Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 January	26 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edmond Xhelili[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Not even close to meeting WP:MMANOT. Single professional, non-top tier fight and that was a loss. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Not even close to meeting WP:NMMA. An amateur title doesn't show notability. Fails to meet GNG because his coverage is only routine sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lost his only pro MMA fight for a minor organization and doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 30 January 2015 (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. None of the arguments made to keep the article are persuasive as applicable to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines around notability Daniel (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tearfully Beautiful[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. This is a one-off song performed one time at a year-end awards ceremony by a one-off collaboration of kpop performers. Allkpop is used to claim it helped boost the show's ratings. All other sources are primary and don't go toward establishing notability. I don't see how a detailed article can ever be written about this and therefore don't see how it can ever pass the high standards of WP:NSONG. Shinyang-i (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Shinyang-i (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep:this song is the Gaon Chart Hot 100 in December,while was realease At the end of the month,and this song was realease december 26 tearfully beautiful,while this performance in sbs gayo daejun was december 29 and this song the top 100 of gaon single chart ,download chart and bgm chart similar other song thus this song is Independent of performance,So prominent is Like a other korean song in wikipedia with refrence gaon chart,keep it (سعيدس (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
- comment I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean? Keep it because it charted? 200 songs chart every week on Gaon; W:NSONG requires far in excess of this for a song to be notable. Shinyang-i (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Shinyang-i:This article is notable,Since this is a notable song,with top chart and billiboard and is False your comment About song history,this song is Independent of tv show and was realease beafore the show and is not a cover song,however is enough my elucidation for this article,Decides wikipedia administrator (سعيدس (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
keep:this article is valid With respect to Terms of Wikipedia (Mrchurang (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm sorry but could you clarify what you mean? Shinyang-i (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Not a notable single, does not have any real merit (ie: Awards, Charting, etc.) and is lacking promotion outside of SBS Projection - "The Color of KPOP". Tibbydibby (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Shinyang-i :keep this because I've studied Korean article about the song in wikipedia,i see in article [Be Natural] this song is not top chart and notable song,but this song have page in wikipedia Because this song have Music recognition

and Many of the song are no performance but notable in Specified time interval,Tearfully BeautifulAlthough Was made by SBS projaction but this Sources indicate This track is well known and As a Song occasion was recognized and Was known as a hot track in December.(Mrchurang (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You cannot vote twice. Please edit your comment to remove the additional "keep" vote. Shinyang-i (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2015 (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. Daniel (talk) 12:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Aciar[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Tommy Syahputra (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Cannot find any reliable coverage other than routine reports that he signed with the club, and has not yet played in a WP:FPL or FIFA Tier 1 match. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As per nom. MbahGondrong (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2015 (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. While I understand the comment around marking articles as references required, this cannot apply with a biography of a living person. Daniel (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Sotiroff MacDonald[edit]

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

WP:BLP, relying entirely on primary sources without so much as a whit of reliable source coverage in sight, of a person whose most substantive claim of notability is as a local school board trustee. This is not a level of political office that gets a person over WP:NPOL, so her ability to qualify for a Wikipedia article rests entirely on being able to source her over WP:GNG — but given the primary sourcing, that hasn't been demonstrated here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I'm not even sure that there are primary sources, since this article has no actual references. This is another case where I would like to mark it for needing references for a while and see what happens. The person may not be notable, but there are some interesting bits about French language education and same sex marriage that, if properly sourced, might be significant. If not, then deletion would make sense. LaMona (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the external links themselves are all webpages of organizations that happen to be mentioned in the text of the article, so that does count as primary sourcing. For the record, though, I don't put much stock in either French language education or same-sex marriage support as prima facie proof of her notability — her name garners zero hits even in ProQuest's Canadian Newsstand database and just 42 hits (most of which are just mirroring our article) on Google, so I'm not seeing any sourceable evidence that she had a substantive or widespread or meaningful impact on either of those issues. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 29 January

Strong Delete - I did a search using two search engines, still couldn't find any news or published notable results. With the lack of references, shows non- notable.Chosenone Pie (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article describes only local activism that seems unlikely to me to be notable. Regardless, it depends on the existence of reliable sources, which we don't have currently, so there is no actual evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2015 (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 article's usefulness to members of the university fraternity has a significant difference to our policies on what content is encyclopaedic, and what constitutes a reliable independent source. Daniel (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Models and Methods of Quantitative Economics[edit]

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

Largely promotional piece on non-notable short higher-education course. No reliable sources, no indication either from sources or from the text that it's notable. De-prodded without explanation. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no independent description of notability. -M.Altenmann >t 18:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication for why this course is notable. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The piece is well written with reliable sources on a higher-education course. The page provides more information on the program with links that will be very useful to prospective students and also to professors seeking international placement for their students. (Brainy749 (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2015 (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. Daniel (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo and the Maze Maker's Treasure[edit]

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

Self-published book with no secondary coverage besides one student newspaper. Blackguard 18:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly a promotional entry. There is no indication of notability (not one library in WorldCat claims to own the book). I do suspect that the creator of the article is the author of the book, so we should mention Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy as well as the policies against using WP for promotion. LaMona (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-published book with indication of notability as pointed out by the nominator and LaMona. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2015 (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. There is no assertion here of lack of notability or any other reason to delete. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rouse[edit]

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

delete, unsourced blp Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep. Nomination without due diligence. It is "unfootnoted", not "unsourced". The artist meets WP:MUSIC. -M.Altenmann >t 18:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:AltenmannI was unaware that allmusic, myspace are now the standard for refencing a biography, something glorious is a blog (not sure about it's reliability however it may be), hit quarters is decent but what is it being used to reference? This next "reference" is my personal favorite [[1]], as ad to sell a guitar that surely is a useful reference. I don't know what I must have been thinking nominating this so quickly without apparently any good reason whatsoever. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard isn't a blog. Paste isn't a blog [2]. Entertainment Weekly isn't a blog [3]. The Daily News isn't a blog [4].

Article does need referencing improvements, absolutely, but with eleven albums on sufficiently notable record labels, this is an artist who cleanly passes WP:NMUSIC (which actually requires just two). I'm not even a fan, and I've heard of him often enough that I recognized his name instantly before I even clicked on the article to verify how sourced it was and how many albums he'd put out. And the coverage is definitely out there to salvage this with: just five seconds on Google News gave me an Entertainment Weekly citation — EW being among the gold-standard sources for an American musician — to add to the article right off the top, without even having to put any actual work into source hunting. So there's no doubt to be had that this can be salvaged. Keep and flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat, literally a dozen reviews listed here, and that's just for one album. There's also 11 for 1972 (album). [5] I would recommend the nominator withdraw the nomination now because Rouse's notability is quite clear. Everymorning talk 23:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat; it does not take much to research some sources, [6] and so on. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly flawed nomination and the subject is clearly notable. Plenty of sources exist to deal with the concern raised. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy fuck does no one realize I'm not contesting notability. I was contesting that it was unsourced. read the fucking rationale for christ sakes it isn't rocket science. If you want to fix a BLP with no sources great but this has been in a shitty state for a long time and I had no choice but to take it to AFD for those issues because it didn't qualify for a BLP prod as it was too old. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hell in a Bucket, Deletion is not cleanup. Everymorning talk 02:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously or I would have tagged it for clean up. I made a considered decision on what I thought was best for the pedia. I don't care if people disagree with the rationale but at lest don't flame me for something I wasn't suggesting. I believe we have BLP prods for a reason, it doesn't matter if the subject is notable, it matters that it is sourced and can be verified. If those things happen I'm happy to see it kept because that is what is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious option open to you was/is to fix it yourself. --Michig (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that was a option and I choose not to pursue it. If you have a problem with that there is plenty of boards to take it but if you are just going to whine about it here and flame people do everyone a favor and at least make your drivel something that is applicable to the reason it was nominated or simply shut up. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I have made any comments here that were not directly relevant to the AfD discussion. You said you had no choice but to take it to AfD, I pointed out another option. Would it kill you to calm down and be civil towards other editors? --Michig (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a legitimate disagreement about whether the topic even passed a basic notability test in the first place, then AFD would be appropriate. But if (a) notability is absolutely clearcut and there's not even the flimsiest basis for an actual dispute about that, and (b) the article is just inadequately sourced (the sourcing was inadequate, absolutely, but the article was not completely unsourced), and (c) better sourcing is as easily and readily and obviously available as it was here, then we flag it for cleanup rather than listing it for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go ahead and read the link used earlier specifically [[7]] where it states that even notable subjects can still be subject to deletion. I don't care that sourcing is readily available, I nominated it for a prod and apparently sourcing in another article is sufficient to source a BLP at least according to Michig [[8]]. Let's compare [[9]] that's more then a year after I prodded and the article was virtually unchanged, however a consensus could change that with a proper discussion. I waited for over a year then I asked for deletion via this discussion, if the people here think it's worth keeping great I'm glad they want to improve it but I repeat it's fucking ludicrous to contest a rationale for deletion that was never used.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this disruptive nomination of an obviously notable subject? Even the nominator admits that it was pointy and has no actual deletion rationale. --162.95.216.224 (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominate r has admitted to no such thing, the nomination is well within the guidelines for deletion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is your deletion rationale? --162.95.216.224 (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Literally every single sentence in this article is sourced. At least a dozen of the 20 references meet WP:RS. This is farcical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly when I nominated it had every sentence sourced and I did this all because I like making stuff up [[10]], seriously if you want to whine about why I nominated it, really it does help to know what you are talking about and at least do a good faith reading over the rationale provided originally and the subsequent discussion. It's all here on this page if you took 2 minutes to read it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current state is 100 percent well-sourced. Its state a week ago has exactly zero to do with notability or its current state. The article is sourced and is clearly notable and your patent refusal to withdraw this nomination despite cleanup and improvements and the clear notability of the subject is simply beyond understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.95.216.224 (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2015 (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. No real need to userfy properly given the only two meaningful-for-CC edits are by the person who recreated it in userspace. Once the individual reaches the threshold for notability (that the creator concedes that he hasn't yet), please move back to articlespace. Daniel (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Brandt[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP based on speculation as to future appearances, which is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 17:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I realise that I made this a little presumptively, and I can hardly argue that he qualifies right now. However, I've taken a copy of this page on my own subspace so if this gets deleted then I'll just wait until he records a match at professional level and repost it. If you want to delete it, I won't challenge. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. @Falastur2: we can properly userfy it if you wish? Giant Snowman 19:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What would the difference be between what I already have on my subspace and you userifying it? But if you userifying grants some extra benefits, then please do. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Falastur2: The advantage of userifying the article is that it would retain its current editing history, if that's something you care about. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: Well it's not hugely important to me, but on the other hand there's no down side to it, so if you want to userify the article to my subspacethen I invite you to. Falastur2 ^Talk 19:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:TOOSOON. Once he plays on the pitch, the article can be recreated. Not opposed to userfying the article to Falastur2's space for future recreation once WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG are met. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:07, 1 February 2015 (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. Editors should consider through normal channels whether it should be merged to the country-wide list of NGOs. postdlf (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-governmental organisations based in Karachi[edit]

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

Wikipedoa is not the yellow pages Legacypac (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:26, 11 January 2015 (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 (drawl) @ 18:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We already have a category (Category:Organisations based in Karachi). List is not needed. Neutrality^talk 05:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't fail WP:SALAT, nor has a valid reason for deletion been offered. Merge to List of non-governmental organizations in Pakistan. The other list is not so long that it needs to be split up. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALAT is not the policy to look at. The appropriate policy to apply is Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists. NickCT (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 16:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep. A useful wikipedia navigation tool and not "the yellow pages"; meets criteria for wikipedia lists: it lists wikipedia articles, not all NGOs from Karachi. -M.Altenmann >t 18:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re "meets criteria for wikipedia lists" - Could you be specific about which criteria you're referring to? The fact it lists WP articles is not a criteria for inclusion. NickCT (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes + Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. -M.Altenmann >t 20:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty blatant example of over listification. This is a non-notable intersection. NickCT (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2015 (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. Since the article is moved, this should be now under WP:RFD.. (non-admin closure) - The Herald (here I am) 16:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy[edit]

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

Heather Bresch is - barely - notable. This controversy is anything but. The existence of this article blatantly violates WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. The article needs to die. Guy (Help!) 15:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be more specific about the blatant violation of WP:BLP? Would your concerns be addressed if the article were renamed to eliminate her name? Lou Sander (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources needed to establish notability clearly exist and they're cited. That's really all that matters at AfD. Msnicki (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or possibly merge with West Virginia University - Note that there is also a move proposal under discussion. The article has roughly 11 sources from three independent, reliable sources. It would seem to meet WP:GNG. The nominator has not explained why "this article blatantly violates WP:BLP" or why it's WP:UNDUE, but it doesn't matter, because those are content issues, not a notability issues.- Mr X 15:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge to History of West Virginia University. Vast amount of RS backing up the verifiability of this event. Passes GNG by a wide margin. IMHO, meets each criteria of WP:EVENT. Concerns about BLP seem overblown, since there's nothing controversial in either this pagespace or the Bresch article which isn't well cited with RS. No statement of personal misconduct in either page. After reading the linked move discussion, I'm also inclined to endorse the move proposal. While this incident involved the degree of one (highly visible) student, the impact and the sourcing points towards WVU as the more proper subject and move or merge target. BusterD (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to WVU. User:JzG is correct: this is a blatant BLP violation and undue to boot. Most of this stuff has nothing to do with her--it's a WVU matter, an unseemly one, but it's their business. I don't know if she's barely notable or not; the Fortune accolades suggest that she should pass the test. How is this a BLP violation? Well, the material doesn't really relate to her, and by giving this material its own article we are suggesting that this is one of the things she's known for and it's such an important thing that like the Vietnam War and Amstel Beer it deserves its own article. I have little interest in figuring out if this was a hatchet job to begin with, or what the background of Jimbo's recent involvement is, or whatever--but this needs to go. A paragraph in WVU, a sentence, maybe two, in her biography, and NO redirect. Come on people. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the material relates to her. Did you read the article at all, or any of the sources like this one or this one. Any issues about WP:NPOV are addressed by trivially changing the title of the article, and perhaps tweaking some of the content.- MrX 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Drmies covered that w/ "a sentence" in her article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a UWV article, its a BLP problematic POV Fork ONEVENT and entirely unneeded as a separate article per Drmies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the university article. As Drmies points out, it's mainly an issue concerning the university rather than the person, and as a standalone article it looks like a BLP/one event/undue problem. Squinge (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that it has been renamed. Squinge (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either the WVU article or the History of WVU article. Doesn't meet notability standards as a stand-alone event. Coretheapple (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a condensed version to the History of West Virginia University as proposed above. Good call. bd2412 T 20:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete or seriously trim and merge. gigantic BLP issue.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as per the article's talk page. Metamagician3000 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Msnicki. This is neither a POV fork nor solely WVU history, but a notable intersection of politics, medicine, academia, and business. No, we don't like how the world works, but this is how it works, and we ought to allow the editors who collected several good RSes to keep their work available to those interested. The comparison to Vietnam War is especially specious because very few articles are on such overwhelmingly notable topics - much more common are articles like SummerSlam (2003) (and don't even try to quote OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me, because that article and many of comparable notability are featured as "Wikipedia's best work"!) There are matters that mere peasants ought not dare look into or think about but how about we do it anyway? Wnt (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm concerned about so many votes to merge. The topic is certainly notable on its own so I'm concerned that the most likely ~~reason to merge might be so that "balance" may be applied~~ result of any merge would be a call to "balance" the reporting with the rest of the article, meaning that this being negative information, it will be buried. We should not be in the business of playing games to censor information we do not like. Msnicki (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Balance - does not deserve scare quotes from encyclopedia writers (or even Wikipedians), without balance, we have unbalance. Per WP:AfD merging is a valid outcome, not censorship! - which is an absurd claim considering merge results in material being in the encyclopedia. As a matter of encyclopedic judgement, it's better in context, so merge (or delete per Drmies sound argument which is not censorship either). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ATD-M, merge is a valid outcome when the article is "short and unlikely to be expanded" and, per WP:GNG, the topic is not sufficiently notable to justify a separate article but is still worthy of discussion in the context of a larger article. Merge is not a valid outcome when the topic is so clearly notable on its own and there is so much to say about it. Msnicki (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's silly. Merge is a valid outcome when the editorial judgement is to merge. Nothing about it is censorship. There is no such thing as deserving an article. See WP:ONUS and WP:PAGEDECIDE Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What Drmies said. --Dweller (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "controversy" is not, in itself, notable enough to warrant its own article. Collect (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per number of top executives at WVU brought down by it. Probably should be renamed to something without Bresh's name in the title, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per SarekOfVulcan's logic above. Either rename it or move it to something like History of West Virginia University. It contains good, well-sourced information about a coverup-style scandal. Maybe that is its main importance. The problem is where to put it. I'm thinking it relates 5% to Heather Bresch, 25% to WVU, and 70% to some combination of scandals in general and scandals in academia. It has similarities to the recent scandals at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where for many years athletes were credited with taking courses that they never took. A quick look at UNC articles doesn't reveal any mention of those scandals. There's an article on Academic dishonesty, but this sort of thing doesn't fit well there. This whole thing is like the Watergate scandal, except it resulted in top heads rolling at a university rather than a country. It is also in some ways like the Black Sox scandal, which has its own large article. Also Iran–Contra affair is a scandal with its own article. Maybe somewhere there should be a List of Scandals article or something. The specific category for the Bresch matter is Degree-granting scandals. That topic is related to, but not part of, Diploma mills in the United States. It's a puzzlement. Lou Sander (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This incident led to the resignation of a university president, an event of lasting historical significance. Merger either to the Bresch biography or to the President's biography would be UNDUE, merger to the history of the university would get lost or clutter the narrative. The incident is significant and the incident is notable in WP terms, passing GNG. Carrite (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

s/lasting/no obvious real/. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sarek's idea to get Bresch's name out of the title is probably a good one. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Renaming issues are for discussion and consensus at article talk pages. XfD is for discussion of keep/merge/delete. --Dweller (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general, yeah, but sometimes tweaking a name makes all the difference in terms of whether a topic is perceived as a "personal attack page" or reportage of a notable historic incident. Such things do indeed come up in the course of deletion debates, they are germane, and particularly relevant here, I think. Carrite (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate proposal to move the article, with much cogent discussion and much support at Talk:Heather_Bresch_M.B.A._controversy#Requested_move_24_January_2015. There is another discussion also going on at Talk:Heather_Bresch#Merge_proposal, with a lot of discussion but not a lot of support or opposition expressed. It doesn't seem to be a great idea to have a concurrent discussion about deleting it, especially when the bulk of that discussion seems to revolve around the article's name. Lou Sander (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable event with excellent references. New England Cop (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the History of West Virginia University. If it stays, rename to West Virginia University MBA controversy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename This is a tough one. The sources clearly establish notability. The inclusion of Heather Bresch's name in the title is a BLP violation especially since notability concerns the actions and aftermath of what some university officials did. Merging would be a possibility if there were a good target, but I don't see one. While notable, I don't think it belongs in West Virginia University or the History of West Virginia University. I agree with Anthonyhcole that it should be renamed as West Virginia University MBA controversy. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename I've posted here and in other places about this article, and have followed all of them fairly closely. I agree with Anthonyhcole and I am One of Many that it should be renamed as West Virginia University MBA controversy, and I think this is an easy call. The controversy is definitely notable by itself, so it should have its own article. The move removes BLP issues with Bresch. If it's moved to one of the WVU articles, it really gives undue weight to the incident with regard to the university and its history. Lou Sander (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? Are you saying there should be NO mention of this in a WVU article? If these is such mention how will it overwhelm it, what critical information will be lost by merging this POVfork? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sympathetic to those arguing to keep, but rename to West Virginia University MBA controversy based on BLP, but respectfully, I think the rename would be inappropriate. I think it could be overturned in DRV if anyone chose to take it there. Here's why. First, I think Dweller is correct on the guidelines, that we consider only notability at XFD and the outcomes are keep, merge or delete. Everything else is a content issue, properly the matter of other forums including article talk pages and move discussions, some of which have been reported to be underway already. Title is content and this is just not the place where we decide content. Second, the notable topic we can all find in the sources is not some vague controversy over West Virgina University's MBA program over the years and involving who knows how many MBAs they've conferred. It is a specific controversy over a particular MBA conferred on the single individual whose name appears in the article title. Even if we did decide content here (and we don't), I think there's a pretty good WP:COMMONNAME argument that the title we've got is the one we should have anyway. We should keep the article and leave the question of title to the usual forums for content decisions. Msnicki (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You raise good points, but this case is in a gray area that is difficult to nail down. Articles are commonly rescued by changing content (e.g., stripping away promotional content). So, I think if the title is a major obstacle to keeping the article, it should be renamed and then the name of the article should be put up for discussion if necessary. I did a search on West Virginia University MBA controversy and it pulled up the relevant information, so I think it would not be so easy to make a WP:COMMONNAME argument against the title. --I am One of Many (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. And in fact, I'd go further to concede that if you compare searches (as suggested in WP:COMMONNAME), you would find additional support for your argument. I got 184,000 hits for "West Virginia University MBA controversy" versus only 2,320 hits for "Heather Bresch MBA controversy". (But how many of each are relevant?) What I'm saying is that I think we could have a very rich discussion of the title and I could certainly be persuaded there might be something better. But an AFD is not the place where that's likely to happen. I think this is the wrong forum, especially as the article title has been reported to be under discussion already in the proper forums. Msnicki (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have closed the RM, and the article is now at West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy. I don't spend much time at AfD, so please let me know if the move breaks anything. :-) As I described in the close, this is not intended to affect the outcome of this discussion. Sunrise (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks good move, and as stated in that discussion by me and other supporters of that move, it does not affect the delete/merge issue, so thanks again. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Msnicki (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets notability standards as currently implemented on Wikipedia; a notable event particularly for the fallout at the university, key individuals (e.g. president), etc. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I agree with Nomoskedasticity: easily meets notability standards ... ; a notable event particularly for the fallout at the university; key individuals (e.g., President); etc. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original nominator claims that "Heather Bresch is - barely - notable." Huh? You are either notable or you are not. She has a Wikipedia article. Thus, by definition, she is notable. She is a CEO of a company. She is part of this political family (daughter of a governor and senator). How does the nominator support the idea that Bresch is not notable? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2015 (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. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic–Kenya relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of third party coverage. Almost all the article is based on one primary source, http://www.kenyaembassy.nl/index.php/listing/kenya-s-work-with-czech-republic . The three agreements listed are with the predecessor state Czechoslovakia, including air services when there are no flights between the countries. Since Czech Republic became a country, not one new agreement has been reached in Kenya, and only one visit by a Czech minister in over 20 years. LibStar (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Czech embassy in Kenya was closed in 2011 and reopened in 2014. Around 10,000 of Czech tourists visit Kenya each year [11] (Mladá fronta DNES, in Czech). There's a collaboration between the states in the field of environmental protection [12] (Dvůr Králové Zoo, in Czech), defense [13] (Ministry of Defence (Czech Republic), Czech), or humanitarian aid [14] (Deník, in Czech). Interesting, notable and expandable topic, might be useful for our readers, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for finding sources, I will reconsider. However, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ITSINTERESTING are not reasons for keeping. LibStar (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" and "notable" is just my opinion, based on the sources I've found. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Czechs say that Kenya is one of their "most important trading partners in sub-Saharan Africa" and have plenty of details to report. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kenya and the Czech Republic have had more visits by government officials, trade ties exist, Kenya is even referred as one of the most important trading partners of the Czech republic in Sub Saharan Africa "most important trading partners in sub-Saharan Africa". The article posted by Andrew D. clearly has more details. 10,000 Czech tourists also visit Kenya, which is something that could be noted culture wise.--Nairobi123 (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2015 (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) 20:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional conspiracy theorists[edit]

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

Any list that includes both Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes and Fox Mulder has to be suspect. I'd say this unsourced list runs afoul of WP:ISNOT, it isn't doing much to contribute to the state of human knowledge. Vrac (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:LISTCRUFT #C9 "Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available." From the article List of Sgt. Frog characters, it's hard to say why Fuyuki Hinata should be considered a conspiracy theorist. Is there a source for that? – Margin1522 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-defining and subjective traits, even if BuzzFeed published a "top 20 fictional conspiracy theorists" list. Pointing to the strips where Calvin from Calvin & Hobbes is a conspiracy theorist is either OR or trivial, or both. I don't think it should even be made into a category, (see Category:Fictional characters by occupation), since "conspiracy theorist" is not generally considered an occupation, and there is no equivalent category for real people, unlike Category:Fictional plumbers.

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. In line with the established custom, those contributions from unregistered users and users with limited contributions outside the topic have been given less weight. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ServerHub[edit]

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

A substantial challenge has been mounted to a speedy nomination. I think that a discussion is in order. My own feeling is that notability is not shown, but this was not strong enough to speedily delete. Peridon (talk) 13:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 14:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They have their own ASN number of AS30693. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.251.149.1 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does this support Wikipedia notability? reddogsix (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because sources like AzCentral, Inc, Pingzine magazine provide evidence of notability Rohips (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Ping article is hardly non-trivial support for the organisation - it really is a PR to tout being 400+ on the INC list. The AzCentrial is just a line listing of the company. reddogsix (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I wouldn't consider the Ping article to be a PR, it's based off an actual physically printed magazine issue interviewing the CEO, Issue #75 http://issuu.com/pingzine/docs/pz_issue74 Rohips (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That link takes me (after getting rid of an irritating popup thing) to a picture of a magazine cover. Peridon (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's Digital Version of the magazine, should have page numbers, article was on page 24/25 Rohips (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No numbers as I see it. There's an i in a circle, which takes me to an advert, and some incomprehensible symbols at top right. One is a +, which I take to be an invitation to add something or 'like' it. I don't have Flash - perhaps that's it, but I usually get a warning. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's flash based, here is a screenshot of what you'd see http://i.imgur.com/7oaPJmY.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohips (talk • contribs) 20:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Strange to be saying this, but this seems like a WP:ROTM hosting provider to me. Sources are passing mentions and press releases... Don't see notability right now. -- BenTels (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to show notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Although the sources vary in quality depth and coverage they provide enough evidence to meet the notability guidelines, Significant coverages and sources to provide evidence so that No external research was done on my part Reliability and integrity of the sources were checked Independent of subject./ Desertsun84 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC) — Desertsun84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2015 (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. Daniel (talk) 12:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson (priest)[edit]

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

Article about a priest in Nottingham, England, who was clearly well educated and busy in the Notingham area, also writing a few journal articles. However, it reads as nothing more than a CV of said person. Speedy deletion tag was removed and PROD template has now been removed (on the basis he is an author of something). The Nottingham Churches website page link is now broken and, failing any particular assertions of notability, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Sionk (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless his published works are shown to be notable. Otherwise, fails WP:BIO. Peridon (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no doubt a good man, but really just an ordinary vicar. St Anselm (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am dubious whether he did much to lift him above the ordinary. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flowerdale, Alberta[edit]

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

No third party sources to establish notability. Does not meet MOS:CA#Article or redirect?. 117Avenue (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - (same message as other nomination because same thing applies) See WP:GEOLAND. Permanently inhabited places are almost always notable when they can be proven to exist. JT_dale^Talk~ 06:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JTdale: Can you prove this place is inhabited? 117Avenue (talk) 07:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. JT_dale^Talk~ 01:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but respectfully, no evidence has been provided that it was ever notable throughout any point in its history. Based on the research below, it was essentially what we would now call a home-based business today. Hwy43 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My correction. I didn't read the article correctly, and I withdraw my objection. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xcuref1endx (talk • contribs)
@Xcuref1endx: under what grounds? Hwy43 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it actually fails WP:GEOLAND. It is not populated. It is not legally-recognized by Alberta Municipal Affairs. It is not recognized whatsoever in the Canadian Geographical Names Data Base, in the Alberta Geographical Names System (can be ordered for free via AESRD), or by Statistics Canada.
This source only verifies there was a post office and store named Flowerdale (no confirmation that these were separate buildings). This source refers to this, which is a photo of the store and sod house (which appear to be one in the same as only one building is shown).
This external link is a WP:SELFPUBLISH link. This external link is a picture of the store owner's house, which may very well be the house in the previous photo with a second floor replacing what appeared to be the sod roof. This external link actually refers to the existence of "Flowerdale Municipality", not this former place (most likely referring to "Flowerdale No. 244" covering a much larger rural territory that is confirmed to have existed in 1918).
All I am seeing here is that a place with anywhere between one and three buildings existed for a very short period of time. There is nothing here that confirms it was notable per WP:GNG in its short period of existence. Hwy43 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hwy43. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND; also fails to meet WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 14:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:FIVEPILLARS gazetteer. Apparently is included in the Canadian Council on Geomatics (CCOG)'s Geobase according to Map of Flowerdale, Alberta. According to a number of easily found sources, it was considered to be a municipality for a number of years, so WP:NTEMP also applies. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VMS Mosaic: I already addressed the municipality thing in my last post. The former municipality of the same name was the Municipal District (MD) of Flowerdale No. 244, a rural municipality covering a vast rural farming area (see List of municipal districts in Alberta for info on these types of municipalities). Anyway, this "Flowerdale" is a named place, not the vast former rural municipality. It could have very well been located within the MD, but this place (one the three buildings) was not a municipality in its own right. Hwy43 (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article's topic needs to meet WP:GNG before WP:NTEMP can be invoked. So, I reiterate my last comment to JTdale further above; no evidence has been provided that it was ever notable throughout any point in its history. Being in CCOG's database doesn't confer notability to this place. All it does is confirm that this named former place exists. Hwy43 (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be knowledgeable about Canadian geography, so can you decode this 'Flowerdale; 1-28-12-w4; Special Area 2; Former Locality' for me from [15]? Does 'Locality' refer to the M.D. or to the place where A. R. Stewart's stone house and store/postoffice were located? Why can't the article be about both the 'ghost place' and the ghost M.D.? Evidence points to the place preceding and being in the M.D. Notability takes in the entire history of the geoplace. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@VMS Mosaic: "1-28-12-w4" refers to a land description in the Alberta Township System of the Dominion Land Survey. It is Section 1, Township 28, Range 12, west of the 4th Meridian. A section is one square mile in size. In this context, the (former) locality of Flowerdale would have referred to the house and store/post office, which would have been located somewhere within this one square mile.
The MD of Flowerdale No. 244 would have comprised hundreds of sections of land. Though I don’t have a map of this particular former MD, I have a map from the 1936 census that shows the former MD’s neighbour to the east, the MD of Collholme No. 243, was three townships by three townships in size. Where a township is about 36 mi² (comprising 36 sections), Collholme No. 243 would have been about 324 mi² (or 324 sections). Flowerdale No. 244, which dissolved in 1932 through an amalgamation, would have been of a similar size.
At this time, this article cannot be about the 'ghost place' and the 'former MD' as we have no WP:RS confirming the ghost place was actually located within the larger former MD of the same name. That would be a speculative assumption that could very well be wrong. For example, Alberta's Hamlet of Mountain View is located in Cardston County, not Mountain View County that is over 270 km (170 mi) north of the hamlet.
At this point, there continues to be no evidence that this ghost place met WP:GNG during its existence, so WP:NTEMP still does not yet apply (the MD of Flowerdale No. 244 on the other hand may be a different story). Hwy43 (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per VMS Mosaic's information. It should be described as both a place / former hamlet / former community or whatever and also as a former rural municipality. Good use of the Wikipedia to provide this simple, useful reference information. --do ncr am 14:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: please see my responses to VMS Mosaic's questions above. We have no reliably sourced confirmation that the place was located within the former MD, and there remains no evidence that place met GNG at any time during its existence in order for NTEMP to apply. Hwy43 (talk) 08:00, 16 January 2015 , that(UTC)

It was a formal municipality. So there is notability for an article. The article can/should cover both hamlet and municipality. If you want to argue, weirdly, that the hamlet was not in the municipality, do that at the Talk page of the article. Responding negatively to every comment that does not agree with you is badgering, doesn't help your case. Like I said, Keep, per VMS Mosaic. --do ncr am 20:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, the place subject to this AfD was not a formal municipality. There is no disputing that the former municipality, the similarly named MD of Flowerdale No. 244, is notable. The former MD is not the subject of this article.
I have not argued the place is not in the former municipality. All I stated, in response to VMS Mosaic, is we cannot assume that it was in the former municipality without confirmation. This was in response to VMS Mosaic suggesting that the article be about both the place and former municipality.
I guess there is a thin line between badgering and providing greater detail than what can be gleaned from a surficial view of the article, and providing the context of Alberta’s communities and municipalities for the benefit of the nominator and all current and future contributors to the discussion. At least your position has been informed by much more than bare minimum. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In looking over the historical City Directories for BC on the Vancouver Public Library website, many places turn up in their listings that aren't in BC Names or the Canadian Geographical Names databases; including post offices that aren't listed in either, too. And lots more; wondering if there is a similar city directories archive for Alberta....my gut instinct is to say "keep" or at least redirect/subsection it on MD No. 244's page; we have lots of uninhabited localities in BC e.g. Metsantan (Caribou Hide, British Columbia) and Taku, British Columbia and many others. BCGNIS and CGNDB are by no means complete; the entries for Dewdney and Nicomen Island, for example, say nothing about their former municipal status, which I've been able to cite using historical newspapers....Skookum1 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND, despite the red herring of the similarly named municipality. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- reply GEOLAND seems like a red herring, and if anything it needs amending; as per Category:Ghost towns, for starters, and any number of localities that are "on the map" and may or may not be populated (but being the only thing for 100 miles, definitely are notable in a geographic sense. That a place needs to be populated to be notable is inherently incorrect; that is an urban judgment/bias, for one thing, and the larger reality includes things like ghost towns and places like those mentioned in my previous post above. Amend GEOLAND rather than delete something based on what it (currently) says. It's not like God created that guideline; a few wikipedians did....and it clearly needs amending. Scads of post offices, canneries and cannery towns, former municipalities abound; GEOLAND should respect and reflect that.... not interdict it.Skookum1 (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - here's a locality that hasn't been populated since 1964 and is highly notable, for a number of reasons; Haylmore only had the namesake and his family as population. The idea that population defines notability should be ditched; that's not a very useful or realistic limitation (in that case, other than it being heritage and him being historically as well as officialdom notable that was also an incredibly little 2.67 ha patch of placer claim in an important "mining camp" - meaning subdivision of a mining district). Lots of former mines, and as mentioned cannery towns and logging camps, are no longer populated but were once bigger than still-populated locations in the same areas; and some like Haylmore and places like Gang Ranch and others only ever had a handful of people. GEOLAND needs modification to reflect reality; not a desire to limit notability, which seems to be a general problem with WP:N guideilnes.Skookum1 (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Minto City is yet another place that has not had a population since 1960 or so when its location was flooded for a powerproject; it had been marginally populated since a flood from the large creek it was at the mouth of delivered a flash flood with debris t hat mostly destroyed it. It's highly notable...but was never a municipality, either. Camp McKinney from the same period was similarly large but depopulated after the mine closed; and Granite Creek, British Columbia yet another large place that is now has almost no sign of the former town there; it was also never incorporated, like dozens of other places I could name. GEOLAND is outdated and needs revision, plainly put.Skookum1 (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns about the vintage and currency of GEOLAND, the appropriate place to express them are at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Hwy43 (talk) 16:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, of course, but it's been invoked here twice (in two different directions) and should be set aside as an issue vs actual precedents and reality as it is out of date and too narrow in conception to be taken seriously in this discussion. Like other guidelines it is NOT a rule.Skookum1 (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is arguing that a place that once had a population is not notable. But did Flowerdale once have a population? 117Avenue (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Former populated place with commerce conducted there. We routinely deprod similar things like Bitch Creek Cow Camp, Idaho without debate as long as they were populated and in a defined location (not a neighborhood within a defined populated place). What would be the nearest newspapers? Can we contact anyone to seek additional coverage?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this source that it once was a populated place? 117Avenue (talk) 04:01, 30 January 2015 (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. This discussion has been relisted twice but we're no closer to finding a consensus to delete after three weeks. No prejudice to renominating at any junction in the near future. Daniel (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Dillahunty[edit]

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

Mostly primary sources, lecture announcements, self-written stuff. Notability tag was recently removed with edit summary referring to a blog post, reviews of documentary which includes/mentions the subject, etc. EEng (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources - I'm trying to walk a tight line of neutrality so I'm not going to add any of these, but there's Hemant Mehta's blog and some articlea in the Austin-American Statesman. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of atheist activists and educators. Found a source at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/atheist-experience-child-rape_n_2434198.html AadaamS (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post piece is 300 words about a nasty person who called the radio show cohosted by the subject -- mentions the subject three times. EEng (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AadaamS - I don't know much about merging but how would this article merge into the list? Would it be simplified to fit the layout in the list? All the names there have their own article and it just gives a very brief overview of the person. ツStacey (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added additional sources just to back up statements from less reliable references. I have also removed a paragraph that I could not find any information on. I think there is enough coverage of this guy to make him notable. It seems unnecessary to delete an article which has a good variety of different sources and is fairly well written. ツStacey (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Among all these routine announcements, self-published stuff, blogposts, and so on, could you just list the 3-5 sources that constitute the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" called for by W:GNG? EEng (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPS isn't a blanket condemnation of blogs. Blogs of established experts who have published elsewhere are eligible sources, which would on the face of it allow the citations of Greta Christina (Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry, The Humanist) and PZ Meyers (numerous scientific works and the not irredeemable Los Angeles Times[16]). Meyers' blog itself is recognized by Nature as "the top-ranked blog by a scientist" so I don't think it can just be discounted. In addition, there are these two substantial pieces explicitly about Dillahunty as should be obvious from the titles: cite #40, "'It is foolish for skeptics to spare religion': Matt Dillahunty has converted many Americans to atheism...", Norwegian Humanist Association (translated from Norwegian); and cite #12, "Is Intelligent Design a Circular Argument? A Conversation with Atheist Activist Matt Dillahunty", Discovery Institute. — Brianhe (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem you've got there is that WP:SPS, which you're citing, says

Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.

EEng (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per substantial 3rd party coverage noted above, including but not limited to blogs written by notable bloggers who have been published as experts in other 3rd party publications. — Brianhe (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine. Could you list 3-5 independent, reliable sources (whether blogs or not) providing significant coverage? EEng (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination, PZ Meyers' Pharyngula (blog) appears to no longer be covered by WP:SPS but is ineffect a National Geographic outlet. From the article, "In April 2011, ScienceBlogs was taken over by National Geographic. While Seed would still maintain ownership of the site, National Geographic would acquire editorial control..." So the easiest to defend substantial-coverage, independently published sources would be #12, #13, #32, #40. Brianhe (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so to be sure we're on the same page, you're talking about --

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]

-- Right? EEng (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. I also am asking at RSN whether [21] is acceptable. — Brianhe (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even assuming these are RS, this is awful slim for GNG. I'd like to hear what others think. EEng (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to list the Austin American-Statesman piece, which is quite extensive. Their site now has a paywall but I'll assume good faith that this reprint at richarddawkins.net is authorized: [22] Brianhe (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep especially because of the Trouw reference. That is a national newspaper in the Netherlands, with a circulation of 317,000. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 01:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. The article is a patchwork collection of non-reliable sources, speakers bureau write-ups, primary sources, and American Atheists Convention news. The articles that do quote him, such as Evolution News and Christian Today, are better suited as sources for The Atheist Experience, not Dillahunty himself. The article should also be tagged for overly-promotional writing; it reads like a resume of Dillahunty's activities, with some of his favorite quotes thrown in for good measure. Rather than take information from independent sources and make an article out of it, the page writers appear to be gathering any and all sources to back up each point that they wish to make to present Dillahunty as a notable person. Numerous sources only mention Dillahunty in passing. The Austin American-Statesman piece and the Dutch article does not "significant coverage in reliable sources" make. Dillahunty already has his own paragraph at The Atheist Experience; that's where he belongs. Yoninah (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the delete !voters. I don't get it. Are we talking about the same sources? In what way is this insignificant? I'll list the >1000 word articles below, without conceding that the other sources add to notability, and would point out that this represents a broad cross-section of views, both pro- anti- and neutral-to-religion, in both general newspapers and specialist publications, and across many countries and languages. Surely no one can claim there is a "localist" bias here, or a viewpoint overly sympathetic to the subject.

Publication	Words (round to nearest hundred)
Evolution News and Views [23]	1100
Christian Today [24]	1100
Trouw [25]	1200
Austin American-Statesman [26]	1300
fritanke.no (Norwegian Humanist Association) [27]	1500

Are we sure this is being held to a reasonable standard along the par of other articles? Example, Session of Christ is a Philosophy and Religion GA that has, best I can tell, at most 14 pages of independent citations (I'm discounting the Bible as it constitutes a primary source). Now I know people are going to say "other stuff exists" is not a defense; however, a Good Article review does establish a bar for "good", let alone "don't delete". I've just shown that this article has about half as many pages, using a rough metric of 1 page=1k, and actually more sources. — Brianhe (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word count in each article has nothing to do with notability; it's the quality of the coverage that we're looking at. If a major newspaper conducts an interview with Dillahunty, or focuses on his work exclusively, that's "significant" coverage. If an article mentions him in passing, as most of the sources do (they refer to Dillahunty as the co-host of The Atheist Experience, and then get on with the real subject of the article), then it does not count toward "significant" coverage. As I mentioned in my !vote, the Evolution News and Christian Today articles are focusing on the show, not Dillahunty himself. It's nice that you came up with 2 or 3 good sources, but that doesn't satisfy the more widespread requirement of "significant" coverage. Yoninah (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a curious view. To me an article rebutting a speaker's world view and dissecting his arguments is about the speaker, not about a television show. Even if Christian Today can be portrayed as objecting to the tone of the show, it's the tone set by Dillahunty, by name. That covers the ID and Christian works (the first two in the table). The American Statesman piece is a straight up biographical sketch. The Norwegian Humanist piece is an analysis of his (not anybody else's) positions, and the Trouw piece mixes his positions in with some others but couldn't reasonably be described as "in passing".

Another curious point you present is "the page writers appear to be gathering any and all sources...to present Dillahunty as a notable person". This is probably because folks have been working hard to defend the article on its third deletion attempt. No doubt the article could be improved. — Brianhe (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I urge the closer to simply review the links above to see how inappropriate they are. For example: Christian Today mentions the subject once and goes on to make miscellaneous generalized complaints about atheists in general, not the subject. An almost classic passing mention. EEng (talk) 07:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly be helpful to go read that article because when you do, you'll see that EEng is factually wrong. Christian Today mentions the full name Matt Dillahunty once, then mentions "Matt" three more times. Not just that, a facile namecheck isn't the salient point here. David Robertson (Free Church Minister) is arguing that debaters who adopt Dawkins' admonition to mock and ridicule religion should be treated seriously and treated harshly in return. He names Dillahunty and analyzes one of his debates with Robertson as an example; a podcast created by Premier Christian Radio by the way, not The Atheist Experience. This endorses Dillahunty's position and his debating style as significant to Robertson, himself a notable and influential person, and significant to the movement Robertson is a part of. In his concluding paragraph Robertson urges his readers to shape their response to "mockers deceivers and destroyers" referring back to Dillahunty. Robertson is telling his flock, and us, that Dillahunty and his ideas matter. He is notable. — Brianhe (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right. He's mentioned four times (in two paragraphs) and then the author goes on to make general complaints about atheists in general, not the subject. (I missed it because of the weird first-person style these people seem to use.) That's way different. EEng (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 13:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Intercontinental Contest[edit]

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

Not sure if it meets G4, but previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Intercontinental pageant. Paul_012 (talk) 11:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for speedy deletion per G4. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 12:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as like the rest that keep appearing here - All created by someone affliated with the contest and as per No evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 22:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of ships attacked by Somali pirates. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2013[edit]

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

There's a main article with the subject. The nominated article has little information to merits its own entry. 26oo (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge These lists would warrant a WP:SIZESPLIT if it is very large, say like the 2008 list (78 kB) and the 2009 list (82 kB). The 2013 list seems to have been created just in for the pattern of the split lists, and looks severely unfinished in its current state. If that's the only two attacks in the year, it would be better to incubate back at the main article and only split again if necessary. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 14:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main page per Hisashiyarouin. Necessarily short list, as there have only been a handful of attempted hijackings since 2012 and no successful ones. Middayexpress (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above - If it was large it would need a separate article but only having 2 incidents there's no need for a separate article. –Davey2010^Talk 20:33, 25 January 2015 (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) 14:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Zimmerman[edit]

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

No notability here. Local councillor and mildly senior party official. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I take it that 'working in' the Parliament doesn't mean 'elected to'. If it does, that's a pass at WP:POLITICIAN. If it doesn't, it's a fail. Peridon (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:BIO. If his highest elected position is local councillor that doesn't cut it. LibStar (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes no claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL, and with three of the four sources being primary ones there's no WP:GNG claim to be had here either. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he gets elected to an office that would get him over NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Vice-President of the Liberal Party in NSW he is notable.Castlemate (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No he's not. Wikipedia has no articles on party vice-presidents who weren't subsequently elected to some more significant office. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is this from Crikey. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- and this from the Sydney Morning Herald
  - and then there is this from the Daily Telegraph
    - not forgetting this from The Guardian Castlemate (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zimmerman as frickeg says below is not the subject of these articles, thus don't establish notability for him. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Crikey source cited above by Duffbeerforme is the only source of any significance here, and I just don't think it's enough to pass WP:GNG (the ones cited after it are absurd to use as justification, since none are significant coverage - they're all just "acting CEO Trent Zimmerman said on behalf of the company", which is not significant). Frickeg (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- if you read this again you will find that Zimmerman and the organisation that he currently leads is the core of the article in the Sydney Morning Herald and it includes his photograph. Could editors show more respect in these discussions: "no he's not" and "absurd" are the attitudes reducing editors of this wiki to a male rump of bullies. Please be civil. Castlemate (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article cites him as the spokesman and "acting CEO". That doesn't say significant coverage to me; opinions, of course, may differ, but as LibStar says above, the company is the subject, not him. It does say "his company" at one point, but it's clear they mean "the company to which he belongs" rather than "the company which he leads". I really do not think "absurd" and "no he's not" are at all uncivil, merely signs of robust discussion, and I take great exception to being referred to as a bully. In return, you might like to assume good faith. Frickeg (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castlemate, I can find lots of articles of a police spokesperson appearing in a media reporting on crimes, does that make the spokesperson notable, he gets lots of coverage? no. many of the articles of Zimmerman say nothing about his education, achievements, early life. LibStar (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tourism & Transport Forum is in no way similar to the police force. It is a national, member-funded organisation representing Australian CEOs and advocating the public policy interests of over 200 corporations and institutions representing the tourism, transport, aviation & investment sectors. As such it's spokesperson is very different to a police spokesperson reporting a crime. Zimmerman is reporting a position adopted by the organisations TTF represents. Given his political activities at party level and on a major Sydney council I believe his background is well worth noting. Google Trent Zimmerman TTF and there are many pages of articles but his different roles in public life aren't connected until you read a wikipedia bio that connects the dots. Thank you for at least developing a robust conversation. Castlemate (talk) 09:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being a local councillor does not meet WP:NPOL. The tourism and transport forum may indeed be notable but it does not follow that a "senior" person like Zimmerman is notable. the coverage you found demonstrating a lack of coverage of him as the subject joins the dots to demonstrate that Zimmerman is not notable on many counts. LibStar (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a nice way to say this, but Castlemate: you just don't understand Wikipedia's notability policies. His role at the Tourism & Transport Forum doesn't come within cooee of notability, nor would anyone else holding a similar role elsewhere unless they'd done something else more notable or achieved a vastly higher level of attention and significance than he has. The same with the local council. Anyone else at this low level of significance is going to wind up with their article deleted in pretty short order, and that Zimmerman's lasted as long as it did is largely because no one noticed it until now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castlemate, nobody in any role whatsoever gets an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia just because you assert the importance of the role. Notability on here is a question of whether the person themselves is the subject of a meaningful volume of coverage in reliable sources — if that coverage isn't there, then they don't qualify for an article no matter how important any individual editor believes the role to be in principle. They can't just have their name dropped into an article about something else, either — they have to be the subject of the coverage. So the fact that you can find a handful of news articles in which he happens to be named as a quote provider about a political issue doesn't cut it — because Zimmerman himself isn't what those news articles are about. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see Vice-President of a state party branch as being automatically notable. Zimmerman could be notable if there were more sources about him, and the Crikey one is a decent start, but I don't see the depth of coverage for us to be able to write a quality, neutral biography on him. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Add this to Crikey. Castlemate (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe this advances his cause. Castlemate (talk) 11:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

being junior vice president of young liberals doesn't advance notability. Obviously Zimmerman has had long aspirations to be a MP, but it's never happened . LibStar (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find any basis for notability here. His only elective office is local councillor. He has held staff positions in various levels of government and of organizations. He gets mentioned in an occasional story about one of those organizations. Significant coverage ABOUT him is lacking. --MelanieN (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Star OS[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable operating system. Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Doesn't help that the developer's blog is only a Blogspot page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Only sources I could find look like the author. – Margin1522 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – also could not find sources. Not notable. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sign of notability. PianoDan (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 01:31, 30 January 2015 (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 discussion has been relisted twice, and a decision seems needed. I'm taking Animalparty's comment as, in effect, a "weak delete" opinion, and the sole advocate of keeping doesn't seem to have mounted a persuasive, policy-based argument. Deor (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raywat Deonandan[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACADEMIC or else academic credentials establishing notability are not stated. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: he may qualify per WP:AUTHOR, as the article states he received the national Guyana Prize for Literature in 2000 (see Guyanese literature#Guyana Poetry Prize). I couldn't find sources for this (or any previous winner) though. Mind matrix 15:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PROF, as can be seen from his GS profile, which states a h-index of 4. Did apparently not receive the National Guyana Prize for Literature in 2000, but a lesser award for first novel. -- 120.23.97.38 (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the National Guyana Prize for "Best Book of Fiction" was won in 2000 by David Dabydeen’s A Harlot’s Progress. Deonandan indeed won a lesser award for first novel. -- 120.23.61.162 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most web mentions of the subject are cloned from this article. This article, in turn, relies solely on the subject's own (self-published) bio and website. -- 120.23.97.38 (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is known for being a public commentator on global health issues of Third World countries. Needs better references, but the editor who stopped by just to delete this article, 120.23.97.38's argument that the autobiography is the only source, no longer stands, and professors are surely not required to have only professorial notability. MicroPaLeo (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think he even comes close to meeting WP:PROF, and I don't see any news or other coverage supporting the idea that he "is known for being a public commentator on global health issues of Third World countries." Adding links to blog posts he's written himself doesn't really make the case. He might meet WP:AUTHOR for his books (which would indeed make WP:PROF moot, as MicroPaLeo suggests), but I doubt it. The only coverage of his fiction that I can find is cloned from Wikipedia, or is written by Deonandan himself. -- 120.23.61.162 (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- He seems to be well known enough that you came to Wikipedia solely to get his article deleted. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I contribute regularly at AfD on a wide range of articles. My IP address varies. And please, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. -- 120.23.61.162 (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - The Herald (here I am) 16:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The WP:PROF guideline #8 reads: "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area." Deonandan is credited as "Faculty Advisor" (his bio states "Executive Editor") of the Interdisciplinary Journal of Health Sciences, which is currently hosted under Deonandan's domain name, and doesn't clearly appear to be well-established. Since the journal itself is non-independent of Deonandan, I don't think that can count towards determining notability in any sense, nor can articles written by Deonandan. Significant secondary coverage is still lacking, and unless those can be provided, I say deletion is warranted. I've found only one sign of a review of his work, (a shorter excerpt from another is on his publisher page) but those alone may not be substantial enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR - or for that matter WP:GNG. He is an assistant professor and executive editor of a non-notable journal. His books do not seem to be notable - and as noted above, his claim on his faculty page that he received "the national book award of the nation of Guyana" seems, to put it kindly, dubious. Maybe a promising young scholar, but nowhere near Wikipedia standards at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2015 (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. Since it's been suggested that the article still needs work, I'll stick a {{Cleanup AfD}} tag on it. Deor (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One Horizon Group[edit]

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

Sources provided are press releases, press release reposts or short blurbs written from a press release or another type of primary source. As a company with only $9.1 million in revenues, it is unlikely to be notable. Some quick searches also suggest this to be the case regarding a lack of sufficient source material. The trademark symbols, promotion and language like "our proprietary software" suggest it is a self-written product brochure. CorporateM (Talk) 17:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (report) @ 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (articulate) @ 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: for copyrightvio, portions of the text copied from the corp's 10Q. Vrac (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubbify due to copyright and promotional content concerns. (Several paragraphs are lifted from various company documents.) However, the company is definitely notable ([28]) which is not surprising since it is NASDAQ listed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The comment from the nominator states "As a company with only $9.1 million in revenues, it is unlikely to be notable". This is a US NASDAQ listed company so its press releases, SEC filings etc. are all notable and audited by the SEC. This Nomination for deletion is so erroneous that it indicates that the nominator has not even read the article in question. The comment on copyrightvio states that the information on this wiki is taken from this companys SEC filed 10-Q. This is not a violation as the wiki is FOR this company so has full rights to all matters filed with the SEC on its behalf. Please indicate where promotional text is not compliant with wiki policy and it will be adjusted to comply. The text regarding the company technology, its history, its products are accurate and not promotional but factual. This is not a violation of any wiki policy. TheOne AndOnly (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC) — TheOne AndOnly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I looked up the Wikipedia policies on this copyright issue. SEC filings are public domain documents so there is no copyright violation. The verbatim copy of the text is, however, plagiarism. The source must be properly attributed. The promotional issues with this article are painfully obvious. Suggested reading: WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:ARTSPAM, WP:NPOV. The article could easily have been speedily deleted for blatant advertising. I see that you have no other edits on Wikipedia, I suggest you also read about the policy on conflicts of interest. Vrac (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed there is no coyright infringement. Cannot see how can the use of some text from the companys website and/or the companys filings can be construed as plagarism. To use the companys own text on the company wiki is not the wrongful appropriation of the text as such text is the companys own, original work. Information about companies and products is carefully written in an objective and unbiased style in accordance with WP:NOTPROMOTION. There is clearly no text promoting the company in their wiki and complies fully with the WP:ARTSPAM policy. Stating the company product range in a neutral, encyclopedic and unbiased way is clear in the article and could not be considered as not being neutral. The content is focused on summarizing, informing the would be readers and contains many references to independent news media and SEC filings. There is no advertising in any text and it appears to be written in an unbiased and transparent manner.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC) — TheOne AndOnly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. It is correct as this user has made few or no other edits outside this topic as this is a new account since the previous account name was in breach of the wiki naming convention for Usernames implying shared use WP:UN and was recently blocked.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANY time you fail to acknowledge the source, it is plagiarism. Furthermore, even if it wasn't unethical to copy and paste someone else's writing and pass it off as your own, text taken from other sources will generally not be written in a tone appropriate for Wikipedia. One Horizon Group has one aim when writing (promote self or fulfill regulatory requirements), and we have another (write an encyclopedia). As I already said, I think the company is notable. But, text copied from the company website/SEC filings is not an appropriate way to write an article. It would be better to start over completely, sticking exclusively to whatever information can be gleaned from third party sources, writing everything in your own words. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote using verifiable, external, third party sources such as magazines. Removed SEC company information and website/corporate news references and or content. Reviewed other Wiki pages from similar companies to better understand what is deemed acceptable and or encyclopedic by the community.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 04:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the helpful guidance of CorporateM regarding the need to delete anything that is copy/pasted from another source, remove all the trademark symbols, remove any primary sources published by the company and make sure all that remains is utterly neutral information cited to credible. The wiki page has been updated accordingly.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't !vote multiple times. Vrac (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheOneandonly. Do you mind refactoring your comment to remove the "Keep" vote? It is inappropriate to vote in an AfD discussion regarding a company you work at, and even more inappropriate to vote twice in the discussion. Using "Comment" is more appropriate.

Regarding whether the company qualifies for an article, one thing we look for is two in-depth stories in credible, independent sources. Technically these can be books or something else, but in most cases they will be in-depth profiles in press articles written and bylined by a professional journalist. Also, can you confirm if the $9 million in revenues listed is correct? Technically speaking even small companies can have an article if they are famous for something, but it is very unlikely for a $9 million company to be so. Most of the sources look like press releases or press release reposts, which cannot be used. CorporateM (Talk) 22:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted on the second vote, used "Comment" instead.
Added references to three independent journalists writing about the company.
Confirm revenues of $9.1m from SEC filings of company Form_10-K, page 21 ^[1].
Removed reposts and or company press releases to ensure that all external references are from independent 3rd parties.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/225211/000135448814001911/ohgi_10k.htm

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki article was completely rewritten using verifiable, external, third party sources such as magazines. Removed SEC company information and website/corporate news references and or content. Reviewed other Wiki pages from similar companies to better understand what is deemed acceptable and or encyclopedic by the community.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting means the discussion has been re-listed in order to attract new voters. Re-voting is not required. Can you please refactor again to prevent voting repeatedly. CorporateM (Talk) 16:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, removed the new vote as guided.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have cleaned a bunch of the promotional language and removed the plagiarism. The article is still rather poor, but good enough to keep now given that the company is obviously notable as indicated by the extensive RS coverage it has received (linked in my original comment). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is much less promotional and more factual and Encyclopedic.TheOne AndOnly (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The company is notable with some evidence for its notability coming from its listing in NASDAQ. From what little I have read about it, the company is not doing so well and its stock is currently tanking. It probably needs further editing to more neutrally state it actual position. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not impressed by the article's references, which are all to rather minor sources. But this is a global company, publicly owned and NASDAQ listled, with the listings at Bloomberg[29] and Yahoo Finance[30] and the New York Times business listings[31] that publicly-traded companies usually get. I think this makes it notable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A2 as duplication of zh:釋學誠. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

释学诚[edit]

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

The tone of this article is like a news release, it has original research, and may not assert notability. It's in the Chinese language as well. Snowager (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A2 Untranslated indiscriminate duplicate of significant parts of zh:釋學誠 (simp. Chinese), including the {{original research}}/{{inappropriate tone}}/{{newsrelease}} warning templates. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 07:16, 25 January 2015 (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) 20:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Social Login Providers[edit]

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

This is not encyclopedic content. This is just a directory. Just a list of social web sites that have a certain option. Vanjagenije (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia indeed is not a directory. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes this article is to help the developers who are looking to integrate social login to their site. It list popular social networks which allows social login. As far as the list is concerned, I would say that there are many such lists available on wikipedia. And I am sure that such list help readers as they get all the data on a single page. --Princekapoor (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have this [[32]], and the non-OAuth login providers listed strike me as non-notable Piboy51 (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 25 January 2015 (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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles LaDuca[edit]

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

After I got rid of the unsourced and self-sourced content there's not much left except for a couple of brief directory-type listings. Nothing substantial was turned up in a search for additional WP:GNG sources. NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, effectively an unsourced biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search for significant coverage in reliable, independent sources yielded only passing mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No independent evidence of notability in legal profession. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pakeha Party[edit]

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

Political party that never registered, incorporated or did anything at all. Haminoon (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Has proven to be even less notable than at the time of last nomination for Afd. Clearly a transient media beatup with no ongoing SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that "even less notable than at the time of the nomination" is an invalid argument according to WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Schwede 66 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The media coverage was limited to a few weeks, but this is probably true for many notable events. As there are no new facts since the last discussion, I do not see a need to delete the article. Inwind (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Not a notable political party. Mattlore (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, basically non-existent microparty cum facebook page. This supposed party has never registered as a political party, has never run a candidate for office, and basically fell off the national radar after a brief stint in the limelight in July 2013. Maybe they would have become notable or influential if they had defined themselves as a lobbying or pressure group, but by pretending to be a political party they lost any claim to legitimacy. --MelanieN (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2015 (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. While Robert W.W. Zorg's comments are appreciated, they do not provide proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annals of the University of Bucharest: Political Science Series[edit]

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

This was previously deleted by prod, with the following rationale: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." I figure that still holds true, and should prompt a second, more permanent deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Um, it's a well known Romanian political science journal with almost a century-long history, and existing in its current form since 1999. Its editorial board includes some of the most famous European political scientists alive, such as Donatella della Porta. I also guess the rather frivolous claims above do NOT hold true. What's "non-independent" about România Liberă or an independently written history book about the university written by independent scholars? Robert W.W. Zorg (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the journal meet the criteria spelled out at WP:NJournals? Is it indexed in any selective databases?
- The references in their current form are pretty worthless:
  - What is the title of the România Liberă article and who is the author?
  - What page numbers in the Berciu-Drăghicescu book mention the journal, and in what context? - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty, help! Drmies (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the orginal PRODder and didn't notice that this had been re-created a week after it had been re-created (it also wasn't tagged for the academic journals wikiproject, so this didn't turn up in the article alerts either). Nothing has changed since I placed the PROD a few weeks ago. The "keep" rationale above is without merit: "it's a well known Romanian political science journal" (no sources that confirm this); "Its editorial board includes some of the most famous European political scientists alive" (WP:NOTINHERITED, there has been a longstanding consensus in the academic journals wikiproject that editorial board members should not even be mentioned in an article about a journal, unless there are reliable sources that discuss their role in the journal's editorial policy and such. That it is mentioned in a book on the history of the university is not surprising either, I imagine that such a book would mention all kinds of trivia that are not notable otherwise. In short, there's not a shred of notability here. Thanks Drmies for bringing this to my attention! --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2015 (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. Daniel (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Days Of Confusion[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMUSIC. The article has no sources, and I found none when searching in English and in Romanian, either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 25 January 2015 (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Westmark School (Encino)[edit]

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

This article is pure advertising, horrendous use of meaningless buzzwords, for an insignificant private school. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Encino, California per long-standing precedent stated at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 04:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Oops my bad I wasn't aware it was a high school which are actually kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, our regular practice is to keep articles about high schools, and redirect those about most elementary and middle schools. This school teaches students through 12th grade so is a high school, and has been operating for decades. "Westmark+School"+Encino&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YqvEVOnMGYyOyASljIDIBw&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA Here is coverage of the school in a book.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . We have to keep this in order to stay true to our precedent as documented ar WP:OUTCOMES. I've reduced the article to its basics by editing out all the promotioal puff. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2015 (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. Daniel (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silverwolf Comics[edit]

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

This Company does not seem to meet WP:N or WP:CORP. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 02:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe WP:BEFORE would show enough notability. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Before is not notability guideline or criteria, as for the suggestions in WP:Before I have looked for reliable sources and came up with nothing except others wikis, blogs and a comic book store called Silverwolf comics and collectables. At this point I am asking for proof this is notable as per WP:N or WP:NCORP. Just because a couple of notable people worked there does not mean the company is notable, notability is not inherited.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It existed (albeit for two years) and it has some association with notable persons, but I don't see where any of that translated into actual coverage for the company. All I can find are brief mentions in relation to the notable artists ("so-and-so did stuff for Silverwolf Comics before doing this" type of stuff) but none of it is in-depth and it's rarely more than a brief mention in a sentence about a lot of places where the artist had worked. Notability is not inherited by an artist working for a company (WP:NOTINHERITED) and then going on to do notable things in their career, especially if their work at Silverwolf never gained any attention in RS, which appears to be the case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 14 January 2015 (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 (consult) @ 18:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article is verified, because it is completely unsourced and has been for many years. In a search for sources, all I found was mentions on obscure blogs and a small market in collectibles. This company never produced any comics notable enough to have a page here, and its claimed association with notable employees or artists fails both WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:Verifiability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2015 (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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence against Children[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete, by this message in my user talk page: "Hi Anthony. Could you give me some more information on why the Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence against Children page has been deleted? There already is a Dutch page on the Rapporteur. As human trafficking occurs around the world, it is good to know that there is a Rapporteur in the Netherlands dealing with cases like human trafficking or sex tourism. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwp600 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch Wikipedia page is nl:Nationaal Rapporteur Mensenhandel en Seksueel Geweld tegen Kinderen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This review of the organization at ECPAT UK gives a history... the organization seems to be appointed/supported by the Dutch government, but set up deliberately to be independent, to have world-wide impact consistent with human rights push from European Convention on Human Rights and a 1997 European Union agreement in The Hague, etc. So I am not sure what kind of entity it is exactly, whether a charitable nonprofit or a quasi-governmental agency. More than 10 years old, has had big impact apparently, its reports include 9 annual type reports and specialized others. Seems clearly notable. As should also be the 2004-founded Finnish counterpart and the British, 1990-founded ECPAT UK organization. Try broader searching and try searching in Nederlands language:

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

Also I haven't translated the Dutch wikipedia article, has anyone else read it?

--do ncr am 19:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The search on "Dutch Rapporteur" in "books" quickly yields significant coverage, e.g. in Critical Perspectives on Child Sexual Exploitation and Related Trafficking, by Pearce Jenny J Melrose Margaret, published by Palgrave MacMillan in 2013 (see this Google excerpt) and Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths about Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade by Janice G. Raymond, 2013 (see this other Google excerpt which happens to mention critically some shortfall of the Dutch Rapporteur). There's more. --do ncr am 20:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dutch office roughly analogous to other national reporters such as the US Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. Satisfies GNG with coverage such as [33] and [34]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 25 January 2015 (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. Sandstein 22:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Urdu language book publishing companies[edit]

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

Of no informational value, spam bait, categories should be used instead. kashmiri ^TALK 09:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed: spam-bait, and it appears to be proliferating already.-- Pax 11:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP is not a directory. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonable index of articles per WP:LISTPURP grouped by a significant shared feature. All we have so far are completely invalid arguments for deletion. We do not delete articles just because editors may add inappropriate content, such as spam (see WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and WP:NOTCLEANUP), and regardless it's laughable to think that the addition of a half dozen nonnotable listings over a three and a half year history (since removed by the nominator) pose too big a problem for us to monitor. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It clearly does as we've had spam here since 2013 [35] [36] that I removed only yesterday, so fails the maintenance criteria. The list also badly fails WP:LC for another reason: it is not realistic to list even a fraction of all the companies in India (1.3 billion people) and Pakistan (190 million) which have ever printed something in Urdu (lists of infinite items are not allowed). kashmiri ^TALK 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, spam since 2013? It's a wonder our servers are still running! I kid, but seriously that's not a deletion argument at all nor even a shocking state of article disrepair compared to what we routinely encounter. And no, it isn't realistic to list all the companies in India and Pakistan which have ever printed something in Urdu. Thankfully, we are not the yellow pages, but instead can and do limit such lists of companies to only notable entries. postdlf (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, "we can"??? Can you show how this article was "maintained" since 2013? How got there are no large publishers here, like Penguin Books, HarperCollins, etc.? The article has nil informational value and is purely a spam bait. As such, it is not maintained nor maintainable. kashmiri ^TALK 10:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you've now tacked on WP:NOEFFORT and WP:TOOLITTLE to your earlier WP:SUSCEPTIBLE and WP:CLEANUP "arguments". Keep going, maybe you'll get to WP:NOBODYREADSIT, or simply say it's WP:UGLY.
You just helped maintain it by removing those entries. And if they're restored, we revert again. If it develops into edit warring or involves multiple IPs/editors, we may block editors or protect the article. You've been here long enough to be familiar with that process, and with WP:ATD (and you certainly can't argue this is a "severe case" alluded to in that policy section). This is hardly the only list of companies we have, and most at one time or another face spam and we deal with it when we detect it. We do not delete articles because of fixable problems. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think it's possible to say that there should be a place to put these publishers. If spam and names without articles are a problem, then the obvious thing to do is convert it to a category (WP:AOAC). On the other hand, red links are listed as an advantage of lists because they show articles that need to be created (WP:AOAL). Advantages and disadvantages to both. We have a long List of English-language book publishing companies, and they are all blue links. List of Romanian-language publishers is almost all red links. Usually we group publishers by country, but Urdu is both India and Pakistan, so do we need something by language? Or is it enough to list publishers in India and Pakistan? – Margin1522 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Kashmiri's comment above that many worldwide publishers such as Penguin may qualify for this list is a good reason why this wouldn't be synonymous with the country lists (even if there aren't many notable ones in India that don't publish in Urdu). And WP:CLN notwithstanding, the inclusion of worldwide publishers is also the best argument against making this into a category, as we'd end up with the largest publishers categorized by every major language on earth (see WP:OCAT). postdlf (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly legitimate article subject, no difficulty to improve the article. --Soman (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No appropriate rationale for deletion, has fixable issues. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:42, 25 January 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Blue[edit]

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

~~SERIOUSLY!!! This **** of an article has existed for as long as it has???!!!~~ This former "band" not only fails WP:NBAND, it EPICALLY fails NBAND. Not sure how any AfD could possibly have come to keep, yet evidently AfD #2 did keep after article was previously deleted at the first AfD and then almost immediately recreated. ~~This is as strong a delete as I could possibly ever call for. Just gotta love the content under the 2010 section header, "the band posted an announcement to their website." :)~~ Safiel (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. ~~A farcical abomination, for sure.~~ Still not notable and failing WP:NBAND, as pointed out below by Safiel. --The Theosophist (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sometimes a look at article history can be helpful. The article that was kept in January 2009 was much longer than the way it is now, and it actually had some sources. [37] It looks like the article was subjected to unconstructive deletions in 2014, and no one was around to fix it. That is not to say that the band is obviously notable, just that the current version isn't the one that we should be looking at. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Per Arxiloxos, I've restored all the content from before the unconstructive deletions began in February 2014. This way, the article can be evaluated on its own merits rather than on what it was like after most of the content and sources were stripped out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have gone through the reconstituted article and the links, at least the ones that still work. The band clearly fails all aspects of WP:NBAND from #2 to the end. The only chance for this band to pass through would be to satisfy point #1 of NBAND, which is multiple, non-trivial coverage in qualifying reliable sources. I believe that it clearly fails. Most of these links are trivial listings or mentions of "gigs" and several of the links are not reliable sources. I see nothing which would cause this band to satisfy WP:NBAND. Thus I will stick with my original delete position, though I will tone down my rhetoric from the nomination a bit. Safiel (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A mildly reluctant weak deleteNeutral (see below). HighBeam Research includes a couple of Liverpool papers, and this band's name turns up in some concert listings from 2007-2010, but nothing more substantial in those sources.[38] Google searches turned up a ton of blogs and listings like this, making it hard to be sure if there's something more substantial buried in the dross. There's a substantial interview [39] in a source called the Von Pip Musical Express (VPME), a bloggy site that may or may not be an RS (it shows up as a source in other Wikipedia articles and has been profiled in The Guardian [40], so maybe the author qualifies as some kind of expert in the area). In the last Afd, Paul Erik turned up a surprising bit of praise for this band in The Charleston Gazette--that's Charleston, West Virginia, and while the comment itself is just one sentence, the existence of something like this in an American daily newspaper does suggest that the band had wider notability than you'd expect from a run of the mill Scouse pub band. (The Gazette article is included in the HighBeam database, although for some reason it didn't come up in my HighBeam searches of the band's name. [41]) Overall it seems that we have local Merseyside band that had a run of local popularity and kept threatening to get bigger, but didn't. If someone else can turn up another decent substantial source or two, I'd reconsider.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the mentioned The Charleston Gazette article (in a "Top songs" subsection)

"5. "You Won't Get Much Sleep," Alexis Blue: This is a great, catchy indie pop track that pulls inspiration from other English bands like the Coral."

The writer of the article is Sarah Nason from George Washington High School.

Also available is a hometown piece. Cureton, Stephanie (26 September 2010), "Farewell gig for Wirral rockers Alexis Blue later this week", Wirral Globe

Most relevant quote may be

"Alexis Blue formed in 2005 while attending Mosslands School and quickly built up a strong fanbase thanks to their catchy numbers and regular appearances around Wirral and Liverpool."

Looks like they had some local popularity but never got bigger. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after looking through the sources the band appears to have "lost" some notability after their disbandment however since notability cannot be lost the prior AfD has some resonance. I was able to find this source and noticed it has other sources in its heyday that are not readily available due to overshadowing by a separate artist Alexi Blue. The band appears to pass WP:band on 5, 7, and 12. The band has released at least two albums hypothetical situations and a second album (Sir Ian)^3. The band had a prominent local following, and appeared on the television show Road to V Finals. Since our BLP and band notability requirements are heavily based on self promotion this would not apply due to their disbandment. Per prior AfD. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just releasing albums is not enough to pass WP:BAND, no indication any releases are on an important label. Whilst they had a local following there is no indication it's prominent, let alone "the most prominent of the local scene of a city". especially as Wirral is not a city. Appearing on a tv show does not satisfy WP:MUSIC#12. ~~A thoroughly disingenuous !vote?~~ duffbeerforme (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on your AfD of Moxie Raia, such personal attacks are uncalled for we can disagree on subjects on Wikipedia. I've made my rational clearly and it is far from being disingenuous. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 03:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An unusually high percentage of the citations in this article are dead links. That doesn't mean they are invalid sources, because the articles they are citing could have been taken down in the last six years or so, but it would be nice if the supporters of this article could do something about all the dead link citations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "indie guitar rock coupled with lyrics" you say? No evidence this even comes close to meeting WP:MUSIC; while they might have had a few local fans and been a nice group of people, they clearly don't have the coverage needed to show notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I have found some additional sources, [42], [43], [44], second album and an interview here. Lankiveil can you please clarify how this does not pass WP:MUSIC? It appears to pass 5, 7, and 12 of WP:BAND. Per WP:NTEMP is band should remain notable even if many links are dead now due to their disbandment. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation is due for Valoem's heroic efforts on behalf of this band. Regarding the new sources: the Skiddle writeup looks a lot like PR, although the reference to a Channel 4 broadcast has some interest. The Unsigned.com page isn't a sign of notability in itself, but the quotes from reviews in 3 countries, like the West Virginia newspaper above, could be suggestive of something a little bigger than a local pub band. The Wirrall News item does verify the existence of the album, but doesn't do much to get past "local popularity". I had already mentioned the last one, the VPME interview, in my comment above. I am still not convinced that this band surpasses the AfD threshhold usually applied to indie bands, but I wouldn't be bothered if this article were kept, and (if only for symbolic reasons) I've switched my !vote to "neutral".--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as an indie music fan myself I try to keep these bands whenever I think there is a sniff of notability, but I'm not seeing it here. Specifically, they don't meet #5 of WP:BAND as none of their music has been released on a major label or important indie label as far as I can tell. #7 doesn't apply because there is no reliable sources that describe them as such, and with respect to the Wallasey scene, it's not a large or important one. For #12, I presume you refer to their appearance on "Road to V", but they did not win the competition, nor were they the "featured subject", so that doesn't apply either. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:12, 25 January 2015 (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 University of Split. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, if subsequent discussion or bold activity so determines, this is not to be taken as a bar to the article being improved and kept separate. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split[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)

Queried speedy delete as copyvio of http://intranet.fesb.hr/Default.aspx?alias=intranet.fesb.hr/english and http://intranet.fesb.hr/english/AboutFESB/History/tabid/1046/Default.aspx, but its author (User:Spodrug) says in Talk:Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split that he is the dean of the organization that this article describes and has the right to put this matter on his faculty's web page as well as on Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Faculties_and_academic_colleges indicates that individual faculties are notable only in exceptional circumstances. I am not seeing anything here to indicate that this is one such case: it appears to have an unremarkable history. Nor should Wikipedia be hosting material about their taught course content. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How widespread is the acceptance of the linked article? I couldn't verify that it was part of the actual WP:guidelines, it's not part of WP:PGLIST, and it wasn't tagged with {{subcat guideline}}, so I tagged it as an essay. The discussions about its status from over five years ago indicate some level of consensus and some acrimony. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. FESB is a reasonably generally notable faculty, it's kind of like the Split equivalent of FER in Zagreb. A Google Books search (~300 hits) indicates their general notability. Mainstream newspapers in Croatia outside of Split cover it occasionally Večernji list ~60 hits, Jutarnji list ~1300 hits. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Split. Faculty appears to have no independent notability, I may change my vote if more sources are found. AadaamS (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is a course catalog, nor does it appear that the faculty, as a unit, is notable. The article is SPA-created, so it may be a beachhead for creating articles on some/all of the faculty. Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Merge, at least for now, for similar reasons to AadaamS. George8211 / T 18:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There's some content here worth merging; independently this outfit is not notable. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is cleaned, study programs deleted, and just one clarification Faculties in Croatia are legal entities, and as you can see in this article Faculty was one of the founders of the University of Split and not vice versa. Also, there are already Wikipedia pages of a number of Croatian faculties from University of Zagreb, Osijek,...Spodrug (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Spodrug (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - It would appear, Faculties do not work in the same way in Croatia. This is an independent entity that had a history before the University of Split existed.A merge would be inappropriate. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can confirm that the creator of the page is the dean of the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture in Split (FESB), Croatia. Moreover, he is the most relevant person to create wikipage about this Faculty, which is one of the most recognizable institutions in a domain of technical sciences in Croatia. Best regards, Damir Lelas PhD, Vice Dean for Education (FESB) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damir.lelas (talk • contribs) 10:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC) — Damir.lelas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability; fails WP:BRANCH. Pax 11:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRANCH simply does not apply, as this is not a local unit of a larger organization. Both this organization and its hierarchical parent have the exact same geographical scope. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With about 2500 students and cca 250 employees the Faculty is among largest, by many parameters the largest, constituents of the University of Split and has, as it was mentioned above, history before the University of Split and has separate legal entity. Therefore, we think that the Faculty should have its own wikipage. The significance and notability of the Faculty for the City of Split and Split-Dalmatia County is unquestionable. Anyone who lives there can confirm that. If total population of Split is 178102 (Wikipedia) and the Split-Dalmatia County is 454798 (Wikipedia), just by number of students enrolled one can see the point. These numbers in a global context are not big, but for Croatia and specially for the region of Croatia called Dalmatia suggest unquestionable notability of the Faculty. The webpage in Croatian www.fesb.hr according to Google Analytics in 2014 had 899606 pageviews, 445271 sessions and 97505 users. Facebook page www.facebook.hr/fesb.hr has 4523 likes. No to go in details, but scientific, professional and teaching output of the Faculty is by all parameters significant on Croatian and in some aspects on international level. Just as a fact, as it was also touched at this place, there are existing wikipages for other faculties in Croatia that are rather smaller than FESB. Concerning the quantity and relevance of the text itself, it should and will be improved.Damir.lelas (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)— Damir.lelas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 04:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more info: [45] - Some of FESB students' achievements:
- DREAMSPARK LEARNING AWARD at Imagine Cup 2013 - World finals, [46], Project Authink [47]
- Association of applied engineering(AAE/UPS), [48]
- First and third prize at Shift Hackathon [49], [50], [51]

Damir.lelas (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A locally notable faculty - unlike most (if not all) other faculties of the University of Split. WP:GNG seems to be met. The article's current size - compared with the size of the suggested target - is not really conducive to the merge. GregorB (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formula 1 (board game)[edit]

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

Subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. References include a picture of the game, a blog, and a chat forum posting. Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Game is historic dating from 1962; the time before the internet. One can be certain that there was plenty of coverage in reliable, paper sources at the time even if they are not presently available online. -Arb. (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is covered in detail by the V&A. Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Board games are usually pretty easy topics to find sources for -- even the old ones -- because of Board Game Geek's community gathering links to various reviews, podcasts, etc. internationally. the entry for this game has none. I found a handful of blog posts, etc. but not enough to pass WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: what about the detailed entry in the collection of the Victoria and Albert museum, which I identified above? Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I think it's cool that they accepted/kept a bunch of games someone donated, I'm not so sure something existing in museum storage -- with no explanation of its significance and only a basic description -- goes very far. In other words, I can see why it would contribute to something's notability, but doesn't do it on its own and, at least to me, doesn't add enough to push it over a threshold. Not opposed to changing my !vote if a bunch of sources appear, of course, but I did look and did not find them. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The V&A's account of the subject both explains the significance of the item and provides a detailed description, not just a basic one. For example, it explains that "It was a success when released in 1962, and was released in various international editions throughout the next two decades." And it tells us that "Cars are red, green, yellow, black, blue and orange." This is clearly significant coverage. Andrew D. (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; it's more than a basic description. Even if we call it significant coverage, though, the threshold is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. They may be out there, but I haven't seen them yet. I've updated my !vote to Weak Delete. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable secondary sources are available. Significant coverage on multiple independent blogs and special-interest sites covering the topic in detail. The product is still available for purchase online, which indicates an active market of buyers and sellers with interest in the topic.
- Daily Telegraph, November 2004: "In the 1970s, many a wet Saturday afternoon could happily be spent in your living room, ... Waddington's Formula 1 - the prince of all board games - on the floor."[52]; April 2005: "Recommended retro purchases: .... Waddington's Formula One board game."[53] Whizz40 (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nether of those come close to significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two quotes I picked out. As mentioned above, what is notable is this game has received detailed attention from independent sources which can be collectively significant taken alongside the V&A source. The policy says significant coverage will vary by topic and, following Rhododendrites' guide above, for old board games this often takes the form of easy to find links to various reviews, podcasts, etc:

Updated article with two external links; one of the YouTube videos listed above and a paper using the game in a probability exercise. -Arb. (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article with the points of notability raised so far, per WP:EDITATAFD. Whizz40 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2015 (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. A7 - no claim to notability only (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roots Smokehouse[edit]

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

Restaurant which hasn't yet opened. Does contain two citations from (the same) local source, but doesn't appear to meet the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Prod deleted with no comment from page creator. BusterD (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2015 (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. czar ⨹ 02:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reck[edit]

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

This is a genealogical entry of a non-notable individual. The Silver Star, although a highly honorable decoration, does not automatically confer notability per WP:SOLDIER, and notability is not inherited. Valfontis (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (lecture) @ 18:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (prattle) @ 18:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Warrant officer with a distinguished but not exceptional career. Rank and awards not significant enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regretfully the subject doesn't appear to have "significant" coverage in reliable sources and is therefore non-notable per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2015 (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. czar ⨹ 02:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TRAC (ISMS)[edit]

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

The article is blatant advertising, created and heavily edited by two users, User:SecureBanking and User:Tvanpeursem, both of whom seem to be associated with the company that created the product (the subject of the article). The tone of the article is clearly promotional, so the intent of the article is clear. V2Blast (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 08:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent sources. The one conference paper appears to be authored by people associated with the software developers, and inclusion as a partner for a banking association is not significant coverage. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. A post-deletion redirect to the developer, Secure Banking Solutions, would also be reasonable, if that page survives its current Afd.Dialectric (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches are complicated by "TRAC" being a common product name in diverse areas, but I am seeing nothing to indicate that this security/risk management product is of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (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. czar ⨹ 02:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15 Years Of Atomic Kitten - Tour[edit]

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

Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Concert_tours Gaff (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Gaff (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment see article talk page for thoughts from article creator, if interested. --Gaff (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:CRYSTALL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite" (emphasis original) and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." (emphasis original). Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of proposing AfD, maybe I should have just merged this into article about the band, then made this article a redirect. We could //consider// doing that now and maybe have AfD close early?--Gaff (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per crystal and NTOUR. I don't see what content needs to be merge-- if this is better than the main article that's a sad statement. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crystal, Nothing to Merge neither. –Davey2010^Talk 05:07, 25 January 2015 (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. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

180 Smoke Electronic Cigarette[edit]

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

Hardly notable; seems overly promotional. -down load 21:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It used to be even more promotional. I agree that it is of questionable notability at best. A Google News search turns up press releases, and the sources in the article have never thrilled me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2015 (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. but at the very least, there is no consensus for deletion. Feel free to discuss possible merge/redirect targets on the article's talk page. czar ⨹ 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical, Economic and Social Research and Training Centre for Islamic Countries[edit]

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

No attempt made to show that this organisation is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2015 (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 (banter) @ 20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. No independent notability, but it is a part of that organisation. JT_dale^Talk~ 07:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a publisher, as one of its major functions. 37 years old. Publisher of peer-reviewed Journal of Economic Cooperation and Development and another journal or two or more. See its publications subpage. It's located in Ankara, Turkey. Parent organization is a U.N. body, located in Saudi Arabia?

Try also searching:

(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)

Seems major, probably an obvious Keep. Certainly article should be developed more, yes, but AFD is not to force article improvement. --do ncr am 03:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:49, 25 January 2015 (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) 20:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Election Day, 2013[edit]

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

Delete: This article is supposed to have the links to all the elections that occurred in Russia, but all except for two links are just links to different provinces of Russia. This article isn't useful at all. Kndimov (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. An unlikely search term for local elections and an unnecessary intermediate step. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 28 January 2015 (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. For safety, I also ran search and came to the same conclusions.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fudpucker's[edit]

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

Unsourced article on Florida restaurant lacks significant coverage for WP:GNG, fails WP:NPLACE. Vrac (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although there are some sources in the article, the subject isn't notable. -- Kndimov (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - Non notable restaurant. –Davey2010^Talk 05:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2015 (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. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Kahia[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Article written by subject. Minor awards, but nothing major. Lacks non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:FILMMAKER- his "collective body of works" seems to have no more than cursory reviews, no more than you might find in a program guide or weekly paper, not in depth. The Catholic World Report article is mainly an interview, which is probably not an independent source for the purposes of establishing notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I didn't find any reliable sources to meet WP:NN. Most of the sources seemed to be written by a user. But If better sources are added bringing awareness it could be a keep. Chosenone Pie (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttp://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/225211/000135448814001911/ohgi_10k.htm

[1]