Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 September	6 September >

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 keep Wikicology (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Michael S. Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. This person is a beekeeper in Chicago. The references cited interview him because he does this very unique thing in the middle of an urban area, but he is not notable, his accomplishments seem not notable, and writing for "Thing Magazine" is equally not notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think the unique thing that he does has gotten sufficient press to pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. But just because he has a unique hobby, and the press likes to write about his unique hobby, doesn't make HIM notable. Where he went to school, and the entire non-notable aspects of his life outside of beekeeping are documented. But the only truly "notable" aspect of his life is his hobby, which thousands of other non-notable people also do, though not in urban areas. No offense to this guy, and he sounds like a decent person, but in strict Wiki-speak, HE is entirely non-notable. Maybe this info could be added to a beekeeping article? Magnolia677 (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure that making judgements based on the kind of work the subject does is really helpful here. Even if it's a hobby and thousands of other people do it is not really relevant to his notability; that his work and biographical details have been covered in notable sources including the Chicago Tribune, the Times of Northwest Indiana (second-largest newspaper in Indiana), along with some coverage in a handful of lesser publications ([1], [2], [3]) is much more important. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another article from the Tribune for an interview with the subject: [4]. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And these additional articles from the Chicago Reader with substantial coverage of Thompson: [5] [6] I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the arguments presented by I, JethroBT for notability, but I also think the article can and should be improved.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an infobox along with some more bits of information to the article along with two new references. Also a Wikilink to urban beekeeping. I will try to further improve it, as in my view, it's still weak but should not be deleted.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added three more sources and it is pretty clear he satisfies WP:GNG. I am One of Many (talk) 05:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 SOCATA TBM crash[edit]

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

Tragic but not notable general aviation accident. Nobody notable on board. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. ...William 23:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 00:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions....William 00:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions....William 00:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions ...William 00:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article ought to be left intact as its reference list obviously gives reliable sources, such as BBC and Reuters. The article itself is largely accurate and supported by documentation, and the significance of the event lies beyond its apparent factual content. It is an example of a lost presumed-to-be tracked flight in modern times, much like Flight 19 almost 70 years later.
Agree, not notable. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Devil's advocate here. Military aircraft intercepted the plane before it crashed, which doesn't happen often. That might make it notable. Illegitimate Barrister 02:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the 1999 South Dakota Learjet crash which took Payne Stewart it's very rare for a disabled plane to travel a long distance like this, and the loss of a major building developer in Rochester, New York nulls the 'nobody notable' argument. It's going to be noted how this happened once the wreckage is recovered and why and this nomination is premature. Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it does not 'null the nobody-notable argument'. The person is not Wikinotable and, therefore, does not meet the requirements. The Stewart-esque flight does not create a notability case either - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the presumption has to be against notability for general aviation accidents like this. (Even if someone notable was on board, the accident probably belongs in the article of the notable person, not as an independent article.) Some accidents might be an exception to this presumption, but it is too soon to judge whether this will be one of the exceptions. (Commercial aviation accidents, especially those with mass fatalities, the opposite presumption applies; both because of the number of fatalities, and also because of the greater potential for commercial or regulatory impacts.) SJK (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that's not the case: if somebody Wikinotable is on board, the accident, itself, is considered notable, by WP:CONSENSUS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An accident with a regretfully common cause (cabin depressurisation is not rare); no Wikinotable people involved; not a scheduled flight. May be worthy of mention in the TBM900 article at some point, but doesn't come close to the standard for a standalone article - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small plane crashes, and cabin depressurizations for that matter, occur very often. This, along with the minimal casualty count justifies the deletion of this article. It is all too easy to fall into believing that something is notable when there is extensive short term coverage of the event. Wikipedia:Notability (events) explains this well. — Harpsichord246 (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The TBM 900 is a new entry in a rapidly growing category of pressurized single engine aircraft. Accidental depressurization during cruise is an important new class of accident. There may be an important lesson for private pilots here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.212.103.44 (talk)

TBM-900 is merely a variant of the TBM-700, in fact it is the TBM-700N re-designated. Not new at all seeing as the first flight was in 1983--Petebutt (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- nn accident, hypoxia not proven as NTSB have only just begun their investigation. FWIW, the Payne Stewart Learjet crash would have been nn had he not been on board. Mjroots (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Complex enough case - probably depressurization, loss of contact, overflight of Cuba, Jamaican angle. And besides, WP:Wikipedia is not paper G0T0 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No One Notable On Board! Oh my goodness, I thought we were all "Notable"! This case is going to be far reaching. Not only for the unusual circumstances, but that the aircraft in question was "BRAND NEW" - 2014 Model. Unless pilot error is found, this could be a game changer for the manufacture of these type of aircraft. And I personally sought Wikipedia out for information on this exact accident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.194.234 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SOCATA TBM#Accidents and incidents. I agree it's non-notable, but since a valid redirect target exists, why not? Ansh666 00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Re-direct - not notable general aviation accident. At best a paragraph or entry in the aircraft article / Accidents of 2014 article.--Petebutt (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this accident is very important because of the circumstances in which was happened. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 06:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The media is paying close attention to the case and it is somewhat mysterious at this moment. --The Count of Tuscany (TALK) 07:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For now, at least. It meets WP:GNG in having significant media coverage in reliable sources, and is likely to be continuing coverage as there are many unanswered questions about the circumstances of crash, especially the apparently-denied request to descend to a lower altitude. If it should prove to be non-notable once the investigation has finished, unlikely though that seems at this time, then it can be merged to the aircraft article. - BilCat (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SOCATA TBM#Accidents and incidents. Better handled on the plane article. I sufficiently notable for its own article but notable in the context of the plane itself. E x nihil ^(talk) 14:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The mysteriousness of this incident is what sets this apart from other small plane crashes. SOXROX (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable general aviation accident. --Nockayoub (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into SOCATA TBM#Accidents and incidents. Media coverage is due to WP:RECENTISM, I don't think the accident will have historical significance 10-20 years later. Brandmeister^talk 12:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SOCATA TBM#Accidents and incidents (where it was described immediately after the story started to receive coverage). At this time, not so notable (and not enough is known) as to require its own article. The existence of mystery is not sufficient to establish notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident is notable for its unusual circumstances, rather than for its casualty count or any physical damage/destruction inflicted. Another disappearance of an aircraft which was tracked and its location presumed to be known. The failure to locate the wreckage as of today, 8 September, places this incident in the "curious" category at the very least, if not in the "extremely unusual" one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yavorpenchev (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but still NN--Petebutt (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This incident received much news focus, and this kind of incident, with hypoxia causing a plane to be out of control, is unusual enough to be noteworthy. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's pretty clear now that this plane crash has become notable with the continued in-depth coverage. I added about four recent sources and it is receiving sustained coverage. I am One of Many (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Alipour Rahmati[edit]

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

Think he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Could be wrong, but references, seem to point to this.

This is his duties:

Member of Orumieh Intelligence Unit, responsible for managing staff, Chief city of Maku, West Azarbaijan Governor's Deputy General Manager and General Manager of Security Police.

scope_creep talk  22:15 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, somehow you missed the part that he's an elected member of a national legislature, and thus passes WP:POLITICIAN without any doubt. --Soman (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You will need to show some evidence that he is elected. I couldn't find any. At the moment, the article looks like he's is an senior official running the police service, which is not notable. scope_creep talk 10:43 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Have you actually checked the cited references? Try this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the cited references clearly confirm that he is a member of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another ill-considered nomination from this nom, who's racking up a lot of bad AfDs in recent days -- this is the sixth I've found, so far. Obvious pass on WP:POLITICIAN. Ravenswing 10:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the Iranian parliament seems to be a rubber stamp, our policies and consensus leads us to keep all such articles. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:POLITICIAN this sources states that he is a member of the Iranian Majlis or Parliament .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the editors above that he passes WP:POLITICIAN. I am One of Many (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete via A7. Huon (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Spiritual Foundation[edit]

The article, World Spiritual Foundation, created by User_talk:Lordmehershivpuri is essentially a mirror of a website here. The only references are to that website. No indication is given of what kind of legal entity this is, such as Trust, Corporation, etc. The editor who created the page, Lordmehershivpuri (the name of the company plus its town) has created the same article in the past, along with articles about its said-founder, both of which were found to not be notable. Looking on the internet only lands on the website, one blog, and YouTube pages. There are no secondary sources for its notability. Tajudin69 (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my Nomination for Deletion: On advice (see my talk page) I am withdrawing my request for AfD, and will go another route.Tajudin69 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Hussain[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Simply not notable. Group hospital administrator and owner of said hospitals, but not notable. Article reads like an advertisement. Seems to be adviser in Pakistan government for oil and gas, but also on that fails WP:POLITICIAN. scope_creep talk 21:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No elected post as politician nor any major, notable corporate function. NN. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN, as he served as Senator (member of national legislature), see http://tribune.com.pk/story/455735/dual-nationality-dr-asim-hussain-resigns-from-senate/ , http://www.senate.gov.pk/en/profile.php?uid=132 . "Dr Asim Hussain" gets 365,000 google hits, most of which all the first result pages relate to him. Plenty of coverage in key national English-language media like Nation and GeoTV. If we would search in Urdu and Sindhi as well, we'd encounter even more... The article clearly needs a clean-up, but at the same time this is a clear-cut case were an AfD could have been avoided by 3-4 minute research (WP:BEFORE). --Soman (talk) 09:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Vote I change my vote to KEEP. Frankly at first I thought there was a name resemblance only, but after looking at the pictures I understand we are only facing an article which is not up-to-date. Sorry. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a member of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another ill-considered nomination from this nom, who's racking up a lot of bad AfDs in recent days. I strongly suggest that the nom review and take to heart WP:BEFORE. From a nom who's been making AfD nominations for nine years, this level of carelessness is inexcusable. Ravenswing 10:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up some cruft. Keep. Bearian (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly Passes WP:POLITICIAN was a member Senate of Pakistan through there was questions on his eligibility and he resigned over his Dual citizenship as he also held Canadian citizenship.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been cleaned us some and meets WP:POLITICIAN. I am One of Many (talk) 05:52, 12 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most watched Disney Channel shows[edit]

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

Article which was rejected at wp:afc reason:no sources. Seems to be encyclopedic though. It's useful information. scope_creep 21:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete - A type of list which doesn't need it's own article. You could merge the info to the Disney Channel page but the redirect should not be kept. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has not encyclopedia importance. And has a trivial writing style. Fevrret (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources and absurd WP:MADEUP numbers (no, 470 million people didn't watch a Miley/Jonas crossover of Hannah Montana, considering that's much more than the population of the US and Canada). At that, article creator was blocked and is probably one of many 'fantasy TV vandal' socks. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can see Hannah Montana abroad, here in the UK and Europe, where the kids love her. So I think that is possibly an aggregate figure covering the world. Where the figures came from, however, is another matter. If they were sources, it might be worth keeping, or the info merged into the appropriate article. I couldn't find any figures regarding it, and I was all over the shop. scope_creep talk 15:48 6 September 2014 (UTC

Comment No, they're complete nonsense figures. The top episode of HM got only ten million viewers in the United States, so it's doubtful they managed to get 460 million viewers in the rest of the world, and 210 million for a basic sitcom like The Suite Life would have given the cast more than Friends/Big Bang Theory money for a figure like that alone. Look at the article history (which somehow started as a 'top iTunes app store downloads' article) and its bounce from AFC to article space; this was someone trying to either hoax us or not understanding what we are. Nate • (chatter) 15:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Now I see what the intention was; this edit made it seem like they were adding together cumulative viewership for each of the series, so throughout its run HM had 470 million viewers. Still though, we can't use CV as a metric since that's duplicating each viewer and each of the shows had different episode runs, making side-by-side comparisons impossible without some kind of wide margin of error. Nate • (chatter) 15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does look like largely WP:OR. Adding number from each series is misleading since no doubt many of the same people watched it through the different series. I am One of Many (talk) 05:57, 12 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Courthouse, Tacna[edit]

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

This completely unsourced article documents something of only local interest. If the Tacna courthouse is worth documenting, it could be better done in the article on Tacna. ubiquity (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article clearly states that it the seat of an agreement of national importance. It now has res, ibox, cats etc Victuallers (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can understand the nom's dislike for this article in the state during the start of AfD [7], but AfDing of an article that claims such historic significance in only about an hour is not the best way of dealing with such articles.. The historic location where the treaty to transfer a region from one country to another was finalized has great interest to not only both entire nations, but to historians in general. I liken this to Campo de Cahuenga where the Treaty of Cahuenga was signed. Just as historic, but sources are much more easily available to English WP editors.--Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve it. There's plenty of info, in addition to what has been done above, to establish notaiblity StarM 03:55, 10 September 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 14:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North East Chinese Basketball League[edit]

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

The "history" section has almost nothing to do with the topic. Sentences like "special thanks to..." read more like an official site than an encyclopaedia. But even if these problems are taken care of, notability is still in question, #1 it is an orphan, #2 none of the references works any more, and even if they did, are not independent, secondary sources. This is primarily an ethnic intramural league played mostly by US graduate students from China (as can be seen from its links) and not a single notable athlete that could be even considered semi-pro, and in my opinion fails WP:NSPORTS. Timmyshin (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The applicable notability guideline for sports clubs, teams and organization is not WP:NSPORTS; it is WP:ORG. According to NSPORTS: "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." WP:ORG is very similar, if not identical, to the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable amateur basketball league, apparently composed of Chinese and Chinese-American students in the northeast United States. My Google search reveals 45 results, the majority of which are Wikipedia mirror articles (never a good sign), with a healthy dose of Linked In, Facebook and blog pages. In addition to obvious notability issues, the article has numerous other problems. Bottom line: there is insufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources per the specific notability guideline of WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dirtlawyer1. Fails GNG and fails notability as a club. Jrcla2 (talk) 12:13, 10 September 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 14:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleyaman[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Ha ha ironic, I just put up a AFD on a singer for this band saying a redirect or a merge be the best. Anyway since I'm not a expert in dark music, I'm guessing a merge with those 2 for now. But it does sound like a Borderline delete. Wgolf (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 August 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 20:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above - Fails MUSICBIO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above clearly Fails WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:57, 11 September 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. Sandstein 10:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salute picture[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2009, is this a real, notable term? A Google search finds one link to the urban dictionary Gbawden (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 28 August 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, Sandstein 19:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references and I found nothing on Google. Further, even if valid, this would be a definition that belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.--Rpclod (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nom and Rpclod. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - If this is legit then it should be at Wiktionary. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage, does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Potential transfer (and maybe soft redirect) to Wiktionary. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G11 & G12) by Jimfbleak. (Despite voting obviously the results gonna be the same. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arshifa Khan[edit]

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

Copy paste from link: www.india-forums.com/tellybuzz/buzzin-hot/16076-arshifa-khan-as-jhunjhun-in-jeannie-aur-juju.htm ~Mohammad Hossain~ 18:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for AfD for Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G12._Unambiguous_copyright_infringement -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Soooo many reasons. Copyright, advertisement, bio of a living person without any sources... ubiquity (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per G12 per above - Copied from the website word-for-word. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:15, 5 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cai Baixi[edit]

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

Biography of non-notable person. Promotional tone. Originally written by user "Choi.pak.hei" leading me to suspect he wrote this article about himself. Article was WP:PRODed in the past due to not having any references but this was removed after references were added. Gccwang (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication of notability in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously fails WP:GNG. Maybe even Speedy Delete A7. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in the article and needs better sources to meet GNG. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:42, 10 September 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 14:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Kneepkens[edit]

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

Florist with no evidence of WP:BIO or WP:GNG notability. None of the awards listed appear to be notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the above. Also the sources seem to be related to the subject, not independent. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:34, 7 September 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 CIA activities in Pakistan. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 CIA Station Chief removal in Pakistan[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012. This is a case of WP:NOTNEWS, don;t see any lasting notability Gbawden (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The case with the CIA chiefs in Pakistan is relevant, but I think the 2010 removal doesn't need an article of its own. There is still a court case going up to this day against the CIA chiefs in Pakistan and it makes headlines every now and then [8]. I would prefer a general article on the Pakistan CIA chiefs, but since there is none, I suggest merging this particular text into Drone attacks in Pakistan, together with a single sentence on the source I provided above, in a new short header for that page "Criminal cases against CIA station chiefs". Or if someone has time, update it into a more complete seperate article, with a different name that covers the entire topic. If necessary I can help with a merge if asked. -- Taketa (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 02:08, 4 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:WITHIN, "Don't create a standalone article on a topic that can be described briefly in another article". I think this is a good example. I recommend merging into and redirecting to CIA activities in Pakistan. This is fairly consistent with Taketa's recommendation.--Rpclod (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CIA activities in Pakistan. The topic of the article is better covered within the context of the CIA Activities in Pakistan article. As for the sources, everything in the article and everything I was able to find through Google searches were news articles which were all released around the same day. This seems to be a pretty clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CIA activities in Pakistan per Rpclod and Spirit of Eagle. The article is quite short, it does not look like anything significant will ever be added, and fits perfectly in the new target article in its own section. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CIA activities in Pakistan. per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:58, 10 September 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. Noting that this is a BLP article, and that there has been substantial and obvious socking and/or meatpuppeting to inflate the "Keep" side of the argument. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lindauer[edit]

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

This BLP subject is notable only for her arrest. While it attracted some attention in RS, it is still just a BLP1E. There are some issues with the article's editing history that suggest the subject or someone close to the subject may be editing the article to push a different narrative than how the article currently reads. Since it is "one event" I suggest we IAR and delete Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to comment on the general notability of Susan Lindauer, this use of the Patriot Act certainly is notable and so if it is decided to delete this article I'd like to suggest the full contents be included in the Patriot Act article which currently references it under "Controversies". While understanding that there is a heated debate over the facts and that her notability or otherwise is inextricable from this debate, I certainly found it interesting and informative. Right-Wing Hippy (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That might solve things, however I'm afraid we would have the same sort of editor delirium occurring at that article as we have at this one; that Lindauer was working undercover for the USGOVT as an agent for peace. Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article for the Patriot Act, then did some research on Lindauer. I cannot find anything in any reliable third-party source that talks about her arrest in the context of the Patriot Act. The charges she faced had nothing to do with the Patriot Act, and the most serious charge was for working as an unregistered lobbyist. Most of her court case focused on her fitness to stand trial. All standard stuff. There is no Patriot Act component verified by a reliable source, so including her in the Patriot Act article is not appropriate. SpringandFall (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there is a Patriot Act component - but you need to know a bit about terror-law to find it. She was charged with Title 18 Section 2332d, financial actions related to terrorism, and the Patriot Act turned these ancilliary offenses into inchoate offenses, i.e. only the 'potential' for the crime to be committed needs to exist. This is how the Patriot Act affected her case. She was charged with 'pre-crime' à la Minority Report (movie), the movie.QualityFeet (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Deletion per WP:BLP1E requires that three specified conditions be met. In this instance, #2 is not met. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. #2 is quite satisfied. Lindauer, is extremely likely to remain a low profile individual. Considering the circumstances, any serious source will be unlikely to give her any coverage. Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - i dont see significant coverage outside of the arrest incident and there is no indication that the individual is likely ever to be taken more seriously on their claims in the future than they have been to date. and if this were relevant aspect of the Patriot act there would be significant coverage and analysis of it - which there aint. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree. There is a substantial following from her on You Tube and in blogs and therefore on many FaceBook posts. therefore many people are looking for a complete story and background on Ms Landauer. This is one of the core services of Wikipedia. If this is removed then people can not find this information. — Pursuing Truth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

thats rather circular reasoning: that the article needs to be kept so that some non reliable blogosphere conspiracy theorist can find information to keep churning until their conspiracy theory is noticed and covered by reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the conditions for deletion have been met. I see no convincing evidence that Lindauer was a CIA asset other than her own self-published assertions. There is no objective independent source or objective evidence that supports this narrative, and I think there would need to be to keep this article, or even to discuss the subject under the Patriot Act. I also agree with statements others have made that it appears there are some biased editors involved, possibly the subject herself. SpringandFall (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even tho no one seems to be able to find proof of her claims, well known charlatans or liars are still part of Wikipedia. As someone said, the veracity of her claim doesn't really matter that much in this case. 79.136.64.95 (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — 79.136.64.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

except that the point of the matter is that she isn't among the "well known charlatans" - as the lack of coverage is evidence. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ it is true. If she is a charlatan then Wikipedia is a valuable resource to expose her. If the editing seems suspect then it should be proven. I for one would look to add more information if I find it that supports her assertions. CIA by its very nature clearly clandestine. Prooving a relationship is not easy. Particularly if what she is claiming is accurate then it would be even more clear that any link to CIA would removed to maintain the narrative that she is just a nut case. Removing the wikipedia listing will simple fortify the concept that she is telling the truth. Is this not obvious? — SpringandFall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I struck the "keep" as this editor voted twice in the same edit. I left the rationale unedited.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- also note that Wikipedia is not here to "expose charlatans". In fact doing so is strictly prohibited WP:ATTACK / BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashutosh4422 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC) — ashutush442 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And your reason? .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisted again as most votes here are SPA's.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Other than irrelevant inherited "notability", this notability appears to relate one event - the subject's trial. All references relate to her trial. The trial itself is not sufficiently notable to warrant the independent article.--Rpclod (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as it meets all the notes outlined in WP:BLP1E. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Susan Lindauer arrest. This is more properly an event concerning a living person, not a biography. If the subject arguably fails BLP1E, the 1E certainly meets GNG and IMHO has demonstrated it passes all criteria for WP:EVENT. Sources presented clearly demonstrate meeting GEOSCOPE, DIVERSE, PERSISTENCE, and INDEPTH. A reasonable case could be met that the event meets EFFECT, given the legal sources already applied to the page. BusterD (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question First, the socking/SPAing certainly is not helping either case on this process page. Second, there is a brief discussion on the nominator's talk page which seems to indicate there's a valid OTRS request from the subject to delete this pagespace. If true, why wasn't that concern presented during nomination? BusterD (talk) 13:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea if there was an OTRS request filed. I think the conversation you are referring too suggested the subject could request OTRS.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 15:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. BusterD (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability as a person. Also smells of WP:promo for her book. 1292simon (talk) 11:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E fits (and says we "should generally avoid having an article"), although I could see a slight argument that point #2 doesn't 100% fit. However, we have WP:PERP which is an exact fit. The subject of the BLP was not convicted (and will not be), the victim is not a notable figure (as in person(s)), nothing all that unusual about motivation (alleged mental illness), and it has certainly not met "historic significance [as] indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". Tgeairn (talk) 03:58, 18 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Star Trek[edit]

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

This fictional timeline appears to be almost entirely original research. It is largely an attempt to use dates stated during various episodes of the TV show to construct a fictional timeline. Little notability either as this topic has not, to my knowledge, been covered by any sources outside of Star Trek products. Daniel (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable being documented in sources such as:

A Timeline of Stardates
Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future
Star Trek Fiction Timeline
Timeline of Star Trek Production
The Star Trek Annotated Timeline

Andrew (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to have enough independent third party sources to be GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But clean up drastically. It does meet notability standards but we don't need to go into the gritty details. A broad picture of how the time line between the major shows, and key events that define the universe, but we should no way try to be reconciling the inconsistencies of the time line. --MASEM (t) 03:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs work, but it is a Keep - there are WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above passes WP:GNG and is well sourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:05, 11 September 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. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Towfique Ahmed[edit]

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

BLP with little to no indication that subject meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Provided references thus far are a couple of YouTube videos and a video interview in Bengali. --Finngall ^talk 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 17:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:18, 29 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NMUSIC WP:GNG WP:RS --Jersey92 (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While there is a passing mention of him in a single news article in English, it does not appear he passes MUSICBIO. Delete for now. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 10 September 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HydroGeoSphere[edit]

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

No evidence of any special notability and none claimed. Lacks any significant sources and appears to be just another modelling tool. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HydroGeoSphere is an extremely important numerical model used by the hydrology community. It has a long set of publications http://www.aquanty.com/publication/ and is the current state-of-the-art numerical model. HGS started in 2000 and is still being developed by several research teams. I will add more citations in the upcoming week Jhdavison Jhdavison (talk) 23:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's well known in the research community, well-referenced in academic literature, and used throughout the world. +mt 03:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google book search gives 109 results and Google scholar gives it 757. Are there any textbooks or scientific publications on university websites(other than those that created it) that mention it? Dream Focus 06:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some articles:

Brunner, Philip; Simmons, Craig T. (2012). "HydroGeoSphere: A Fully Integrated, Physically Based Hydrological Model". Groundwater. 50 (2): 170–176. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2011.00882.x.
Cornelissen, Thomas; Diekkrüger, Bernd; Bogena, Heye (2013). "Using HydroGeoSphere in a Forested Catchment: How does Spatial Resolution Influence the Simulation of Spatio-temporal Soil Moisture Variability?". Procedia Environmental Sciences. 19: 198–207. doi:10.1016/j.proenv.2013.06.022.

Also there are additional citations to FRAC3DVS, which is the same software before being renamed (and oddly not mentioned in the article).+mt 00:25, 5 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear consensus and evidence of notability. Why was this relisted? ~KvnG 22:47, 11 September 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. This would be easy to close as "no consensus"; but on careful review of the opinions here, I think the advocates of deletion have the more policy-compliant arguments. The single bit of independet coverage adduced by the keep proponents—the 2012 article in GizMag—is not, by itself, enough to put the article over the notability hump. Deor (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E(38) boson[edit]

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

Non-notable particle, where most of the "publications" are really arxiv preprints by a small group of people, which have been refuted by the COMPASS collaboration (arXiv:1204.2349) as generally shoddy science (see also http://www.science20.com/quantum_diaries_survivor/my_take_wouldbe_particle_38_mev-93256). Some arxiv preprints were even withdrawn from the arxiv (arXiv:1208.3829). The article ontains utterly sensationalistic nonsense, like suggestion that this could be the Higgs. Even in 2012, this would have been laughable. It's even more laughable now. The alledged discovery has had some coverage in press, but that's mostly ZOMG NEW PARTICLE MAYBE IT'S THE HIGGS!? kind of coverage, more than anything actually establishing notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep and edit to show the status. If it has general press coverage, it's notable. People will see it, and come hereto find objective information. DGG ( talk ) 01:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of things with general press coverage. This is far removed from actually notable failures (e.h. Oops-Leon, Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly, etc...), pushed by only a very small group of people, most of whom retracted it except the "discoverers". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and... nominator, who states that it had actual coverage in press. It thus passes WP:GNG. There's lots of things with general press coverage. - Yeah. And these things are notable per our policies and guidelines.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ONEEVENT/WP:LASTING/WP:DEPTH/WP:PERSISTENCE etc... Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's see them:

WP:ONEEVENT is about people. Is the E(38) boson a person?
WP:LASTING is about events. The E(38) boson is an (hypothetical) object, not an event.
WP:DEPTH again, is about events. But in any case, there is plenty of deep coverage, from the arXiv preprints to articles on media online.
WP:PERSISTENCE is again about events, but coverage of this lasted for a good part of 2012, so persistence is met.

So, no issues with any of these policies here.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an object, it's a blip on a data curve that some people that didn't do proper analysis thought was something, but doesn't actually exist. The arxiv preprints are nothing but WP:PRIMARY sources from the "discoverers", and the "media" coverage is by far and large media outlets bringing out the sensationalism machine because the discoverers made some bunk claims about it being the Higgs, all clustered in 2 or 3 weeks following "discovery", and even there you have to look really hard to find them. Googling E38 boson yields nearly zero results except this article and mirrors thereof, and the articles of van Beveren & Rupp. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A boson -imaginary or not, real or not- is an object. The policies you cited above do not apply to objects, not even imaginary ones. They apply to people and events. To judge why media do report about this thing is not our business: our business is only to duly note that they did, and write an article accordingly. If it's a blip on a data curve that some people that didn't do proper analysis thought was something, but doesn't actually exist. -then by all means let's write that in the article. We have articles on several notable hoaxes and false discoveries, and this is probably another one. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe discovery seems not established/controversial still, in the technical world; excuse the pun, the result is still too lightweight. The article could easily be merged into another article, e.g., Boson or Standard Model, where a few sentences would suffice, really. Would justify its own article in time perhaps, if the discovery is confirmed in time - it would be a major discovery if confirmed. Bdushaw (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That something is controversial, not established or even completely rebuked has nothing to do with notability and suitability of a topic for an article. However a merge into Boson or Standard model would violate WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE, exactly for those reasons. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is supported by 6 references, five of which are essentially by E. van Beveren, and two of those are just websites. The sixth, that disputes the result, is an informal website that is not a reliable reference. A discovery of a particle like this would be a discovery of such magnitude that it would ordinarily appear on the front pages of the NY Times and spread like wildfire throughout the physics community. Based on the evidence that I see, this particle will likely come to nothing; it is most likely a fiction. So delete for now. Bdushaw (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is most likely a fiction but this has nothing to do with notability. Unicorn is a fiction and it is notable.--cyclopia ^speak! 10:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further sources from online magazines: ~~[9]~~, [10]. It has media coverage, notice also it is spread along months.--cyclopia ^speak! 10:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first of these links is a report on the Higgs, rather than E(38). The second is a rather dubious blog-type report on the original paper, dated two years ago shortly after it appeared. I understand, as you say, that the thing itself is not required for notability, that the controversy can warrant an article. But this is not a cold fusion type of situation - I do not see references that would sustain notability of even the controversy. Within weeks of the cold fusion announcement, there were teams working to confirm the result. With E(38), I see no report at all that anyone has worked to confirm or deny the report - its been a general shrug. The "controversy" is not notable either (for now). Its reported as a very low energy particle, hence it would be easy to verify - such a confirmation would have appeared right away in Phys Rev Lett, and likely garnered a Nobel Prize... Bdushaw (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you are right, the first is about the Higgs, I got fooled. However, again, all the discussion about the scientific validity of this announcement is irrelevant about the notability. What matter is that it has been discussed in some sources. We don't need cold fusion-level controversy for it. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but we DO need an actually notable controversy. A couple of blogs posts over the time of one or two months, a retracted preprint, and 30 papers by the same authors who failed to get the hint that no one cares or believes them fails to meet the threshold of notability set by WP:N. Controversies and article on pathological science are fine, I mentioned a few above (Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly, Oops-Leon, N rays, Dean drive, polywater, etc...) which are actually notable. These had an impact on science. This controversy is someone thinking a fart is evidence of a grenade. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mistake "notability" for "having a huge impact". That's not what notability is on WP. Notability here means that we have the minimum requirements to create an article. Notable topics do not need to be major topics. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:22, 9 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why relisted? To summarize: the three commenters above agree that the particle is a fiction, has not been supported by independent references. The argument above is over whether there is sufficient controversy to warrant notability to support the article. Two of us say no, the third says yes. But the proof is in the pudding, and there are no references to support any controversy. All three of us have looked for it, the article's editors have worked on this for two years, and there is still nothing. The fact that there are only three commenters (and I am here only because of what seemed like a desperate plea for more comments) straining to find any references should be an indication of no notability. We are all agreed, I believe, that E(38), if it existed, would be a MAJOR discovery, one that would turn particle physics on its ear. Yet the silence is deafening. Wikipedia should not have articles that lend credibility to nonsense. I daresay that attempting to edit articles such as Standard model or Boson to insert anything about E(38) would likely be deleted in a hurry; hence this article is orphaned. (All due respect and all manner of thanks to the Wikipedia administrators!) Bdushaw (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This thing doesn't exist, and there is insufficient coverage of the hypothesis to justify an article. Self-published sources on arxiv.org don't count. -- 101.117.31.220 (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Given that erroneous hypotheses in science are common, I think we need more than a handful of self-published and non peer-reviewed sources to distinguish this one as notable. Reyk _YO! 22:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficient coverage. Most of it is self-published or blog posts. 1292simon (talk) 11:27, 16 September 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. (soft) slakr^\ talk / 06:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanath Chattopadhyay[edit]

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

Previously speedily deleted under G8, fails WP:BLPNOTE Cult of Green (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is claiming to be the Editor in Chief at Saturday Times and Saturday Times Education and Career (India), where it lacks reliable references. As @Cult of Green: suggested this article also fails WP:BLPNOTE. CutestPenguin (Talk) 17:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 28 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (proclaim) @ 23:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Finch, Jr.[edit]

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

Losing competitor in a signing competition that lacks WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ONEEVENT, and no significant sources. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 28 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:37, 5 September 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. (My apologies this should've been closed a week ago!) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biju Patnaik Film and Television Institute of Odisha[edit]

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

No attempt to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Accredited degree-awarding institutions. Keep as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. CutestPenguin • Talk 14:10, 12 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 19:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Cutest Penguin and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES , a accredited degree-awarding institution funded by World Bank .It was established by the Government of Odisha.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Biju Patnaik

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Relisted for a third week as I'm not seeing any evidence of notability, So thus I believe it merits a further discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep as an accredited degree-awarding institution funded by World Bank and established by Government of Odisha per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:10, 10 September 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) 21:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top Banana (TV-am)[edit]

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

Non-notable breakfast tv show. damiens.rf 16:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 12 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 19:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable time-filling continuity. Nate • (chatter) 02:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect into TV-am - Nothing to warrant its own article but perhaps could be merged or redirected. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: I've relisted again as believe this merits a discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources to show notability. Even with modified searches there's nothing that signifies that it won any awards, that it is missed, or that it made any impact. - Pmedema (talk) 15:46, 5 September 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 14:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Kahn (gay rights activist)[edit]

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

No claim of notability. JDDJS (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - this article was originally built around Kahn as an activist related to his attempt to marry his partner, which I voiced on the talk page at the time seemed a WP:BLP1E matter. It was recently recast by someone with an apparent conflict of interest to be about him as an architect, with links to several articles and claims of others (the article as it stands has been pared down a fair bit by me, due to strong WP:PROMO and lack of sources). However, the articles linked to were passing mentions, or using Khan to comment on someone else. The New York Times piece now used as reference has about five sentences on him... without mentioning his activism or his architect status, so it just seems to be a random example local. Having said all that, he is credited as appearing on an episode of the DIY Network show Million Dollar Contractor, and I have not yet sought to check if there is significant material about him in the episode, or if he's just brought in in passing to comment on something else. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:51, 28 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he was not a participant in any LGBT rights rallies, nor of the major litigation involving marriage equality in New York. Unless somebody can find and add reliable sources to such claims, he's just not notable. He is cited nowhere in Same-sex marriage in New York or any of its sources. I have never heard of him. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at his Facebook page and we have some acquaintances in common, one of whom is Sean Patrick Mahoney. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably a nice guy, but he doesn't seem to have the profile required in the media to meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:50, 13 September 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 14:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathai Vattampil Abraham[edit]

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people), No reference provided. ow@!s (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-does not meet it from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 19:45, 28 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references; created by a WP:SPA. Cannot find anything on Google. LaMona (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as now redirected. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Mexico, Prague[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Embassies are not inherently notable. No bilateral article to redirect to either. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 12:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - embassies aren't inherently notable and this one wouldn't seem to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:28, 4 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to the bilateral relations article that is appropriate to have, but does not yet currently exist. I am trying to remember specific similar past AFDs resolved this way. I think it seems to be the case that bilateral relationships are valid topics, so start that and redirect this. --do ncr am 22:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Kitts and Nevis–United Kingdom relations and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations as examples. That said, the relationship in question would need to be notable - not just created as a non-notable redirect target for the sake of inexplicable inclusionism. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Okay then move this article to Mexico and Czech Republic relations or Czech and Mexico relations or whatever is any other okay title for a bilateral relations article, and develop. For example, this google book source is a 2008 report on Czech relations with a section on Mexico and there will be others in:

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

And this leaves a redirect from the Embassy of Mexico, Prague topic, and mention that embassy in the article, or not. Develop a separate article again about the embassy if/when historic nature of the building or whatever comes to light. This is best resolution of an AFD once started, not to delete the contribution(s) and not to offend the contributor(s). IMHO the AFD was not necessary as this is a known better solution and one could move the article without requiring multiple editors' attention and all other costs involved in an AFD. --do ncr am 00:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, mention Václav Havel's 1990 visit to Mexico which was the first Czechoslovak government head's visit to any Latin American country, per this google book source found in Mexico Czechoslovakia relations search and so on. --do ncr am 00:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and I'd be happy with that solution once that article is created. So many of these ended as no consensus because they deserved to be deleted but nobody could be bothered to create the articles to redirect them to. I created a couple of them and still the AFDs ended as no consensus because people couldn't even be bothered contributing to the discussion, even when pinged to reconsider previous opinions. I'll support a redirection/merger once that target article exists. Until then, this doesn't meet our inclusion criteria and should be deleted as no genuine alternative to deletion exists. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i boldly moved the article to Mexico-Czech relations and put in low effort to make it an article, including making the bland, meaningless assertion that relations between the two countries are "important". Importance is not defined. Sorry, Stalwart111, i expect this is less than what you want, but I think this resolves it, as a "target article" exists and is a valid topic. So, go ahead and tag the article as inadequate in various ways, but IMHO this resolves the AFD, which can be closed "KEEP" ratifying the current article. --do ncr am 13:58, 7 September 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) 22:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of thermodynamically relevant demons[edit]

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

Really don't think this article is warranted considering there appears to only be two of them - linking the articles is done sufficiently via the See Also sections. Sam Walton (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The vast amount of writing about Maxwell's demon stymies any Google search for details on notability, but I agree that there doesn't really seem to be any justification for this list. Without any context or easy way to validate that this satisfies WP:LISTN, I'd say that deletion is the best option. If the list is notable, then someone can recreate it with a better demonstration of notability. In the meantime, I think any discussion of demons in thought experiments can go to demon (thought experiment). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 30 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Quite plainly, just a very bizarre article. Never heard of a "thermodynamic demon" before. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus, non-admin closure. Aerospeed (Talk) 20:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

25 (Adele album)[edit]

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

Fails complete WP:GNG and Notability for albums, the name 25 itself is WP:OR, redirecting whole article to Adele was reverted. I'm notminating this for deletion or merge it into articles for creation again, untill official confirmation comes from the singer or XL Recordings. ETA: "Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources. Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

(from a Google News search for the term "Adele 25", from just the first page)

http://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/107871/20140903/adele-new-album-25.htm
http://www.franchiseherald.com/articles/5882/20140817/adele-album-25.htm
http://www.designntrend.com/articles/17674/20140807/adele-pull-beyonce-surprise-album.htm
http://www.kpopstarz.com/articles/103785/20140813/adele-25-new-album.htm
http://www.kdramastars.com/articles/32030/20140806/adele-25-new-album.htm

(many more results exist)

Adele's new upcoming album, and the assumption that it will be also named after her age, has been the subject of a huge amount of buzz. I tend to be pretty deletionist about music album articles, but this is an obvious keep. Revent^talk 14:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) The links I gave there are just to show that the assumed name is not OR, that the assumption it will be named 25 is very widely made. Her 'upcoming album' has been widely talked about, under the various assumed title, for four years now, and will supposedly be released September 25th. Revent^talk 14:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not work in that way and I assume you know about WP:CRYSTAL. Also please read WP:NALBUMS. There has been no ounce of information from Adele herself or XL Recordings at all about an album named 25, nor is there any official confirmation that it would be released on September 25, 2014. I'm just plain surprised that even after reading the sources, which all speculate, that you even try to stick up for keeping the article. The whole article, named as 25 (Adele album), itself is a violation of GNG. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That truly is a laughable group of sources, and even they are reporting it as a rumor, not fact.—Kww(talk) 02:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Revent, Since it's being released this year I see no point in now deleting .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL. Read it and please try to explain how you know that it is confirmed for release this year. Do you have any official sources from XL or Adele? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No but the closest I've found is [11] - lets be honest it's either going to released this year or January next, Despite Crystal & that I still see no point in deleting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keyword here being hint not confirmed, enough said. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Borderline Speedy Keep) Passes the notability guideline based on significant coverage in Billboard, Digital Spy and The Observer—never mind that she has tweeted personally about 25. Philg88 ^♦talk 15:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NALBUMS, try to rationalize how it passes it and please be reminded that she did not tweet about an album named 25. That "bye bye 25" tweet does not count and you know it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't "know it". It is based on this quote "Bye bye 25, see you again later in the year,” the singer tweeted in May, on the eve of her 26th birthday, a message widely read as a first announcement of her new record." from a reliable source. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does that justify that the album will be called 25? And how does it look to you when the sources listed are speculating? I'm surprised that you cannot see how it violates CRYSTAL. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Keep~~ I don't think there is any reason to suspect that this album isn't going to be released. XiuBouLin (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So you can see the future? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:CRYSTAL, really only deals with events or with speculation. I was legitimately wondering if you have any reason to believe that this album won't be a thing. I can see this being moved to drafts. But after doing a bit of searching around the net, its clear that there's better sourcing available for this. One small example is on http://adele.wikia.com/wiki/25, under the references section, its clear that there's better sourcing available for this topic. There is a speculative nature to this article's topic, and there should definitely be a Crystal template added, but deleting it would be excessive. XiuBouLin (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikia is a fan site and you know it. That page also has lots of poor referencing like Perez Hilton, ATRL, Entertainmentwise, and dayoneadelefans.com. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, that was a pretty bad attempt to justify keeping the article, using a wikia content wich sources Perezzhilton and PopCrush. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikia is a commercial wiki, it also has a broader scope than Wikipedia, and it does have better sourcing than this article. I don't care for pop-music, so I have no reason to "justify" keeping the article. It was not a "pretty bad attempt to justify keeping the article", that's an exorbitant look at my statement, especially considering it wasn't entire basis of my argument. My speedy keep was in response to large amount of "Keep" votes proceeding my statement. Neither of you have clarified, as to whether or not, that you have any reason to believe this album won't exist. To be honest deleting this article, considering its just going to be back in a few months, is ridiculous. Keep or Move to Draftspace. XiuBouLin (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        XiuBouLin, obviously the AFD summary itself clarifies that all the sources refer to this project as being under development with no confirmed track list, or album release date, or confirmed name as 25. It does not matter what I think, that's not how Wikipedia works. To be honest, creating an article in the first place, without any indication of passing WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG is ridiculous. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That's what I was asking. I don't care for Adele's music, and I honestly understand your frustration with there being a speculative album article. Yet, somehow, even the The Guardian is now discussing this as an upcoming album, [12]. Whether or not this is album in development, or not, it has WP:SIGCOV and should be kept. But, if it is as you claim, to not be meeting WP:GNG, then I think reasonably it should be moved to a draftspace. XiuBouLin (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to WP:Drafts plausible search term, but fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER miserably- no confirmed release date or tracklist. It also is rather poorly sourced, and definitely NOT an "obvious keep" or "speedy keep". Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER is an essay, not a 'citable' rule. The topic passes WP:GNG, as can be shown (easily) through Google searches. Revent^talk 15:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it fails WP:NALBUMS, which is the specific notability criteria for albums. WP:NALBUMS exists for a reason and should be put to use. WP:ONLYESSAY is also not a very convincing argument as it undervalues the insight that essays can bring. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HAMMER is as much of a guiding essay for cases like this explicitly. And you fail to explain how it passes GNG when all it does is speculate. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Future albums are supposed to have a confirmed title, track listing, and release date. This article only has a confirmed title. ~~EDIT: Move to WP:Drafts per SNUGGUMS's suggestions. Erick (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Given that the album's official name hasn't been confirmed by Adele or her record label, I'm changing my stance to delete once more. Erick (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. The guidance in WP:NALBUMS to only create articles when there is a confirmed title, tracklist, and release data is extremely sound guidance. Passing the WP:GNG is not an assurance that there should be a separate article, only the bare minimum threshold to be crossed in order to permit one. Our experience with premature album articles demonstrates exactly how unwise it is to have these articles.—Kww(talk) 17:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Until track list, release dates etc are confirmed. By the way, who has confirmed it is even called 25? No one from what I can see in the article. Adele, her label not her management have confirmed that it is called 25. Further reason to redirect. — ₳aron 18:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

As I specifically said, those weren't sources I was citing to show the 'notability', just to show that the idea that the name was OR was laughable. OR means that the Wikipedia editor came up with something that sources don't say, which is obviously not the case here. But, since you insist....

Entertainment Weekly (9/2/14) http://music-mix.ew.com/2014/09/02/adele-unreleased-tracks/
People (7/17/14) http://www.people.com/article/adele-new-album-25-rumor
Huffington Post (7/16/14) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/adele-new-album-25-tour_n_5590696.html
New York Daily News (9/2/14) http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/adele-songs-leaked-online-years-album-article-1.1925114
BET (7/16/14) http://www.bet.com/news/music/2014/07/16/adele-announces-new-album-and-tour-in-2015.html
The Guardian (7/18/14) http://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/jul/18/adele-new-album-what-we-know-so-far
CNN (7/16/14) http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/16/showbiz/music/adele-new-album-25/
Billboard (7/16/14) http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6157708/adele-next-album-rumor
Time (5/5/14) http://time.com/88020/adele-25-album-title/
Spin (7/16/14) http://www.spin.com/articles/adele-new-album-tour-25/
The Daily Mail (5/5/14) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2620534/Adele-drops-biggest-hint-release-album-imminently.html
The Independent (9/6/14) http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/adele-hints-third-album-25-will-be-released-by-end-of-2014-9325478.html
ET Online (7/16/14) http://www.etonline.com/music/148459_adele_new_album_will_be_titled_25/
Daily Mirror (5/5/14) http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/adele-birthday-singer-drops-album-3497030
New York Daily News (7/16/2014) http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/adele-tour-2015-album-release-report-article-1.1868983

Again, not even trying hard here. Yes, it's rumor and speculation, but it's not our speculation, and the rumor and speculation is obviously quite notable.

IndianBio, to address your apparent misconception about the way AfD is supposed to work... articles are not required to be perfect, or even good, to survive an AfD. If sources exist, the article should be improved, not deleted. AfD is about is the /topic/ is notable and worthy of an article, not about if the article is crap as it stands. There are many lousy articles about notable topics on Wikipedia, that do not do the subject justice...that does not mean they should be deleted. And yes, I did revert your attempt to shortcut any kind of deletion process by converting the article to a redirect without any discussion, because it showed a total disregard for the process and opinion of other editors. I have yet to see any statement by you or Kww that suggests you have made any attempt to research the notability of this topic. Instead, you simply seem to not like it.

To address some of the complaints being made here, specifically, since people are just quoting this and that essay or guideline, and not really making arguments.

WP:NALBUMS

"Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." See the above, and much, much, much more if you only bothered to look.
"For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it." (my emphasis) Yes, the article was, as created, based only on lousy sources... but many, many, many reliable sources for the same information exist. It is not our place to speculate, and it is not our place to report on what is said on fansites, but it is our place to report on notable subjects, even if they haven't happened yet.

That is totally irrelevant, though, since the subject meets the GNG. Easily. Revent^talk 22:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without a confirmed release date, this album fails WP:CRYSTAL. Another red flag is no confirmed tracklist. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the line in WP:NALBUMS about three lines up from your quote: generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label. There is no need to have articles about gossip and speculation.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revent, I also suggest that you note that the WP:GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion: it is the bare minimum threshold a topic must breach to be considered for inclusion in a standalone article. All kinds of things that pass the GNG are deleted.—Kww(talk) 04:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Revent:, you very well know what I have removed from the article. Unreliable blog sources like Perez Hilton and PopCrush are not reliable sources so please don't lecture me on the AFD process. I know very well how it works. And it is not my burden to find out sources for an album which is all about speculations. All the sources you listed, I repeat all, are speculating on the album's title and supposedly release date. And that is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. So yeah, my nomination reasoning stands. You are trying to push something which basically has hypothetical existence, without any confirmation. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Really? WP:BEFORE, B, 2. "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" D, 3 "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern." Yes, it is your burden to attempt to do so, before you nominate an article for AFD. Revent^talk 07:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my dear, really. None of the sources searched gave any ounce of indication that the album has been confirmed as named 25, nor a release date. Sources base this on Adele's cryptic tweet "Bye bye 25.. see you later (blahblah)" and they even list it as an assumption. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice way to ignore what I said about WP:BEFORE, and your disregarding it. Her tweet was obviously seen as an indication that the album would be released this year, because she said she would see 25 again, as she has named her previous albums after her age. Whether the name has been confirmed or not, '25' obviously passes WP:COMMONNAME as how the topic is referred to. Your 'the name is OR' claim is still laughable. Revent^talk 08:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You also deleted a YouTube video as an unreliable source, when the actual source was an Entertainment Tonight interview with her just hosted on YouTube. Did you even watch it? Revent^talk 08:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right, read your own statements and see how it contradicts WP:CRYSTAL. You are assuming something which Adele has done before, as something which she would do again in the future. And yes, I will delete any WP:COPYVIO links to YouTube, unless from the official website. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not assuming anything. The sources are, and we can discuss that. The 'speculation' is not unverifiable, it is widely reported in reliable sources. As far as the Youtube thing, it's quite telling that you're now trying to come up with new (and still invalid) reasons to remove it. For one thing, you used the wrong template, and reported the text that I readded as a copyright violation, instead of tagging the link as being to a potential copyvio, which is just wrong since it's text from a CC-BY-SA source. Also, the linked video (which is only about two minutes long) is not a copyright violation, it's brief enough to be reusable under fair use. That would have something to do with why YouTube, who does remove copyrighted material quite aggressively, has not removed it. Revent^talk 14:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube tends to be discouraged as a source, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source being used is not YouTube, it is an Entertainment Tonight interview. The link to YouTube is merely a convenience link, and perfectly allowable. Revent^talk 15:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter- see WP:YOUTUBE. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously advocating the use of a copyvio link just because Youtube as not removed it? @Kww:, this is getting really sticky now. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm telling you that it's a convenience link, the material is sourced to a television interview, and that if you have a problem with the convenience link you remove the link, not the sourced, cited content. I'm also telling you that you need to read the directions before you use a template, and not flag text that is from a CC-BY-SA source attributed in the article if your problem is with a link. The text you flagged was patently not a copyright violation. I'm also telling you that before you remove something as an unreliable source you should actually look at it... a statement of what a person said in an interview, sourced to that interview, is not an unreliable source.

In the edit summary when I took off the {{copyright violation}} template, if you bothered to look at it before reverting, I specifically said the text you flagged is CC-BY-SA, that you probably meant to use {{copyvio link}}, and that I disagreed. Your revert was inane, if you wanted to flag the link you shouldn't have restored the wrong template, you should have added the right one. Revent^talk 19:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And herein you don't get the fact that Wikia content cannot be accepted by Commons license for the same reason that they are not a copyright claimer. They have absolutely no right to that content they have released under the license. And convenience or not, you purposefully added a link with copyright claims, even going as far as to claim that it was YouTube's responsibility to see if it is copyrighted. As I said in your talk page, drop the WP:IDHT please. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 19:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Coverage is not significant enough at this time. Any progress on a planned album that has not yet been announced can be discussed at Adele's article. –Chase (talk / contribs) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolute WP:CRYSTAL violation for no confirmed tracklist or release date. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:CRYSTAL addresses the issue of unverifiable speculation, which the topic of this article is not—a significant number of reliable sources agree that that Adele will release a new album this year and that it will in all liklihood be called "25". We, as editors, are permitted to record that according to policy: "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included..." Turning to WP:NALBUMS. "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004. However, this only applies to a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects ..." 25 is such a project, given the feverish level of interest in the topic from sources far and wide. Philg88 ^♦talk 05:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Philg88:, I get what you are saying, but looking at the recent contributions to the article, there is no indication of 25 being that of a high feverish project at all. So until and unless this is represented accurately, this is not on par with Chinese Democracy. And I remember G&R's CD era. They already had the album track list as well as the album coverart for the release, though it ended up getting delayed. For this one, there is only confirmation of Adele recording an album, but everything else is speculation and based on something (19, 21) which Adele has done already. The article name itself, 25 (Adele album) does not pass the threshold of WP:CRYSTAL for this very same reason. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the reasoned reply, IndianBio. When we have a reliable source stating "which pretty much everyone in the world is certain will be called 25" I think that puts it well outside the realm of WP:CRYSTAL. We are not speculating, merely reporting on what reliable sources have said. The source story I'm citing was published yesterday, indicating that it is a "hot" topic. Cheers, Philg88 ^♦talk 06:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A&G Con[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable convention. While it appears to have had a few notable guests over the years, with the likes of Spike Spencer, Steven Blum and Wendee Lee attending, 1. actual attendance appears to be rather low for an anime convention, with a low of only 300 attendees during the first con, and a high of 2000 attendees during the 2014 event, 2. the only source given is AnimeCons.com, which is not reliable, and 3. There is a lack of independent coverage for this con. I couldn't even find significant coverage from Anime News Network. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article creator's username implies a COI; nevertheless, as the article is not written in a promotional tone, and there is a credible claim to notability (it is apparently the biggest anime convention in the Tri-State Area), I doubt either A7 or G11 apply. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For what it's worth, IP user 67.149.211.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added the convention to four different lists of convention articles, all of which have since been reverted. Of those, two appear to be plausible, List of anime conventions and List of gaming conventions; one is questionable, List of comic book conventions, as there seems to be little emphasis on comics in either the article or the linked website; one is doubtful, List of furry conventions, as I could not find any mention of furries or anthropomorphics in either place. Having said that, if reliable independent sources can be found covering the convention and the claimed attendance figures can be confirmed, it is probably worth keeping and re-adding to the two plausible lists of conventions. mwalimu59 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article has already been deleted under old name A&G Ohio, first few search engine pages reveal no reliable sources. Esw01407 (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a quick lookup of media coverage and couldn't find anything. The onus is on the article creator to find it (if it exists) and add it as references to the article. If he can do that, my mind can be changed. I think attendance isn't very relevant, as I've seen very small conventions covered by the press. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a re-creation of the deleted article A&G Ohio, not sure if this can qualify for speedy or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing in Google books (nor in newspapers, scholar, or news). In Google web I'm seeing a body of Internet chatter, but no attention from reliable sources. Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 7 September 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 14:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Kaiser[edit]

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

Can not find significant coverage of the subject of the BLP to meet GNG nor do I believe her credits reach the criteria for FILMMAKER. J04n(talk page) 12:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Seems to be too soon if ever IMO. Wgolf (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did sweeps of Dutch/Netherlands news sources, world newspapers, US, entertainment-related publications, did not find any sources suggesting she meets the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:43, 7 September 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) 19:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fit-Boy[edit]

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

Article about a film which fails general notability and WP:NFILMS. No sources, an external link to IMDb which doesn't implies notability. And IMDb is not a reliable source as well. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I found this [13] which isn't much at atall, Barely any evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michaels sourcing. –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment to Davey2010: I found three you did not, and am still looking. The one in Film Threat is the best of those found so far. To Jim Carter: While still "weak", it is looking somewhat better and is no longer "unsourced". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: - The only results I got was quite a few gyms, twitter crap and boys clothing and odd yahoo questions.... So I'm extremely surprised you found some!, Thanks for your improvements :) –Davey2010 • (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Good work! I found nothing more than few odd yahoo questions when I searched (already mentioned by Dave). But still I'm not totally convinced, half of the article is not yet referenced. I encourage you to find some more sources so that I can withdraw. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 09:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carter: Since the film can be watched for free, cast and production crew can be sourced directly to the film itself. And so while being listed there does nothing for notability, IMDB is generally acceptable for released films.... most specially when the entire film has been posted by production so it can be watched by anyone.

What else do you think needs sourcing? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MichaelQSchmidt, but I doubt it can't be considered as a independent source. On the other hand the lack of significant coverage is still alarming. As you can see, after digging so much you came across only 4 sources. :-/ Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Carter: Check WP:SELFSOURCE. Yes a film is not independent of itself but it is one of those instances where a primary sources speaking about itself is allowed per MOS:FILM. As a coordinator of project film, I can assure you of this. The film as a primary sources does not count toward notability, no.... but it is allowed as WP:V. As for sources for a no-budget indie film that never saw the inside of a theater, I will do more checking in some hours. But will for now remind that WP:SIGCOV defines that in determining notability, a source must give us more-than-trivial commentary or analysis... it does not state that "multiple" means dozens, but definitely "multiple" sources mean more than one... so three just qualifies. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Thanks MichaelQSchmidt. I understand. Determining notability of a film is not a easy work. Okay I'm willing to withdraw. Now, Davey2010 what do you think?? Speedy Keep #1 will work only if other participants also support keep. An afd can't be closed as withdrawn if other participants don't change their mind to keep. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 13:06, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you both - Determining notability is very hard, Anyway I've voted Keep now :) (Apologies for not replying sooner -decided on mowing the garden before it belts it down!). –Davey2010 • (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Withdraw this nomination per the improvements made by Michael. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 14:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Materialization (paranormal)[edit]

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

This article is a WP:SYNTHesized list of ectoplasm claims by old spiritualist mediums that are already covered in their own articles, or more generally, at ectoplasm (paranormal). I say synthesized, because in the lingo of spiritualists, a medium who supposedly created ectoplasm was known as a "materializing medium", but the concept of materialization isn't actually discussed in the sources we've been given. Someone has WP:ORed in a miracle of Jesus lacking any reliable source for their own opinion that he was performing paranormal materialization. Non-notable fringe claims already covered at Sathya Sai Baba and Swami Premananda have been tacked on to the list. What we don't have is any reliable and independent source that discusses the subject of "paranormal materialization" as a specific subject. How does it work, what's the mechanism, what's the history, where are the objective sources who've studied it exclusively, etc? Without anything like that to build the article on, we can only offer a dictionary entry (materialization is something spiritualists and two obscure gurus claimed to do) but not an encyclopedic article. LuckyLouie (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An odd mix of fringe OR and synth based entirely on unreliable sources or misuse of reliable ones. My own searches did not provide any evidence that the topic is not mentioned at all in reliable independent secondary sources. Frankly, it's a bunch of fringe blither that has no place on Wikipedia. Nothing worth saving or merging. Can be deleted in it's entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dominus Vobisdu. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cover things which are religious beliefs and do not delete them as "fringe" when they have sourcing, even if the sources sometimes seek to disprove it. Far more than a dictionary definition and clearly notable. It can be pure bunk and fraud and still be notable. A very important part of 19th and 20th century "Spiritualism" was manifestations in which the departed would materialize in seances. They were often debunked by scientists who showed the tricks the medium played. It has been widely discussed in reliable sources. Arthur Conan Dole wrote in support and Houdini wrote in opposition, among many others. I removed the claims that Jesus "fishes and loaves" miracle and God's creation of the entire universe were "materialization" since it was unreferenced original research to tie those religious beliefs to the spiritualist medium's sort of materialization phenomena. Note that Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit," and editing is a better idea than deletion when the subject is as notable as this one. The article is not just based on what some dictionary says: countless books pro and con on spiritualism discuss it. Edison (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Edison. I completely agree WP covers notable bunk and fraud and mediums "materializing" things was an important part of 19th and 20th century Spiritualism. But it's all been already covered at another article: ectoplasm (paranormal), rendering this article as completely redundant. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "How does it work, what's the mechanism..": What a twaddle. Let's delete the gravity article also then, for we do not know it's mechanism yet. Apart from that, this and other additional remarks in nominator's argumentation imply that as if we're after the truth but not verifiability; which would be the complete opposite of WP:V. The topic in question is notable and well sourced. As I stated in article talk page, materialization is a topic specific also to the false prophetism/prophecy, not only to the ectoplasms allegedly furnishing during seances. I'm sure there are enough coverages/mentions in theological scholarly publications. If you think that some of the material may belong to ectoplasm (paranormal), then the thing you should have done was to ask the opinions of others and move the related content if there was any consensus; not to take the article to AFD. Logos (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is associated with several Indian gurus, not called ectoplasm (paranormal) in this context, and extensively treated in several independent reliable sources by parapsychologist Erlendur Haraldsson and psychologist Richard Wiseman.

Independent reliable sources:
- Erlendur Haraldsson book Miracles are my visiting cards which was agreed to be a reliable source in an official mediation User:BostonMA/Mediation. The book also compares miracles attributed to Sathya Sai Baba with the miracles attributed to Jesus Andries (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (removed PDF that did not work 18:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
- I only read a summary of this sources: Thomas, Caroline M.,‘God Men, Myths, Materializations and the Kalās of Immortality’, in Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 55, No. 816, 377-403, July 1989 Andries (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Wiseman and Erlendur Haraldsson Investigating Macro-PK in India: Swami Premananda April 1995. Andries (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[14], [15], [16], a source for both ectoplasm and materialisation: [17] etc. Alternative keywords: "pseudo-prophecy", "pseudo-miracles+theology", etc. Logos (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Journal of the Society for Psychical Research and Journal of Scientific Exploration etc are known for promoting extreme fringe views, they are not science journals. Goblin Face (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So, what's the point, what do you expect? It's completely normal for fringe topics to be covered in allegedly fringe journals. These sources are for notability/verifiability, we do not need completely scientific/scholarly publications. Check past arbitration rulings, such as Paranormal:3 layer cake, paranormal tag, adequate framing etc., and policies/guidelines to grasp how framing the subject determines the context. Logos (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Goblin Face, could you please be more specific about your objections to the sources that user:Logos and I (user:Andries) listed? Please note that the listed sourced found two out the three Indian gurus treated fraudulent i.e. Swami Premananda and Gaytri Swami. Only in the case of the famous Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba the listed sources found no evidence of fraud. Andries (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable to have an entire article to itself. The same content is found on the ectoplasm and mediumship articles, so no content would be lost. Goblin Face (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an encyclopedic topic. There are zero reliable sources that differentiate a "materialization" from an Apparition or Apparitional experience. To claim otherwise is to essentially WP:POVPUSH in the form of demanding a WP:POVFORK of those articles. jps (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After ectoplasm, now comes apparition; perhaps you don't have sufficient expertise.. As stated in apparition article, there isn't any material involved. Above mentioned sources are reliable and differentiate materialization properly. Logos (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note also that, german wikipedia and some very old sources have separate entries for materialization, ectoplasm and others. Merging the two topic into one article, would be to interpret these two different phenomenons as the identical on our own and to decide that a merge should be fine, WP:SYNTHily . Logos (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That German article looks like a stub based on the English article. There is, however, a good reason to keep the different wikis in sync now that we have wikidata, because it is hard to develop an equivalence that is one-to-many there. At least, I've had a devil of a time when in that situation. LaMona (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that german article is based on this article, because the sources are quite different. Logos (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately, the two articles have too much overlap, so the editors need to decide what is different between the two phenomena and edit the articles accordingly. It does make sense to me that materialization is the phenomenon and ectoplasm is the stuff of some materializations, but not all. The articles need to make the difference clear, and have less repetition between them. LaMona (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep WP must include a discussion of this alleged phenomenon, because there is a large literature about it, and it doesn't matter for the purpose of having an article whether or not the phenomenon actually happens. The title is appropriate, for it is the normal English word for it. Wxtoplasm is I think used in a somewhat broader meaning,--it is considered sometimes to be the cause of materialization, but it is used in other senses also. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Bill[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source is a link to her fight record--an unimpressive 4 wins and 9 losses. She fails to meet WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBOX and GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per PRehse although there were several mentions here, but insufficient to meet the GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:12, 12 September 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. No other than nominator suggests the page to be deleted and nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Chan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary page as there are only 2 topics, 1 is primary. "All pages with titles containing "Jackie Chan"" link is also unnecessary, especially since there is also a Template:Jackie Chan. Timmyshin (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep 4 valid entries plus valid see also. The see also is clearly more helpful to a reader than Template:Jackie Chan. The actor is the primary topic, but there is also a fictional character (not a fictionalised version of the actor's personality/life) who is called Jackie Chan and voiced by the actor, and a politician. Nothing to be gained from deletion. @Tavatar:, the creator, seems not to have been informed of this AfD. Boleyn (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, what is wrong with a disambiguation page? We do that all the time... Hafspajen (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Timmyshin:, can you look the page over as it is now and consider withdrawing your nomination? Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: valid dab page. PamD 19:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a valid dab page based on this criteria at WP:DAB: "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." PaintedCarpet (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom per above. Timmyshin (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 01:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Li Nan (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unnecessary page as there are only 2 topics, 1 is primary Timmyshin (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It only took a couple of minutes to find two more valid entries to add. Boleyn (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to create the pages of these entries? If not, this page is just there to waste people's time. A user who types "Li Nan" trying to read about the table tennis player now needs to click two times, versus just one time before. China has a billion people and thousands of years of detailed documented history and with the way the 2- or 3- syllable names are romanized in English, I can easily find hundreds of "Li Nan"s or any Chinese names that have appeared in books, articles etc. The problem is, how many of them are truly notable? And if they are not, what's the point of listing them? Timmyshin (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. If, after reading them, you believe that the skier and footballer in some way invalid entries, please say so. If you disagree with the guidelines, please discuss that at an appropriate venue. Here is a disambiguation page with 4 valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 19:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: valid dab page. PamD 19:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom Timmyshin (talk) 21:37, 5 September 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. After sock !votes discounted there is consensus to delete Philg88 ^♦talk 10:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guo Dongli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant independent coverage. Of the three sources cited, #1 does not mention Guo Dongli at all, whereas #2 and #3 are from the same publication (Boxun) of questionable reliability. Even then, Boxun says Guo is just an "ordinary student". Zanhe (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seen no reason to focus on he is an "ordinary student" or not. And the "no significant independent coverage" does not hold; in fact, lots of articles in Wiki also lack on this problem and only with one or two references. See the following sample Kong Lingxi in Wikipedia. Historysalon (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Historysalon has been blocked as a confirmed sock of User:國冬禮. -Zanhe (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The #1 source did mention the establishment of Youth Solidarity Temporary Student Union (临时青年团结学生联盟), which Guo Dongli is the convener of it. See the following sources [18],[19],[20]. 07:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.17.57 (talk)

Note: the above IP is a likely sock of 國冬禮/Guo Dongli. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/國冬禮/Archive. -Zanhe (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The #1 source is a blog article. Among the other three sources provided by 108.83.17.57, [1] does not mention Guo Dongli, and the other two are reprinted from Guo's own twitter.--Huang Jinghai (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Guo Dongli's Chinese name is 國冬禮, identical to the username of User:國冬禮, whose edits are substantially similar to the new User:Historysalon, who created Guo Dongli; the new User:AOIT2014, who de-prodded the article; and the IP 108.83.17.57, who voted keep above. It seems likely that this is a single individual's elaborate scheme at self-promotion. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/國冬禮. -Zanhe (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. Nothing in the article seems to indicate the importance of this person. —Wasell^(T) 18:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article makes no claim of notability. Why does this person matter? Generally we assume that the question is answered by independent reliable sources when they (not just one or two) chose to do in-depth reporting on the subject, but a little common sense applies, too. Anyway, this doesn't pass WP:GNG cuz it doesn't have that level of reporting. If there was an interview with VOA, then perhaps it should be published by VOA, wouldn't that be logical. It seems especially suspicious that the anonymous VOA reporter with whom the subject is suposedly doing an interview in one of the cited refs is unable to use correct English. I'm with above commenters, this appears to be little more than a detailed hoax of some sort. WP:A7 applies - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 18:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search fails to yield anything useful.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the topic of this article may need more Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. However, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Also, to define an article is an "hoay" need evidence, not with guess and suspicion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.83.17.57 (talk) 05:42, 3 September 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, Philg88 ^♦talk 08:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider keep actually, this article did clarify this person well, even can get expand justly. This person is relate to social activity, and in the new edition there had state very clear. Anyway, there are no hard evidence can overthrow the fact. In Google, Bing, or Yahoo, there are pretty much links can prove this either in Chinese or English. See [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].comment added by 156.1.40.12 (talk)

Note: 156.1.40.12 appears to be another sock of User:國冬禮, whose named socks have been blocked, but still edits the article from IP's that geolocate to San Francisco. -Zanhe (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/improve This article is meet the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC since it has a big improve and more notable addition references to compare with the initial one. There has a selection of articles relate to Guo Dongli (references/significant independent coverage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.3 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another !vote from a San Francisco public IP. Why am I not surprised? -Zanhe (talk) 04:06, 10 September 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 all. Michig (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ottoman fleet organisation during the Russo-Turkish War (1877–78)[edit]

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

Same reason as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottoman fleet organisation during the Greco-Turkish War (1897)‎. It can easily be merged with Ottoman Navy article or the article of the corresponding War.

Please note that I'm also bundling this AfD with the following articles:

Ottoman fleet organisation during the Italo-Turkish War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ottoman fleet organisation during the Balkan Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All per WP:SK "fails to advance an argument for deletion — perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging". See alternatives to deletion. Andrew (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep All, as per WP:SK. The ease of merging elsewhere is not a rationale for deletion. It also makes good sense to have centralised orders of battle like this. The previous discussion doesn't seem to have taken account of the fact that merging all these articles is going to overwhelm the Ottoman Navy or other articles. Benea (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject. But it certainly needs improvement. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- CFD is for deletion, not to encourage discussion. This is a horrid article, but the appropriate course (if any) would be to merge into Ottoman Navy during the Russo-Turkish War (1877–78), since that does not exist, we might rename this article to that name. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 7 September 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. The arguments for deletion are based on established guidelines, and these have not been dealt with by the arguments for keeping. Michig (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Lee Keller[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -Although I found several leads to her, I really couldn't find much on her career points except for a few like this one here>[26]. However, it would seem to me that being in the films she has been in that she would have achieved some form of notability just from her participation aspect. I am really on the fence with this one.--Canyouhearmenow 12:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC) Together, three films are much.[reply]
Delete - As noted above there's barely any evidence of any notability, Being in 3 films means nothing. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree and thats why I said I was on the fence. I am fine if the article is deleted due to lack of notability. Canyouhearmenow 19:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. User:Davey2010 put it well. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, could be too soon also. But I kind am on the fence to keep. Wgolf (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Her filmography is one supporting role and two bit parts in other films which don't show notability. My impression is that it's too soon for this article. Cowlibob (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McNally (Mike)[edit]

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

Clear case of WP:BLP1E, meeting all three criteria. The coverage is not that significant either, so WP:GNG is not really met. bonadea contributions talk 07:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage was plentiful in 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike1980McN (talk • contribs) 11:27, 5 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
Someone who thinks winning a million from a ten pound bet is not significant is bizarre. This can be researched with Titanbet 100 million mania. Envy is not a reason to ask for a post deleted. Wikipedia needs to have facts not opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike1980McN (talk • contribs) 11:33, 5 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your big win :-) Wikipedia does have rather strict notability requirements, though. Nobody is doubting that you did win the money and that it was in the papers at the time, but that actually strengthens the original point, that the subject of the article is known for one single event only - please have a look at that link. Many people win lots of money, but unless they are also notable for some other reason, that is probably not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please also read this information. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 11:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regardless of the outcome of the AfD, the article should be redirected to Michael McNally (born 1980) as opposed to its current title. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no: if the AfD result is "delete" it we don't need to worry about its title; if it survives it should be at Mike McNally (gambler) or Mike McNally (competition winner), as the 3 sources all use that name. And a hatnote would be needed at Mike McNally. PamD 12:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:BLP1E. PamD 12:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mike - bonadea is correct. A single event does not establish notability. Hopefully you've used that money to do something very good for humankind, and when that is completed, you may be considered notable. LaMona (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 12 September 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 14:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Grier[edit]

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

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

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

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

Claim to fame is making vine videos-not sure if that quite goes under notability. Wgolf (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-also it seems to be a issue of him being a younger brother of someone else. Now I'm not sure how we handle people from vine though. Maybe someday he might become bigger. But not yet. Wgolf (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 01:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not believe he has met Wikipedia's Notability standards at this time. Stesmo (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage about him in reliable sources. Yes, his brother is likely notable, but his brother has gotten more coverage in reliable sources, and notability is not inheritable from a sibling. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-looks like this article might need a protection lock until this gets resolved considering constat vandalism that happens. Wgolf (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Article silverlocked for two weeks. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:09, 10 September 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. Deor (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FreelyCall[edit]

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

Promo of a nn business -No.Altenmann >t 05:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom has said everything. Op47 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't even show up on google. LaMona (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass our CORP guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability guidelines, lacks any sort of coverage/sources outside of the company website. Upjav (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:17, 10 September 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 14:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nevin Meçaj[edit]

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

An actor with just one film that was back in 2001. Now if he had attention for it and/or made more films then maybe he could be considered for an article. But for now-no. Wgolf (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also looking at the history-this article has been around for 11(!) years with no changes at all. Now at the time it probably seemed like he could do more. Wgolf (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 04:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this NN actor's stub bio and redirect his name to Tirana Year Zero, his only notable film. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 6 September 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nodar Kharatishvili[edit]

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

This article kind of sounds like a hoax almost-though all of the links are in Russian, but I'm not sure if this is notable or what. Maybe a expert is needed. Wgolf (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 03:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Several things that don't quite add up to notability: vice rector (rector would be good enough), deputy minister (minister would be good enough)... and the lack of sources is also a big problem. If someone with expertise in Georgian sources put the effort into digging up sources there's a fair chance this could be rescued, but as it is there's not much worth saving. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately not verifiable. The few English language links do not turn up information about him. LaMona (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am a Russian speaker, and the article does not contain a single link to an independent RS, which technically makes it an expired PROD. On the other hand, he may very well be notable according to WP:PROF. In praticular, the article claims that he is an "Academician". If this means member of the Academy of Sciences of Georgia (which I do not know how to verify), he is automatically notable.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:14, 13 September 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. Michig (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva Thejus[edit]

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

Only 1 film performance and has been tagged for notability since 2011. Wgolf (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 00:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. CutestPenguin ^discuss 06:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Fails NACTOR. –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet NACTOR. Cowlibob (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails general notability and NACTOR. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect to Prince Vaali as a potential search term. Silverfish8088 (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 06:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Achraf Baznani (photographer)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG (in particular WP:Artist). The article shows no sign of significant coverage in RS. In addition to several points of concern:

The article has been tagged as copyvio by a bot [27] and the tag has been removed by page creator/significant contributor with no explanation [28]
It has been nominated for speedy because of overtly promotional tone [29], deletion tag has been removed by page creator/significant contributor [30]

Additionally, the sources present on the page do not discuss the subject's life/career in detail but are rather anecdotal. Google search yielded no coverage, and, of particular concern, no mentions on Moroccan media given that the subject is Moroccan. Tachfin (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Important please pay attention if user:Maromania & user:Fevrret aren't deleting/editing any votes/comments:
- Restored this comment (below) by me after it has been deleted by user:Maromania & user:Fevrret (same person?) [31] [32]
- Article creator (user:Fevrret) tried to close this as "non admin closure" before being reveted [33]
- According to the above, and other clues, we may be in a case of WP:COI or or promotional paid editing --Tachfin (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is also Through My Lens (a book supposedly authored by "Achraf Baznani") which is currently being considered for speedy deletion --Tachfin (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC) This comment has been deleted by user:Maromania and restored in this edit --Tachfin (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont lie please! I never delete any of your comments ! Maromania (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

** You Tachfin just made an WP:CONSPIRACY, a very serious violation, you (as an contributor) must not do a WP:NPA to me. You got to be careful before judging without any proofs. I will be having a conversation with an admin about this. Fevrret (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

** Also, recommend you to assume good faith for new contributors (as seen Maromania is one of them). Stop accusing as we (Maromania and Fevrret just deleted any comment, because what I did was merging Maromania's comment as just one (which was keep). With the WP:COI you have not proofs, I am just an editor and you made a direct offense to my being, myself. The non admin disclosure was discussed and I didn't know the existent WP:NAC and reverted, and apologized to Crow for this, which he assumed my enthusiasm is great, but I need to know the rules. I will report this case to the administrators for violating WP:CONSPIRACY, WP:AGF and WP:COI without any proofs. Fevrret (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont lie please, i never delete any comment! Maromania (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that the article was not promotional, and we discussed it over. Also other contributors expressed on the article as not being "promotional". Actually, an admin. The article is covered by major articles. The book Through My Lens is a book authored by Achraf Baznani. You (Tachfin) do not have any statement to prove wrong. Is currently featured by magazines (hereinbefore mentioned). Fevrret (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photobook is a book authored by Achraf Baznani ^[1] Maromania (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article meets WP:BASIC and have encyclopedia importance. Is supported by third major magazines in English, Spanish, French, Arab. And has an arab wikipedia page approved by admins. Fevrret (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "an article approved by admins". I've repeatedly seen that argument being used by paid editors. If there are reliable sources that discuss the subject deeply enough to establish notability than please present them. Mearly anectdoctal mentions and promotional articles on shady websites/blogs does not implicate notability (c.f. WP:Artist) --Tachfin (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I saw this go by on RC, and thought it rang a bell. Sure enough, I have Draft:Achraf Baznani on my w/l from August 30. It is identical to the initial version of the article now under discussion, which was created a day later by a different editor. Crow^Talk 19:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I created this article. I just modified it, taking by references the interviews which he is featured on. It's not identical, I modified it. Fevrret (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'm not suggesting any impropriety, more to keep an eye out that there could be multiple copies floating around. If this article is kept, they should be merged into the live copy to avoid having multiple out-of-sync versions, and if this is deleted they should be looked at accordingly. Crow^Talk 23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - obviously, yes needs a clean up, but that's not the purpose of AFD. In ictu oculi (talk)
@In ictu oculi:, why keep? could you elaborate please? --Tachfin (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete User:Tachfin I was more impressed by the number of sources than I should have been. Suggest this now goes to a long redlink salt of all possible name variations. Also someone needs to make sure the Sockpuppet documentation for blocked user Fevrret is complete. Given the amount of damage that editor was doing incidentally with other edits we don't want a reoccurrence. 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the suggested sources and all that I could see are blog posts (even the CNN one is, and it says: Not verified by CNN). I would suggest getting some more reliable sources. But I do not know what the decision should be about an article in @en.wikipedia if there are no such resources in English. Anyone? LaMona (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- LaMona, you can find some reliable sources here: ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7]^[8]Maromania (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

Notable individual showing significant coverage in independent reliable sources (see references). Artspace (one of the top galleries in New York, USA) owns works by Baznani and he has featured magazines and newspapers across the world. WP:ARTIST. Quite why the nominator thinks that the sources are not independent.
You can find more articles and artwork by the artist (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)
The artist is a famous Moroccan photographer ^[9] ^[10]^[11]^[12] ^[13]
The artist is moroccan, if you (Tachfin) are moroccan^[14] then you can read some newspapers about him in arabic ^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]
The content of this page ^[21] is released under the Creative Commons Zero Waiver 1.0 (CC0). You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission Maromania (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

X is one of the greatest is exactly the type of wording that raises red flags here. Links you've provided either: 1. Do not meet Wikipedia definition of WP:RS (anyone can create a website) 2. Are affiliated with the subject (e.g. Baznani.com) 3. Are anecdotal, insofar as they don't discuss the topic deeply enough. The only exception to this may be this: al-Quds article but it doesn't discuss the subject's life, mearly an interview of some generic stuff about his work, still short of WP:artist or even WP:GNG --Tachfin (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayidaty magazine talk about the artist Achraf Baznani ^[22] Maromania (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help editing text and words? It will be appreciated. Tachfin. Maromania (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Repeated recreation of overly promotional material to the extent that Achraf Baznani got salted. Bad Faithed recreation to avoid the salt. Put aside other considerations and delete this spam, stop rewarding bad faithed editing, deny the spammers the fruits of their labour. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not promotion, the page is about an Artist Photographer. Maromania (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Achraf Baznani did not realize that he was a born artist until he got a camera as a birthday gift in his teen ages. Like many other great people that have walked the earth, Achraf Baznani also had to know it from within and by chance that he was in fact an artist." "The surrealist inside him gave the bravery to direct the short film the way that it earned him the Best Director award in more than five different awarding." "The art where it shows him standing in the middle of a chess board is an amazing idea" "the photobook has summarized the human life in very impressive manner." Yep, promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help rewriting this paragraphs? Maromania (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be re-written. Please learn how to write properly, it will help Wikipedia and your life. Appreciate it. Fevrret (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As @Duffbeerforme: noted, Achraf Baznani has been deleted three times by three different sysops and slated to avoid recreation. There is actually no need to disambiguate the title as in "Achraf Baznani (photographer)" other than to avoid the scrutiny of new page patrolers and "quietly" recreate a 3X deleted article. (also note the existence of Achraf baznani) --Tachfin (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Achraf baznani is redirected to Achraf Baznani (photographer).Maromania (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You Tachfin, the first time you dont believe that the photographer Achraf Baznani is Moroccan! Now you believe it! and you dont wont that the page about him was created! May be your are Moroccan too! anyway the artist is very known in your country. Maromania (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: COI. In addition to the copyright problems which caused me to list this article at WP:CP, there seems to be a WP:COI problem here too:

User:Maromania has for some reason chosen as a username the name of the web host of Baznani's site, Maromania

User:Fevrret is apparently well enough acquainted with Baznani to have taken this photograph of him, in a style very reminiscent of that of the photographer himself.

Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article you tagged as a WP:CP. is now being re-written on a temp article. --Fevrret (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photo of the artist is CC as mentionned on this page http://www.baznani.com/about-the-artist/ Maromania (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for permission to Baznani itself in order to use this photo. Making this a neutral point of view, with permission to use the photo. --Fevrret (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shady behind-the-wiki whatevers aside, I looked through the sources listed. Removing the blogs, the promotional and self-published, and mirrors thereof, we're left with a small group of sources. For the most part, those contain numerous photographs, but only incidental coverage of the person. There are 2 that have the trappings of an interview, but again are superficial (just a question or 2 then a lot of photos). The sources unequivocally prove that A:he exists and B:he makes a lot of cool photographs. But little else to show notability to the level we need. Musee Magazine called him an "Emerging Artist". I think he needs to emerge a bit more to meet requirements here. Crow^Talk 23:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also be aware of the discussion taking place here --Tachfin (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no great enthusiasm. Here we have a photographer whose work is in some ways similar to what the much celebrated Slinkachu is doing, but in at least one way very different. It doesn't happen to be my thing (not that this matters at all), but it's non-negligible. Perhaps he's more notable (in the normal sense of the word) than is a photographer whose article I was bemusedly working on just an hour or so ago (because I came across it while wanting to read about the distinctly notable Alberto Schommer). This source and this one don't seem worthless. However, the boosterism here is persistent and repellent, and (copyright questions aside) the current article is a crude attempt to evade salting. So I wish his Indiegogo appeal well; let him "emerge" (as suggested by Crow above), and if/when this has happened a disinterested would-be article creator may contact Anthony Bradbury (see protection log) with clear evidence for the "emergence". -- Hoary (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. I thought that the Arabic-language coverage would be enough to establish notability; but when I looked at the articles in Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Al Ahdath Al Maghribia, Al-Arab and Sayidaty (a Dubai women's magazine), all of which are proper publications, they all turned out to be substantially the same (and substantially the same as that in Al Bayane). My guess is they've all reprinted the press release for the book. The book doesn't seem to be in WorldCat, I get no VIAF hits for him. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1167269
^ http://issuu.com/joseantunes/docs/fdjun14web
^ http://www.phmag.ca/magazine/imagining-the-impossible/
^ http://museemagazine.com/art-2/features/emerging-artist-interview-achraf-baznani/
^ http://www.artspace.com/achraf-baznani
^ http://getinspiredmagazine.com/featured/achraf-baznani/
^ Interview with Achraf Baznani, Photoshop Creative Magazine, August 2014, Issue 116, Page 98, ISSN 1747-7816.
^ fotoDNG magazine, Issue 95, Page 77, ISSN 1887-3685.
^ http://www.ufunk.net/photos/inside-my-dreams/
^ http://themoroccanist.com/?p=241
^ http://eindutzendmedien.de/achraf-baznani-meine-kleine-welt/
^ Sayidaty Magazine – July 2014 – Issue 1741 - Dubai Emirate
^ Master photography magazine UK Pages 38-39-40 – May/June 2014 – Volume 11 Issue 1 - ISSN 2042-0234
^ http://www.baznani.com/about-the-artist/
^ http://www.baznani.com/press/
^ http://www.almaghribtoday.net/fjghygj-gefiskcj-geyqhki/2014-02-24-12-51-56.html(in Arabic)
^ http://www.alarabonline.org/?id=26386(in Arabic)
^ http://www.alquds.co.uk/?p=170421(in Arabic)
^ "L'expérience photographique d'Achraf Baznani". Al Bayane.(in French)
^ http://www.ahdath.info/?p=1086(in Arabic)
^ http://www.baznani.com/about-the-artist/
^ http://www.sayidaty.net/en/node/205721

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Moulton[edit]

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

~~Unelected political candidate who has received significant coverage for only one event (2014 election). Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator - After reading User:Rustavo's argument and looking over the sources, I believe that Moulton just meets notability requirements. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hirolovesswords: Thanks for weighing in. While writing this, I solicited the opinions of two editors involved in prior deletions of this topic - they both reviewed the draft and encouraged me to post it to mainspace. You can read their opinions on Kudpung's talk page.

For my part, I don't think WP:BLP1E applies - all 3 conditions need to be met for this to count against an otherwise notable article, and I actually don't think any of them are. 1) In addition to the extensive 2014 election coverage, Seth Moulton received substantial contemporaneous coverage for his commentary on the Iraq War (most notably the Boston Magazine article, but also reviews of No End In Sight) 2) During the Iraq war, the 6+ national NPR News interviews, several other media interviews, and prominent appearance in an Acadamy Award nominated documentary, all many years before the 2014 election really preclude him from being considered a "low-profile individual" outside the context of the election. 3) The 2014 election is significant and very well documented, as the many feature-level pieces in regional media, and at least one column by a prominent national political commentator in TIME magazine attest. There are also more brief mentions in a number of national media pieces on "most competitive" or "most significant" elections for the 2014 cycle.

As I discussed more extensively on Kudpung's talk page, I think criteria 2 and 3 of WP:POLITICIAN are satisfied in this case. While there is no question that many unelected primary challengers in congressional races will not satisfy notability criteria, the level of regional and national press coverage of Seth Moulton I think makes this an exception. One other point which I did not mention in the article out of WP:NPOV concerns is that Moulton has been endorsed by both the major Boston papers (the Boston Globe and Boston Herald), and most of the major papers in the 6th district - this is pretty unusual for a primary challenger, and the Globe endorsement has subsequently been noted by national political media, e.g. :[34] and [35]. Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 11:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rustavo. Satisfies WP:GNG, marginally passes WP:POLITICIAN.--JayJasper (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the political aspect of this article weak, but the military aspect strong. Being a failed politician is hardly notable, but it appears that this fellow was notable in his actions in Iraq. I would beef up that part of the article, and leave the political part as a "mention" until he actually gets elected. So it's a weak keep with a request to Rustavo (which is pretty much the sole editor on this article) to give us more of the military history, if possible. LaMona (talk) 15:49, 6 September 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 KeepJacobiJonesJr (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Streamup[edit]

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

I think we should have a discussion to determine notability and the necessity of the article. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this is notable considering Streamup has been covered in Variety (magazine) as one of just a handful of noteworthy streaming media companies capable of reaching a presence as significant as Twitch with their recent acquisition by Amazon.com.^[1] Respectfully, I understand your point that Wiki shouldn't contain insignificant articles, but there are only several significant streaming media platforms left and this is one of them. Kyledmichelson (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did not have an opinion either way, but mention in variety sways me this way.JacobiJonesJr (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JacobiJonesJr, in that case, do you think a WP:WDAFD makes sense? Kyledmichelson (talk) 05:54, 5 September 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford–USC football rivalry[edit]

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

Not a notable article to be hosted on an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia Mohammad Hossain 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. The current article is sketchy and recentist (Stanford and USC have played almost 100 times) but there is certainly a rivalry, as attested by such reliable sources as ESPN.com ("USC-Stanford: Still spicy after all the years), USAToday ("Southern Cal, Stanford a real rivalry"), and Yahoo! Sports ("The Absurdity of Rivalry: A history of Stanford and USC's insane 7-year battle"). --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC) Switched to "keep" per comment below. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Yahoo! Sports article is a rehash of an SBNAtion.com user-submitted blog piece -- not a reliable source per WP:RS. Yahoo often recycles user-submitted material from affiliated sports blogs because it's free content. Beware: not professional sports writers or journalists. If I'm using user-submitted blogs, I can find several sources that say every Division FBS game series is a "rivalry." Our standard is a little higher than that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG per sources identified by Arxiloxos. There's also "Tim Kawakami: Stanford-USC football rivalry more friendly" The San Jose Mercury News.—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but agree with commenter: way too recentist. The history goes much, much further back. However, we have to start somewhere. Let's see if we can get this expanded before we delete. --Esprqii (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Esprqii and I have each added substantial content and sources to the article[36], which now, in my opinion, clearly demonstrates the notability of this old rivalry. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have not had the time to do the WP:BEFORE due diligence required to determine the notability of the Stanford-USC game series as a rivalry, but per WP:NRIVALRY, no sports rivalry is inherently notable, and every sports "rivalry" must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. That means significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources explicitly covering the series as a rivalry, not merely as a recurring game series. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 6 September 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. Sandstein 21:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars systems[edit]

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

Exclusively in-universe description of fictional places. Zero real world notability that I can see. Daniel (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - whether it is fictional or not is not of primary concern here. Perhaps consider a merge with an appropriate Star Wars article.PotassiBot (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (Note: User has been blocked)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge.Bobherry talk 03:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Belongs on Wookiepedia. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is poorly sourced plot summary about fictional locations, written in an in-universe style. There is nothing to indicate real-world notability. I considered a merge, but rejected that idea because I could not identify a target article, or any sourced content in this one that can be merged. Not sure what basis there is for the speedy keep votes. Reyk _YO! 04:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. No reliable third party source found. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of real world notability and no reliable, third party sources. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:09, 12 September 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. If anyone needs access to this to move content to a website outside Wikipedia please let me know. Michig (talk) 08:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Wars cities and towns[edit]

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

Almost entirely an in-universe description of fictional places. No sources. None of these places seem to have any notability outside of the fictional material from which they come. Daniel (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content better suited for Wookiepedia (which can be linked to if necessary). --MASEM (t) 02:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With best article like I said back at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Star_Wars_systems Bobherry talk 03:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perfect for Wookiepedia. The cities themselves don't have any independent notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unsourced in-universe plot summary. Reyk _YO! 04:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Belongs on Wookiepedia. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I PRODed this article a couple of weeks ago. Nathan121212 (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. No reliable third party sources found. As already noted, it better belongs to Wookiepedia. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 06:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Transwikify to Wookiepedia. --Randykitty (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 September 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) 21:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Canseco[edit]

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

Daughter of a notable person (Jose Canseco), who happens to have appeared in a film about him and in a reality show focused on the ex-wives of celebrities called Hollywood Exes. (Can reality TV get any more depraved or useless?) In neither case was Josie Canseco the focus of the media, just an ancillary based on her relationship to others. WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This girl doesn't appear to have any claim to notability other than her father. NickCT (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed no references or notability whatsoever.PotassiBot (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Nothing claims notability here. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jose Canseco. I think he would be the more appropriate redirect, as he is more notable than his wife, Jessica Canseco. Also, there currently is no mention of her on Jose Canseco's article, so she should be mentioned at the very least. Upjav (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC) (Edited Upjav (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 6 September 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. Michig (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Private[edit]

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

A book that is pretty limited and has been tagged since 2010. I think a redirect to the persons page be the best. Wgolf (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no apparent English language sources to the extent it's a possible hoax... Roberticus talk 00:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment-dang so it took 8 years to find it? Wgolf (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-I just tagged it as a hoax. If it is isn't there a page where we put these on? Wgolf (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - No evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am finding some evidence to suggest that this exists, such as the Japanese Wikipedia listing the book and this Amazon page but then that's not exactly definitive. I'll try to see if I can find something that proves it beyond a doubt.

Yup, it exists. Here's the official publisher's page for the book. However there is still a very real issue of notability, so I'd favor a redirect to Aiko_Kayō#Photobooks as I can't really see where there is any coverage for this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-ha okay thanks. I was thinking when someone said a possible hoax about how odd that be given how long the article has been around followed by "dang that be some odd record". Well still not notable. Wgolf (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of sufficient notability to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 00:01, 9 September 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. Michig (talk) 08:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michel van der Horst[edit]

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

I have reviewed this article and found it lacking notability. He has not been the subject of any published, non-trivial secondary source which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. This athlete has had trivial coverage by a secondary source consisting of a listing in a data-base-type website with wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, most likely compiled by a fan or loose association. Youtube and facebook gave the most returns on google. The sport of darts does not even appear on the WP: Notability (sports) article. bpage (talk) 00:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this one sentence wonder per nom... Roberticus talk 00:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per noms spot on analysis - All in all no evidence of Notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable competition darts player. There is no specific notability guideline for darts players per WP:NSPORTS, so darts players must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG for inclusion. In this case, there is not sufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources as required by GNG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:44, 7 September 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.

^ After Twitch, Is Ustream the Next Billion-Dollar Target? Retrieved 2014-09-02.

[1] ttp://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1167269

[2] ttp://issuu.com/joseantunes/docs/fdjun14web

[3] ttp://www.phmag.ca/magazine/imagining-the-impossible/

[4] ttp://museemagazine.com/art-2/features/emerging-artist-interview-achraf-baznani/

[5] ttp://www.artspace.com/achraf-baznani

[6] ttp://getinspiredmagazine.com/featured/achraf-baznani/

[7] Interview with Achraf Baznani, Photoshop Creative Magazine, August 2014, Issue 116, Page 98, ISSN 1747-7816.

[8] fotoDNG magazine, Issue 95, Page 77, ISSN 1887-3685.

[9] ttp://www.ufunk.net/photos/inside-my-dreams/

[10] ttp://themoroccanist.com/?p=241

[11] ttp://eindutzendmedien.de/achraf-baznani-meine-kleine-welt/

[12] Sayidaty Magazine – July 2014 – Issue 1741 - Dubai Emirate

[13] Master photography magazine UK Pages 38-39-40 – May/June 2014 – Volume 11 Issue 1 - ISSN 2042-0234

[14] ttp://www.baznani.com/about-the-artist/

[15] ttp://www.baznani.com/press/

[16] ttp://www.almaghribtoday.net/fjghygj-gefiskcj-geyqhki/2014-02-24-12-51-56.html(in Arabic)

[17] ttp://www.alarabonline.org/?id=26386(in Arabic)

[18] ttp://www.alquds.co.uk/?p=170421(in Arabic)

[19] "L'expérience photographique d'Achraf Baznani". Al Bayane.(in French)

[20] ttp://www.ahdath.info/?p=1086(in Arabic)

[21] ttp://www.baznani.com/about-the-artist/

[22] ttp://www.sayidaty.net/en/node/205721

[23] After Twitch, Is Ustream the Next Billion-Dollar Target? Retrieved 2014-09-02.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[1]