significant coverage"). I'm also sorry if you felt undermined, though it more than anything is else my frustration with guidelines/policies being misused/disregarded. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason he might be upset is that you have been around long enough to know that you are mispresenting policy and guidelines in your argument. Nothing about the sentence you quoted justifies articles about non-notable things, that sentence is an argument for not creating articles about notable things. If you are going to argue for retention, it would be nice if you would actually make your arguments in the context of the policies as written.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:The difficulty with the argument put forth by Status is that ""Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."" doesn't mean anything like what he is using it to justify. It doesn't say "regardless of whether it's notable, we should cover it if we can write a great big article", it says "don't write trivially small articles, even if the topic is technically notable."

In this particular case, these are precisely the kind of articles that WP:NSONGS was written to prevent. There isn't coverage of these songs outside of the context of the albums. Thus, the songs do not meet the WP:GNG: we have always given deference to the subject specific guidelines in terms of how to interpret "significant coverage". In this case, WP:NSONGS is quite explicit: "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." All of the sources in these articles are in the context of album reviews: independent articles should not exist.—Kww(talk) 14:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Prism (Katy Perry album), or selectively merge if needed. As users Prism and Kww note, coverage of these songs appears limited to their placement on the album. Insufficient evidence, in my view, of independent notability or significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 16:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect all to Prism (Katy Perry album) – I've already gone about this in a previous AFD, and my general stance remains unchanged. A couple of chart positions and an article body generally cobbled together from pieces of selected Prism album reviews and the like are insufficient in determining notability. I can see these articles existing in summarized form as short sections in the "Composition" section of the parent Prism article, but for now I don't think there's enough significant coverage outside of said album reviews to warrant stand-alone song articles. Holiday56 (talk) 16:43, 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.