Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 January	28 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 WP:BOLDly redirected to Karuneegar. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 19:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seer Karuneegar[edit]

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

does not appear to meet WP:GNG Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Speedy Delete A1 & A7 John from Idegon (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Karuneegar -Speedy has already been declined and turned into redirect to "Karuneegar". One may do procedural close here. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 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 keep (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pitts (preacher)[edit]

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

There is just enough information about rank and stature in this article to make any extremely borderline but none-the-less present claim for notability (albeit barely), but on the whole I don't think that is gonna save the article from its advertisement-centered construction or from the number of people here who are going to consider the achievements of the preacher to be below the CSD-A7 line. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Overseas a group of 26 churches[1] owns a radio station[2] and appears to be a book author[3]. According to this article he is one of only 300 bishops in a 5 million member religious organization and there are plenty of local sources to create a substantive page. CSD appears to be motivated by displeasure over the results of an old BLPN string, which is how I started watchlisting the page. His arrest record was removed, because much of it had to do with speculation or claims he was acquitted for. I do remember thinking that perhaps not quite all of it should have been deleted, but calling it an AfD-worthy advert because it is missing is a gross exaggeration and many claims on Talk of NPOV and sourcing violations are not actually true. CorporateM (Talk) 01:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - anyone who would call this article an ad either has no experience with what actual ads masquerading as articles look like, or is hopelessly biased on the subject. The article is actually quite neutral. You also might want to look up what WP:CSD A7 means - ANY plausible claim of notability (of which there are many) is sufficient to stop A7 deletion. Now, on to the only relevant question: is Pitts notable? Yes, he is due to significant RS coverage (several listed in article already, otehrs found here). Incidentally, the vast majority of bishops are notable (in churches where the term is used to mean someone overseeing multiple churches), so it is usually a waste of time to nominate them for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this is kept, it should be moved to Michael Pitts (pastor). St Anselm (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Quite possibly renamed. Oversight of a network of churches and his episcopal ordination, in a context where this is unusual, point to notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:16, 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. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley House (Harvard College)[edit]

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

College dorm that has not been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the school. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate AFDs running on 4 of 13 Harvard residence houses:

As they have separate differing sources, they need separate consideration, but are related. --do ncr am 22:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator is on a spree of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Look at [4], omit the ones published by Harvard, and it still amply satisfies WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Tryptofish, which specific reliable source(s) provides substantial coverage? --do ncr am 22:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and, from Google scholar search: [16], [17], [18]. I realize that there is some room for arguing about "substantial" versus "passing", but I still think the weight of all of these sources points towards satisfying GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources come close to significant coverage --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this is subjective, and I also realize that you feel strongly about this, but I think you are pushing too hard with saying that none even comes close. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Not one of those sources addresses Dudley House "in detail". --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I browsed several of those, and have to agree with Hiroloveswords. Novels mentioning it? Of the Google scholar ones, the links go to Wiley online or other sites that require login; I can't see the full articles, and of what's available, only the last one displays "Dudley House". Full text is available elsewhere. That's just a memorial statement about a Harvard dean, which merely mentions that among other things he "oversaw the physical renewal of the campus with the renovation of the Yard dormitories, the conversion of Lehman Hall into Dudley House, the renovation of Emerson, Boylston, and Harvard Halls, the construction of the Science Center, Mather House, and Peabody Terrace."

That is pretty useless. I do tend to think the topic is likely to have been covered somewhere, but Tryptofish, could you provide less: one or two sources that really do cover the topic? Perhaps copy a passage to here? Or better, add substantially to the article? --do ncr am 20:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will do that, below. I actually have never edited that page, and came to this AfD from seeing a message about it on another editor's talkpage, so it is not uniquely my responsibility to revise it right away, but I do accept my responsibility to provide sources in an AfD discussion, and I acknowledge that I was hurried and bit sloppy in my list above, sorry. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. I am somewhat conflicted on this one. Although I am leaning towards a weak keep, I have three reservations with the article. First, while the subject has gotten a fair amount of passing mention in secondary sources, I am finding very little that I'd call "in depth." Secondly, with apologies to whoever rated it as a START, this looks more like a borderline stub with little hope for significant expansion. In theory stubs should be created only when there is some reasonable expectation of future expansion into a more full bodied encyclopedic article. And lastly this feels like an unnecessary content fork. On the basis of those points I think an argument could be made for a merger into Harvard College. But yeah, this seems like a subject that should be notable and I certainly would oppose an outright delete. For now I will sit on the side. I would like to see what other experienced editors have to say. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Harvard College per my above stated concerns. There just isn't enough here to justify a stand alone article and the sourcing is too thin. This can be reversed if and when we find some in depth RS coverage. But right now, I'm just not seeing it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is covered in works such as Harvard: An Architectural History. In any case, there are obvious alternatives to deletion which should be followed per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? It's turning out that Dudley House is not a building (see below), so can you clarify? This book is cited in one or more of the linked, related AFDs, but maybe in this case it is not relevant. If there is useful coverage there, then copying a passage to here, or, better, actually developing the article directly, would be appreciated. --do ncr am 20:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the nature of the place because the source I cited provides details on pages 231 and 322. Lehman Hall, which was formerly the Bursar's Office, is further described on other pages including 158-159. Both names appear in the index and this is a significant indicator for me in determining whether we should retain them as blue links. And this is just one of many such sources. Andrew D. (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub. We don't delete stubs just because they're stubs. EEng (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listed at Talk:Harvard University and Talk:Harvard College. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article lacking. What is Dudley House? The article is poor and unclear, it actually calls it a "house" (in quotes) and may be describing a virtual grouping rather than a residence, though there is a picture of one building identified as Dudley House in its caption. The article states it is "serving the very few Harvard undergraduates not living in one of the other twelve (residential) houses" but that is opaque to me, maybe it means that all undergrads living off-campus are defined to be in this "house", or maybe it's the last choice housing and all other undergrads do live there. Is it a residence or not? I pay attention to this because at the parallel Mather House AFD, it was noted by an editor that "Dudley House is not a residence". At this point, I don't know. Is it the same or different than the other 12 "houses"? It's certainly not a good article right now, maybe it should be deleted, if it is not quickly improved. --doncram 20:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to know the answer to your question. All of the other Harvard houses are actual residence halls. Dudley House, as EEng correctly said, is not a residence hall. It is a building in Harvard Yard, that serves as the office and meeting place of an administrative structure for students who choose to live off-campus, instead of living in one of the other, on-campus, houses. Such students living off-campus are said to be members of Dudley House, instead of being members of one of the other houses. I partly agree with you that the page, like the related pages that have been nominated for AfD, needs work, but that is not the same thing as failing notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the picture is of Lehman Hall, which is where Dudley House has its offices. Most people just forget than and think of the building itself as "Dudley House". This weird "virtual-House-in-actual-Hall" setup is an artifact of Harvard's attempts to pretend offcampus living (there are only a very, very few undergraduates living off-campus) is on a par with on-campus living, which it's really not.

Anyway, to help bring an end to this silliness, I added Lehman Hall in bold -- I forget what you call that, when the article is really two articles in one. Anyway, Lehman Hall, the building, is incontrovertibly notable -- [19] [20][21][22][23]. EEng (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Perhaps the best thing to do is, since Lehman Hall (Harvard University) is a redirect to Dudley House (Harvard College), would be to rename the page as something like Dudley House and Lehman Hall (Harvard University). It's perfectly logical to treat the "house" and the actual building as a single subject and, together, they clearly satisfy GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will acknowledge that some of those sources EEng cited are from the student newspaper, and thus are not independent. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, a student newspaper financially and editorially independed of the school is certainly, well, independent. Just because the paper primarily reports on happenings at the school has nothing to do with it; otherwise, nothing happening in Smallville could ever be considered notable, on the argument that the Smallville Gazette somehow isn't indpendent. (Whether the Crimson is a RS is a different question. It is, but as with all student newspapers it needs to be used with caution.) EEng (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I appreciate E Eng and Tryptofish trying to provide some information, but there are no sources shown here. Onus is on article supporters to find sources; they have not. The article currently has one source, http://dudley.harvard.edu/, supposedly supporting an assertion about whom the house is named for. The source does not in fact support that assertion. I suggest that interested editors could develop the "Lehman Hall" topic, changing it from a redirect, if there are sources about that real building. But "Dudley House" appears not Wikipedia-notable, and a combo article proposal sounds unwieldy and a draft is nowhere in sight, so the simple best AFD outcome is that "Dudley House" should be deleted. --do ncr am 21:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? We pointed you to, among many other sources, two-page writeups in serious architectural works, here [24] and here [25]. That's more than enough. You seem to think the sources need to be in the article -- they don't. EEng (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those two sources are the Bunting and Shands-Tucci sources, which do NOT have two pages of coverage. I quote them fully below and see them as inadequate. Right, they don't have to be in the article. --do ncr am 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking you are correct that the sources don't need to be listed in the article. But when you have an article citing only one non-RS source they probably should be listed, along with the relevant page numbers so we know we have the in depth coverage called for by GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to believe that the subject of the page is properly both Dudley House and Lehman Hall, whatever the page name is. I want to respond seriously to what Doncram asked of me about sources, and I can:

T1- [26]: A book about architecture that has an extended passage starting on page 158, discussing and appreciating Lehman Hall's architecture. Reply 1 from Doncram, below.
T2- [27] and [28]: Two books, about Harvard and about Massachusetts politics, respectively. Each has extended passages devoted to the role of Dudley House in bringing lower-income students to Harvard, including how this process gave rise to changes in state politics.
T3- [29]: A history that notes the location of Lehman Hall as the site of the Constitutional Convention of 1780. Reply 2 from Doncram, below.
T4- [30]: Another book that appreciatively appraises the architecture of Lehman Hall. ("Notable for its beautifully detailed main entrance..." etc., page 53) Reply 3 from Doncram, below.
T5- [31] and [32]: An autobiography, and a book about urban social interactions, both maybe a bit less important than some of the other sources, but both writing in some detail about Dudley House. Reply 4 from Doncram, below.
T6- [33]: A scholarly paper about "community" in higher education: "For example, Harvard's Dudley House for graduate commuter students includes a computer room; recreation area; fireside room; dining hall; coffee shop; and offices for a house administrator, a faculty master, and several student program assistants..." Reply 5 from Doncram, below.
T7- [34]: A scholarly paper about renovation of university buildings: "Lehman Hall (1925), designed to house the offices of the university comptroller, now provides the dining, common rooms, and offices of Dudley House..."

I think that we do have enough to satisfy GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I inserted indented critical comments about several items above. I appreciate your trying, but these do not seem to add up, to me, to anything like the writeup of the nomination for historic site listing, that say a California State Historic site would have, in order to justify a Wikipedia article. --do ncr am 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. I have uninserted them, because they made my own comment unreadable, and I have moved each of them just below. The standard here is not whether the sources are the same as the sources for some page about California sites, because that would be WP:OTHERSTUFF. Instead, the standard here is primarily WP:GNG, which the page passes (and WP:NOT, which does not appear to be at issue.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, gee thanks, you lost the correspondence of my comments to what they discussed, and you felt free to intersperse your comments within mine...doing to me what you objected to. Okay, well, I think it is less readable now, but I am trying to make this work by inserting codes T1, T2 etc. for Tryptofish 1, 2, to try make sense of it. --do ncr am 12:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on T1 above Reply from Doncram, moved here by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This is Bunting, Harvard: An Architectural History. I don't see any very extended passage. There's a picture of Lehman Hall in figure 134 with caption "Lehman Hall, seen from the Yard", and it appears with other buildings in a figure 133. And on page 158 it's described as part of a cloistering screen separating Harvard Yard: "The cloistering screen, built between 1924 and 1930 by Charles Coolidge, consisted of six dormitories and Lehman Hall (originally the Bursar's Office. / [paragraph about other buildings] / Lehman Hall was built (with funds from the business school) to house the bursar's office, and its public function is announced by an architectural frontispiece of giant pilasters repeated on both major elevations (fig. 134). The building's mass is also sufficient to announce its official role and to define the triangular space on its east side, though its pilasters are out of scale with other buildings in the Yard." and on page 231 "...Lehman Hall could be reconditioned in 1966 as Dudley House, the ninth undergraduate house, which serves as headquarters for commuting students. Changes here transformed the old main office, which rather resembled a bank lobby, into a handsome lounge and commons." That's all there is about both topics. --do ncr am 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be equating a subjective assessment of "brief" coverage (in any case, a couple of pages) with "insignificant" coverage. The source is a reliable and independent source, and what the source says, minus the spin you put on it, is that the source considers the page subject to be noteworthy. It is well-established consensus that, for example, being highlighted in multiple press pieces over time satisfies GNG, without the need for entire books, or entire chapters of books, to be about the page subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on T3 above Reply from Doncram, moved here by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Per that source, Lehman Hall is apparently the approximate location of a former meetinghouse that was the site of the Constitutional Convention. A plaque BEHIND the hall, not in the hall, commemorates the meetinghouse/Convention. Seems not worth mentioning in an article about Dudley House, and probably not in a article about Lehman Hall; there's no source about Dudley or Lehman that mentions it. --do ncr am 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reliable and independent source that mentions it, relates it to Lehman Hall, and it is a significant piece of encyclopedic information. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on T4 aboveReply from Doncram, moved here by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC) You imply there's more, but the whole passage is merely [reply]

Built in 1924, Lehman Hall, designed as the university's business office, is now the social center of Dudley House, the only place where both graduate students and undergraduates can be members. Notable for its beautifully detailed main entrance, Lehman also boasts on both sides a heroic parade of pilasters, a bit overblown admittedly, but doubtless intended to mark the principal frontispiece, as Lehman is, of Yard to square. [Goes on to discuss two McKim, Mead and White-designed gates, on each side, that are more important, it seems to me.--doncram]

That is in the campus guidebook by author Shands-Tucci, stated to be a "serious architectural guide" by EEng below. Appears to be paraphrasing from the Bunting source ("frontispiece", "pilasters"). That is nothing useful on the Dudley House topic. I don't think the passage is serious or usable on the Lehman Hall topic; it self-describes its comment as speculation ("doubtless intended"). There's less than implied. --do ncr am 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is still a reliable source that says, explicitly, that the page subject is "notable for" its architecture. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on T5 above Reply from Doncram, moved here by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC) The first doesn't mention Dudley House at all. Lehman Hall is mentioned as the building where a Center for Lifelong Learning office was located, from which the autobiographer, a teacher, got assignments of classes to teach. Not useful at all for either Dudley House topic or for Lehman Hall topic.[reply]

The second is also autobiographical. It's one mention "Dudley House" sort of interestingly makes a point about Harvard's paternalism, but it's not really a usable source. --do ncr am 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already said that these are less significant than the other sources, but they are both non-fiction works that do give more-than-passing attention to the page subject. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on T6 aboveReply from Doncram, moved here by me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC) If that's all it says, it's no more significant than any other computer lounge that is open to commuter students, at any university. Almost all computer lounges are open to commuter students. Is there a story that the other Harvard computer lounges are NOT open to them? Not significant. --do ncr am 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a scholarly journal paper, not a book, and it is a reliable scholarly source. The point is that this computer lounge and the rest were selected by the authors as what they would write about in their analyses. They obviously did not describe every computer lounge in every educational institution. They selected a limited number of examples to illustrate the thesis they were making, and they considered the subject of this page to be significant enough that they selected it specifically. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've refuted each of your critiques. But even if, hypothetically, I am wrong about some or most of my responses to you, this page still passes WP:GNG. There is enough sourcing to satisfy the requirements of GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Refuted"? I think you responded. Let others judge if the responses are adequate. I'm not moved; I am done, anyhow. --do ncr am 12:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, we have T2- [35] and [36], and T7- [37], that are neither refuted nor responded to, and that gets us to where WP:GNG is satisfied. And, despite differences in editor opinions, there is no consensus that those three sources are the only ones that satisfy notability. Indeed, there is a good case that there are more sources. A close based on policy, rather than on editor likes and dislikes, needs to be Keep. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Writeups in two serious architectural guides (Shands-Tucci and Bunting), plus a photo of it occupied the upper half of the front page of the Christian Science Monitor for Sep 25, 1925, with 500 words on its architecture and interior. EEng (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted comments on the Bunting and Shands-Tucci guidebooks to the campus's coverage just above. The Shands-Tucci one does not seem like a serious architectural guide, at least not with respect to Lehman Hall, and that does not constitute enough of a write-up, or as a serious write-up, to be usable at all, IMO, in an article about Lehman Hall. The Bunting one does not constitute enough of a write-up either, IMO. Neither useful at all for an article about Dudley Hall. --do ncr am 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I seriously appreciate E Eng and Tryptofish both trying, but I find the claims about linked sources (particularly the two "serious" architectural ones) to be overblown, and of those I looked into I don't see any source really substantially about either topic, Dudley House or Lehman Hall. I think its best to "Delete" the article. (Or it would possibly be okay to redirect Dudley House to Harvard_College#House_system as Ad Orientum suggests, if more was added to the one sentence there, but frankly it seems better for AFD decision to be delete. A redirect could be set up later, if it's actually covered there, with nothing lost.) It seems appropriate to cover the virtual Dudley House idea as part of the House System section, though I see no big deal about there being a computer lounge and some other services available for commuter students, which is routine at all universities. There's nothing developed yet about Lehman Hall in the article, to save. Great, we've identified some marginal supporting sources here (nothing will be lost in a deletion). An interested editor, if they actually found more adequate sources (which may well be available), could start an article on that topic. Lastly, I don't think there should be a Harvard exceptionalism bias shown in accepting an article that would be deleted for most other universities. Nor should there be a bias against covering stuff at Harvard, but there are lots of universities with more than 100 years history that have archives and campus historians and plenty of similar internal documentation of all their buildings, and we don't accept their stuff for buildings or social groups not covered substantially outside. --do ncr am 02:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're proccupied with what's in the article at the moment, and as you really should know by now that's got nothing to do with it. GNG calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Princeton University Press, the Harvard Crimson, and the Christian Science Monitor are not "archives or campus historians [or] similar internal documentation" -- they're independent sources (as is, if truth be told, Harvard University Press as well -- but let's leave that for now). What you've so helpfully quoted above, plus the 500 words in the Christian Science Monitor, are certainly significant, whether it's as much as you (or I, or Tryptofish for that matter) would like to see in the article -- significant doesn't mean extensive. EEng (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coupla more sources: Buildings of Massachusetts: Metropolitan Boston ... "latest volume in the Society of Architectural Historians’ Buildings of the United States series" "A number of buildings within the district are close to the proposed undertaking and have appreciable architectural or historic importance: Wadsworth House, Lehman Hall..." EEng (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT pre-occupied with what's in the article. I have reviewed sources suggested by you here in the AFD, particularly the Bunting and Shands-Tucci guidebooks that you hung your hat on before as each having 2 pages of coverage, which neither has. Fine, you can move on to suggest others when those don't work. But the "Buildings of Massachusetts" one, per what i can see searching on Lehman Hall within its google book, looks like it has less than the 2 guidebooks. From what I can see of the second, which is "Red Line Extension, Harvard Square to Arlington Heights, Boston: Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2", there is NOTHING useful there, it just mentions Lehman Hall among list of other buildings possibly having a construction impact from some proposed transportation project. I have not seen the Princeton University Press, the Harvard Crimson, and the Christian Science Monitor sources. Perhaps they do provide adequate coverage of "Lehman Hall" as a topic, though at this point I would be entitled to doubt that. And you or some future editor would not be prevented from creating an article about that. This is an AFD about Dudley House, and I've tried long enough and don't see substantial coverage available anywhere, and my view is it should be DELETED. Not likely to reply further. --do ncr am 05:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why so angry? By "preoccupied" I meant that you keep saying things like Article lacking ... maybe it should be deleted, if it is not quickly improved .. draft is nowhere in sight ... nothing lost ... nothing developed yet about Lehman Hall in the article, to save ... nothing will be lost in a deletion. The significance of the two sources I just mentioned is that they refer to Lehman as (respectively) being among "exemplary and representative buildings" of Massachusetts, and "having appreciable architectural or historic importance". Sorry if I overstated re "2-page writeups" -- I was relying on the page ranges in the indices. You seem to be ignoring the Christian Science Monitor and the fact that (I repeat) signficant doesn't mean extensive.

To end artificial fussing that "This is an AFD about Dudley House" I've moved the page to "Lehman Hall (Harvard University)", since the sources most easily found are about Lehman. EEng (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not angry. Don't keep attributing views to me, okay? Maybe i was a tad irked having to repeatedly deny views you repeatedly ascribed to me, and disappointed that sources turned out to have less than suggested. I don't mean to ignore the Christian Science Monitor source you assert, but there's no link and I don't have it. I wonder, did you read the CSM source, or do you just have a blurb saying how many words it has, and you are assuming it covers what you hope it does? And now you've moved the AFD article...this is like quicksand. Here, I think the right thing to do was to keep it simple, and delete. BTW in general I'm interested in helping develop articles and considering alternatives to deletion, and I'm usually voting Keep or Merge & Redirect. My calling for Delete, eventually, is unusual. --do ncr am 12:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: suggestion for close Now the AFD nominated article has been moved, during the AFD, from Dudley House to Lehman Hall (Harvard University), leaving a redirect. Moves during AFD are usually not done; it complicates an AFD discussion and is discouraged, though not absolutely prohibited, by AFD guidelines. Seems to undermine the AFD decision process, and to be presented as a fait accompli. Whatever, I won't try moving it back. So what now? To the closer, please do try to rule on both:

about the "Dudley House" topic The redirect does matter; it appears on widely used navboxes {{Harvard}} and {{Harvard residential houses}}. In their contexts, readers are expecting coverage about housing. I think "Dudley House" should not redirect to Lehman Hall, a building without housing. It's better redirected to Harvard College#House system (which Ad Orientum preferred, my 2nd choice), or deleted (my first choice, but I suppose anyone could immediately re-create it). The AFD should be closed "Redirect" or "Delete". If redirect, please judge all the way and indicate which is the target of redirect, rather than leaving that decision to a new RFD process.
about the "Lehman Hall" topic I suggest the current article, now at Lehman Hall (Harvard University), can be considered to be a new article, and just left there, open to being nominated for AFD, with no judgement taken by this AFD.

So I think the AFD should be closed Redirect or Delete, about Dudley House, with no judgment on Lehman Hall. --do ncr am 12:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I pity the admin who has to close this -- so much reading for so little purpose.) As seen in the sources now in the article, for 50 years Dudley House has been most closely associated with Lehman Hall, and that article is the right place to discuss it. Redirecting to Harvard College#House system would be awkward, because each of the other 12 houses has its own article linked from there, leaving readers of Harvard College to be confronted with a sudden digression on Dudley House for no apparent reason. EEng (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unwittingly suiting action to words, even as I was writing the above you were busy giving a dramatic demonstration of how absurd your idea is, by interrupting the already overburdened article on Harvard College's 400-year history and current structure with the information that Dudley House has a computer lounge in Lehman Hall [38]. EEng (talk) 13:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, I was sarcastic in that; I did not expect the computer lounge comment to survive for long, indeed I do not believe it is not Wikipedia-notable that there is a computer lounge and other services for off-campus students. What is so great about Harvard providing computer labs, when every university does that? But, your reverting my edit lost link to the current Lehman Hall article, and lost clarification that Dudley House is a virtual "house", not a real one. I would rather you improved the writing, which was indeed sarcastic and not permnanently acceptable, instead of reverting to a confusing, poor account that fails to clarify that Dudley House is fake, except for insiders who already know it. Please I would rather you not be so adversarial. The point is to improve Wikipedia coverage, not to "win" in an AFD argument, right? --do ncr am 21:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how AfD discussions can get heated and I'm happy to cut some slack for participating editors for that reason. However, you made an edit to Harvard College, that EEng properly reverted. That page isn't even the page nominated here, and it is of course in mainspace, where our readers (as opposed to editors) look. The edit introduced some inaccurate content and, by your own description, was sarcastic and not intended to be kept. That goes beyond sarcasm in the course of an AfD discussion, and is a violation of WP:POINT. It strikes me as unnecessarily adversarial, and it did nothing to "improve Wikipedia coverage". At any rate, I am glad that you have revised, in context, your previous "delete" position in this discussion, and that we are close to having consensus for "keep", as of this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article which is at AFD to change its title is an acceptable instance of WP:BOLD and so EEng did good. There are perhaps lingering memories of a time when this used to cause trouble but the veteran admin Uncle G has explained that these were resolved many years ago. Andrew D. (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC) [reply]
"It used to be the case that one shouldn't move articles whilst they were being discussed. I should know. I was the one who wrote that into the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion in the first place. This was for purely technical reasons: it broke the notice on the article. And the Guide to deletion even said, in its very first revision, that the problem was avoidable if one was careful and renamed the AFD discussion page to match.
Around 2006, a means was found to avoid this problem. I was there at Template talk:Afd/Archive 4#Let's get rid of subst as one of several encouraging its adoption into the mainstream notices, and it was adopted to make the mechanism that you see now. The prohibition on renaming articles whilst they were being discussed at AFD went away."
— Uncle G, 17 November 2010

Thanks, ~~Unc~~Andrew. EEng (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For avoidance of doubt, please note that I was quoting Uncle G there using the {{quote}} template — the man himself is not so active now, alas. The quote template doesn't seem to do a good job of making the status of the text clear. I see you figured this out but I'll try tinkering with the format to make it clearer. Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Solari[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 27 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 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Solari has been elevated to reserve goal keeper for the Newcastle Jets after the transfer of Mark Birighitti to Varese. Solari will be named on the team sheet and start on the bench in the next game on February 6. Datasmack (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT explicitly says that it only applies to footballers who have actually played. Simply being named to the substitutes bench is insufficient. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Starting on the bench isn't enough - the guideline is purposefully restrictive in that regard. When he's played a game, we'll talk. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:NFOOTY explicitly states that a footballer must play in a WP:FPL or FIFA tier 1 match, not merely be named to the squad. WP:GNG also failed. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:01, 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) 15:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL easily (as well as WP:GNG). Hasn't played one match. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 15:11, 3 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Gómez[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. He doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:NBOX and his coverage is routine sports reporting. Notability is not inherited from his promoter nor is it gained through junior championships.Mdtemp (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable boxer.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Field[edit]

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

Basically an unsourced biography of a non-notable boxer. The only sources are a link to his fight record and a youtube video. There's nothing in his boxing record to show he meets WP:NBOX and nothing in the article is sourced.Mdtemp (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:44, 27 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 20:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable boxer.Peter Rehse (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the notability criteria for boxers and doesn't have the coverage required to meet GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:40, 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.

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 is leaning towards Keep but there is some clear doubts about the quantity and quality of sources available. I suggest further research take place to determine if this particular Harry Gamble has the required level of coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harry P. Gamble[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet any notability criteria. Induction into local or university halls of fame doesn't show notability nor does being named all-conference. The only coverage is of these events or a passing mention about his quarterback and law partner. Doesn't meet GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, or WP:NCOLLATH. Mdtemp (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources found to identify notability, looks like he got coverage only in his local areas like university. Fails WP:GNG --A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 21:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the page. He seems quite the versatile athlete if nothing more. Hope that helps. Cake (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ added declaration of !vote for User:MisterCake that apparently was inadvertently missed (based on comment above). Did I get it wrong?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought he'd have voted if he wanted to. I viewed this as a simple statement not a vote.Mdtemp (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:MisterCake can unstrike it himself if that is his intent - it looked like a simple comment to me also and we should not be attributing votes to people unless it is very very clear.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, that's fair.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that's a full-length feature article in the St. Petersburg Times--A Florida newspaper about a student athlete in New Orleans -- in 1926. It would be hard to believe this was the only mention of his college career in the media of the day so it's reasonable to extrapolate that other offline sources would exist. I'm calling this a pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being "the only married varsity captain in major football" does not grant automatic notability. The article spends more time listing all of the previous year's results from an unbeaten team (when Gamble was not captain) than it spends on Gamble. FWIW, the team won 3 of 9 games with him as captain. I'm sure there was more times with him mentioned, but they were probably routine sports coverage. Note that one of the article's sources was a comment by him when he was 12 about a college football player he was a fan of. Not significant enough coverage to claim he meets GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course being the only married varsity captain in major football does not grant automatic notability. However, a feature article about that topic can certainly pass muster. It's the press coverage that speaks to notability, not any editor's belief on the importance of that subject contained in the press.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"FWIW, the team won 3 of 9 games with him as captain." That's true, but note the SoCon champ '25 team lost Lester Lautenschlaeger, Irish Levy, and Peggy Flournoy. I also believe Tulane built a new stadium in '26. Cake (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would question the significance of that article and definitely dispute that it's enough to meet GNG. Saying there must have been other articles is not convincing (or proof).Mdtemp (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Question the significance" sounds an awful lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a reason to delete. However, the other points do have merit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it actually means I'm not sure that it qualifies as significant coverage--though I know you believe it does. I have nothing against this person, but even if you're right about that article it's not enough to meet GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is significant--feature article, big photo, major newspaper outside local area... all these point to the article itself being significant coverage. I think (asking) you are saying that the content of the article is the question.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article contains some significant, non-routine coverage, especially the feature from the Florida newspaper. In addition, a search of the archives of the New Orleans Times-Picayune reveals extensive coverage, including non-routine articles focusing on him. A subscription is required but a basic search can be done here. All in all, enough to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbl62: It would be helpful if you could provide PDF downloads or cut-an-paste text with citations of those Times-Picayune articles to Cake. The article, as it presently exists, is light on independent coverage, and I suspect there are significant gaps in the biographical content that might be filled by those Times-Picayune articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pay for the subscription. I merely scanned the headlines and blurbs and saw that there appeared to be extensive coverage, as noted above. Cbl62 (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bought a one-day subscription to the Times-Picayune archive. There was quite a bit of coverage of Gamble; here are some of the articles: (1) "Gamble Is Elected Captain of Tulane," Dec. 19, 1925, (2) "Harry Gamble Will Coach Football at Warren Easton", Dec. 21, 1926, (3) "Winn Parish Proud of Harry Gamble and 'Hoss' Talbot," Dec. 22, 1925, (4) "Tulane's Been Taking Gambles at End for Two Generations," Nov. 22, 1960. Cbl62 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep - I base my judgment call in this AfD on Cbl62's research cited above. As the article presently exists, there is not sufficient significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to support a finding of notability under the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. I am mindful that the subject was an All-Southern selection (akin to an All-American in 1926), and I take it on faith in Cbl62's research (based on my past experience with Cbl) that such behind-paywall sources will provide the additional independent sources to satisfy GNG. Let's try to get those sources into the article, please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this argument particularly convincing. Keeping the article because you've worked with an editor and think he'll be able to find sources doesn't seem like a valid reason. I do agree that any sources found need to be added to the article. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like he wrote a book The pro-T offense in high school football in 1962. Can anyone confirm? Amazon.com isn't exactly what we look for in a "reference" but it is a lead... and this blog claims it was the "other" Harry Gamble with the Philadelphia Eagles. Worth verifying either way...--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the other one - the Lafayette and Eagles coach. See here. Due to his father, were he to pen a book it's likely you'd find "Jr" on it. Cake (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll strike to help avoid confusion (if that's possible at this point)--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I had to vote right now, I'd vote to delete because I don't see the coverage required to meet GNG or the accomplishments needed to meet any of the athletic notability criteria. Part of the problem is in sorting out this person's achievements from other Harry P. Gambles in New Orleans. For example, I found a passing mention for Harry P. Gamble IV in an early 1970s edition of the local paper (which means there are several generations of related people named Harry P. Gamble as well as probably others with the same name). I also found lots of passing mentions in the local paper of Harry P. Gamble, attorney, appearing in court for various cases (but nothing significant). I don't think those proposing the article be kept have met the burden of proof requirement--or been able to clearly identify notable achievements or coverage of this particular Harry P. Gamble. I haven't voted yet because I'm hoping someone will be able to provide some significant support for keeping the article. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question First of all, I am not an expert on this era of college football, at all. But, the inbox for this guy states that he was an All-Southern selection in 1926. Based on this prior discussion, it appears that during the era this guy played, being an All-Southern selection was the historical equivalent of being named an All-American. If that's true, wouldn't that then qualify to meet WP:NCOLLATH? Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EJ, I've been one of the defenders of keeping the articles regarding the composite All-Southern selections, but I am not prepared to say that individual All-Southern players were the equivalent of All-American players and confer automatic notability on them. Some individual All-Southern selections were often made by relatively minor Southern newspapers, just as today we have relatively minor All-American selectors that we are unable to say confer automatic notability. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say dirtlawyer's points are very level-headed. I note that All-Southern means more in say 1902 than in 1926, though it's still (roughly) an equivalent of All-American in '26. It depends on the newspaper for sure, and Tulane players in particular would sometimes get selection only from the Louisiana newspapers. However, Gamble getting 7 all-southern votes means there's no way he had only his local writers' support. Cake (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage is local/ephemeral and keep voters may have been canvassed via WP:CFB. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stifle: No notice of this AfD discussion has been posted on the talk page of WP:CFB, although neutrally worded AfD notices often are posted there and are perfectly acceptable under WP:CANVASS. Furthermore, WP:CFB members are just as likely or even more likely to vote "delete" for marginally notable/non-notable players and other CFB-related topics; we don't "gang up" to save non-notable CFB-related topics. If you believe otherwise, I urge you to review some of the other recent CFB-related AfD discussions (see, e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football, or many other recent AfDs listed here: [39]). Please AGF and strike your comment above regarding "keep" voters, WP:CFB and canvassing; as an administrator, you know that unsupported accusations of misconduct are problematic. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 6 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. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanami Gi-Challenge[edit]

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

Martial arts tournament for underbelts that has been held once.The highest level competing were purple belts and the only coverage was routine sports reporting. No significant independent coverage to show it meets GNG or WP:NEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:41, 27 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 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Nominator has marked the above mentioned article for deletion in terms of Wikipedia's Deletion Policy, citing directive 8(EIGHT) (NOTABILITY) as the reason for nomination. Directive 8(EIGHT) states as follows:

- "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." WP:NEVENT

We cordially refer to notability test to determine whether a given topic warrant its own article. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".Encarta dictionary definition

Secondly we refer to Wikipedia's Inclusion criteria of notable events, specifically to Geographical Scope. WP:EVENTCRIT

- "Geographical scope - Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group."

In as much as its true that the Nominator's argument is based upon the level of the participants at the event, we refer the Nominator to the fact that the Sport of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is fairly young in Africa, in particular Southern Africa. The participants came from across Southern Africa to participate, resulting in the tournament being International. The impact that the tournament, since its inauguration in 2014, has bolstered the popularity of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu in the region and the continent. On Youtube the tournament has been hailed as the 'standard' in which tournament of its kind should be hosted in Southern Africa. And as much as its true that media within the immediate region reported on the tournament, notability was influenced by the event being international. With the 2015 Challenge looming the event will soon demonstrate long-term impact within in the region of the world. It is of our opinion that the a significant widespread societal group supported the event making the event notable enough for an article. It is thus our humble submission that the article not be deleted, in that the article covers an event that has had a notable impact on a significant widespread societal group within a particular geographical region of the world. Aratus (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Aratus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete As per nominator. Non-notable regional event.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated by others, this appears to be a minor BJJ event. No indication this has the "enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect" required by WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 19:35, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Kirby[edit]

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

This biographical article does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or general notability guidelines. Best efforts were made WP:BEFORE this nomination to search for better sources but were not successful. There are 8 matches on Google News which are passing references, but nothing which would help substantiate the article unfortunately. As with all of my nominations, please contact me if appropriate sources can be located. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps too soon for this author. Going beyond the article itself, I see that she has had a bit of local coverage, making an appearance at an event to promote reading to a teenage audience. [40]. There also seems to be a third novel "Golden" published mid-2013 which isn't listed by this article. Lots of blogs to show that people are reading her books (and enjoying them), but I can't find the sort of reviews or awards that would be needed to show that she meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I can find minimal coverage in School Library Journal [41], and it seems that this is a writer of young adult books early in her career. I see three books published since 2011, and one coming out in 2015. She is published by Simon and Schuster and HarperCollins, both reputable publishers. I agree with the "perhaps too soon" above. LaMona (talk) 02:13, 3 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. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gulab Khan[edit]

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

Subject doesn't merit a Wikipedia article being notable for one event. All coverage they have received as appear in the article are in relation or centric to their role in saving another soldier life, Marcus Luttrell who received good coverage and have had a movie and a book, so they have an article. But this one, it doesn't satisfy WP:BLP1E. At best, we may discuss merge or just delete. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment and delete I think it has just bit coverage for saving American navy seal like this [42]. But if we see individually, he just appeared in "Lone Survivor" movie. No individual achievement or record found for this person in the present history. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've watched the movie and I can say that, "Lone Survivor" was all about Marcus Luttrell (the lone survivor, as the title depicts?) -not really "Gulab Khan". Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean.A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 14:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching for "Mohammad Gulab" reveals that he is also noteworthy for the Taliban death threats subsequent to his actions aiding Marcus Luttrell, moving this beyond WP:BLP1E. See, e.g. [43], [44], [45] and [46]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All coverage of the subject provided by you is perhaps already linked in the article and as pointed out in nomination, in relation or centric to the their role in one-event. People in media for only one event may not qualify for inclusion per WP:BLP1E. Is there any -even a single coverage on Gulab Khan that discuss him independently of that event? I guess, no. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that coverage about him based on death threats he is receiving several years after the initial coverage about the rescue qualifies as a "single event" under the cited policy. While he may be receiving death threats in response to the role he played in the first event, the death threats and his call for asylum are separate events receiving coverage separated in time and focus. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What qualifies a single event is coverage centric or related to -one event. It is very plainly crystal clear as the wording depicts. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.

Subject fails WP:BLP1E all three criteria. #1, -All coverage are related to only-one-event. #2, -low-profile individual. #3, -minor role in the event. The key person in the event was "Marcus Luttrell", the Lone Ranger or Survivor and they were covered v. well in reliable sources and have been subject of a book and movie, and they already have an article -Marcus Luttrell. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you and I have both made our opinions clear. Perhaps we should let others help reach WP:CONSENSUS and avoid WP:BLUDGEON. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination subject doesn't satisfy WP:BLP1E, nor does there appear to be significant coverage per WP:GNG. What exists may be able to be covered elsewhere though. Anotherclown (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 09:56, 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, Natg 19 (talk) 19:48, 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 21:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Rokach[edit]

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

Badly translated and unsourced, with apparently no sources available (and no extra content/sources on the Hebrew Wikipedia where this came from). No value to this as it currently stands Jac16888 ^Talk 21:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Almost certainly notable, but per WP:TNT this useless machine translation should not be kept. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad)
Changed, see below. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article clearly qualifies as WP:N & WP:BIO as even user הסרפד admits! Poor standards of presentation are not grounds for deletion. This rabbi published at least sixteen original works according to Yaakov Rokach#His Books, an image of the front page of one of them, see Yaakov Rokach#Shaari Tefillah, actually even appears twice in the article, this is a true example and sample of a primary source! So on the contrary, what should be done is such a case is that templates such as {{Cleanup}} & {{MOS}} could be added just as the {{Multiple issues}} was helpfully added, and a request could be put in at WP:TALKJUDAISM for WP:EXPERT help in this regard, but there is no point in cutting off the nose to spite the face. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The poor translation alone is not grounds for deletion (as we have access the original Hebrew text and a better translator could produce a better translation), but the poor sourcing is grounds for deletion. We have only one source (the obscure Encyclopedia Aarazi Halebnon) whose reliability must be assessed. Unfortunately, the he.wiki version of this article contains no better sourcing, so we really have nothing else to go on. Replying directly to @IZAK: I would point out the fact that the use of primary sources is actually discouraged at Wikipedia. The presence of the primary source is no boon to this article. I withhold opinion as to whether this article should be kept or deleted until members of WP:WikiProject Judaism can weigh in -- they'll certainly know better about the reliability of the source and the significance of this figure in Jewish history. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WikiDan61: If someone is willing to retranslate the article, let them do so, but the current version is neither acceptable as it is, nor is of any use to the re-translator. Hence, WP:TNT.
  - Encyclopedia Aarazi Halebnon is only obscure if you search for it by this dreadful machine transliteration. The correct title is אנציקלופדיה ארזי הלבנון‎ (Encyclopedia Arze ha-Levanon, OCLC 70779527), by one Shimon Vanunu. Arze ha-Levanon, though, is not considered a reliable tertiary source. (Searching its Hebrew name brings up several online discussions on the subject.)
  The second source cited is also poorly transliterated: it should read שלחן לחם הפנים‎ (Shulḥan Leḥem ha-Panim, OCLC 24066401), editor's introduction. (The editor is Rabbi Levi Nahum, a prominent rabbi of the Libyan Jewish community in Israel.) This would seem to be an excellent reference, though I have not read it, as it is cited in several sources (including Vanunu: see Arze ha-Levanon Vol. 2 on Google Books) as the primary biography of Rabbi Yaakov Rakah [or Raqah etc., but not Rokach].
  
  Another good source would be his entry in יהדות לוב‎ (Yahadut Luv "Lybian Jewry", OCLC 319774610).
  
  הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another detailed article on Rabbi Yaakov Rakah can be found in the prominent rabbinical journal מקבציאל‎ (Meḳabtsiʼel, OCLC 11664518, published by Yeshivat Hevrat Ahavat Shalom), Issue 39 (2013), pp. 129–35.
  Unfortunately, I do not have full access to any of the sources listed above. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @הסרפד: Please go ahead and add your important research to the article even as references at the bottom of the page. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to draft space per WP:ATD-I. Current stage, it's not suitable quality, by a long shot, for an English encyclopedia. Seems on shaky Notability grounds, as presented. HG | Talk 01:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Please see the current updated version of the article that has now been WP:WIKIFY'ed and the language basically fixed, as well as now indicating that it is a {{rabbi-stub}} and as such deserves a WP:CHANCE as well as WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on sources identified by Hasirpad and the cleanup provided by IZAK, I'd have to say that this person does appear to be a notable person within the body of Jewish history meriting an article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with all the reasons of Hasirpad. he is indeed notable. This needs an expert but any book on the history of Libyan Jewry has Rabbi Yaakov Raqah (or Rakah). See Harvey Goldberg, Jewish Life in Muslim Libya, there are also references in academic articles in Hebrew. --Jayrav (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps, if this article survives this AFD, we would do well to move it to Yaakov Rakah as a better transliteration of the Hebrew name. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. Yoninah (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space and userify, it's clearly not ready for article space, the cited letter is clearly WP:OR, while the other sources are so vaguely described they are of little use. It seems he created a library, wrote some books (of unknown importance) and knew some better-known rabbis, all of which doesn't sound like a convincing case for notability at the moment. Sionk (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I added a lot of references from Hebrew sources. Yoninah (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep I agree with Yoninah העורך היהודי (talk) 19:43, 25 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) 19:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per recent improvements (thanks, IZAK and Yoninah). I personally think it is worth deleting machine-translated articles to discourage their creation (take heed, העורך היהודי‎), but the article is acceptable now and, as mentioned above, the subject's notability is clear. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@הסרפד: Thank you. NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Please advise User העורך היהודי (talk · contribs) not to create articles that are a horrible mess in English since he has created articles and categories that are creating problems with their horrible translations and terrible English. He needs to get some sort of WP:MENTORING going with any editor/s willing to help him. But he cannot run around WP causing this type of havoc and then leaving others top clean up after him and spending time defending his work in this sort of way. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- It seems that the Raqah family's preferred Romanization is (Italian-style) "Raccah" or "Racah"; these seem to be the spellings used by the subject's nephew, Gabriel Raccah, an oft-cited historian of Libyan Jewry. See also this English-language source that discusses the significance of Rabbi Yaakov Raccah in the historiography of the Jews in Libya. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@הסרפד: Let's move this discussion to the article talk page. The Encyclopaedia Judaica and other sources has it as "Rakah" or "Raqah". Yoninah (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to @Jac16888: and closing administrator: It's not clear why this nom is still here with all the keep votes, and why it was relisted. The article is fully compliant with WP:GNG, has reliable sources, and has spawned the creation of numerous other articles on other members of the Rakah/Adadi families to complement it and populate Category:Libyan rabbis. Can we close this AFD already? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 01:25, 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure)

Indo-Aryan neopaganism[edit]

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

Unsourced original research. No mention of the phrase in any source other than Wikipedia mirrors. Proposed deletion contested. utcursch | talk 19:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 19:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. utcursch | talk 19:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support 0 Google hits.Clubjustin3 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hoax. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:43, 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 keep; further discussion about merging can continue in the normal course (though there doesn't seem to be much consensus growing for that option). Mojo Hand (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mather House (Harvard University)[edit]

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

College dorm that has not been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the school. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are separate AFDs running on 4 of 13 Harvard residence houses:

As they have separate differing sources, they need separate consideration, but are related. --do ncr am 22:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley House isn't a residence. EEng (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:45, 27 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 20:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and redirect), tentatively. Note that merge and redirect would be better than deleting, to a list-article about Harvard buildings or Harvard residence houses/halls. There is navbox {{HarvardResidentialHouses}} that lists Mather and 12 other "residence houses". All 13 plus also List of Harvard College freshman dormitories appear in navbox {{Harvard}}. However there is not a suitable list-article available to merge to, here, AFAIK, yet. Note there is an unrelated Mather House (Case Western Reserve University), too, subject of AFD ending Keep.

This is one more in a series of AFDs about individual dormitories at universities. The common outcome recently as I observe them is to merge and redirect to a central list-article about all dorms or all buildings at the university. Many of the list-articles also lack significant references proving Wikipedia-notability, but it seems that the topic of buildings at a university seems obviously enough. I have proposed such mergers and created some list-articles to serve as merger targets. However, I am losing my confidence that merging is so great. What is so much better about one combo article than separate shorter articles? And I don't like all the similar AFDs; been there, done that, let's stop!

Anyhow, I hope editor effort/discussion focuses on alternatives of:

1) Keep, adding sources to this one and Keeping it separately,

or discussing what is the best approach to develop a new list-article:

2a) Merge: adapt List of Harvard College freshman dormitories and move to List of Harvard residence houses and dormitories

2b) Merge: create new List of Harvard residence houses (watch if there is a draft at Draft:List of Harvard residence houses

or just vote to stop the madness

3) Keep, as AFD is not necessary, and in order to protest against the production of AFDs like this. In my view, more AFDs like this should not be welcomed. Better for an editor to develop the appropriate list-article and just do the merge-and-redirects, as an editing choice, rather than forcing many editors to give attention on AFD. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP.

My vote for now is 2a, Merge to new combo article on all the residence houses and dormitories. Please refer to 1, 2a, 2b, 3 alternatives in your comments, or suggest new alternatives. --do ncr am 21:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem withdrawing AFDs if there is consensus for 2a, based on the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Washington Tower and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John F. Kennedy Tower. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, no merging. Notable as architecture, as part of a notable institution, and as part of the biographies of notable persons. Houses are not the same at all as freshman dorms. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I appreciate the thoroughness of doncram's analysis above of alternatives. However, for reasons which must surely be obvious (fair or not) Harvard buildings get far more coverage than do corresponding buildings at other schools. The architectural criticism, histories of Harvard, and guidebooks alone qualify most of them right off -- certainly any built before 1950. Even the more marginal and newer buildings have had more-than-substantial coverage one way or another (I wrote Peabody Terrace without even leaving my desk, and the public dealings between Harvard and the City of Cambridge in the preliminary stages of any Harvard project in the last 75 years leave a large public record) and the better known and more prominent ones have been mentioned extensively because of the circumstances of their building, the people who have lived there, and the things that have happened there e.g. Lowell House is the only US dormitory listed in the Michelin Guide. Most of the freshman dormitories outside Harvard Yard, and many of the graduate residences (but by no means all -- e.g. the Gropius-designed Harvard_Graduate_Center and, again, Peabody Terrace) do belong on lists because (if for no other reason) there's just not enough to say about them, even if they're technically notable. But the idea that all Harvard residences can be merged into a list is just ludicrous. EEng (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Therefore, it is not notable just because it is owned by a notable institution and notable people lived there. And if substantial, in-depth coverage does exist, please provide sources that demonstrate this. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't need any links to basic notability principles, and if you think WP:NOTINHERITED is any kind of response to what I said above, then you need to reread it. I didn't say any building is notable because it's a Harvard building, rather that most Harvard buildings have received a great deal of coverage over the years (for various reasons) -- which is the test for notability -- and therefore, in turn, the idea of merging all Harvard residential buildings into a single list is (I repeat) ridiculous.

For the present case, see the writeups in [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] for starters. EEng (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the topic is covered in sources such as Harvard: An Architectural History. Andrew D. (talk) 00:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listed at Talk:Harvard University and Talk:Harvard College. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources provided above demonstrate notability. --Oakshade (talk) 06:13, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cabot House[edit]

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

College dorm that has not been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the school. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are separate AFDs running on 4 of 13 Harvard residence houses:

As they have separate differing sources, they need separate consideration, but are related. --do ncr am 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:46, 27 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 20:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey, can this be combined to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mather House (Harvard University), instead, as a wp:MULTIAFD. I was proposing there mergers to a combo list-article. Hope this can be procedurally closed. --do ncr am 21:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that at least one of Harvard's houses (Quincy) has received significant coverage. Therefore, I believe that there is a chance that at least one of these articles could stand on its own merits and therefore they should be nominated separately. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, separate AFDs. I added note above and at other 3 for editors to navigate between them though. --do ncr am 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable as architecture, as part of a notable institution, and as part of the biographies of notable persons. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as architecture? Based on what sources? Also, WP:Notability is not inherited. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[52]: omit the ones published by Harvard, and you still satisfy WP:GNG. And these nominations smell of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any source that provides significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the subject's history, I should also have linked this: [53]. There are plenty of independent sources giving significant coverage, and there is particular relevance to the merging of Harvard and Radcliffe. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I see many passing mentions, but no significant coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hirolovesswords has a point. In those searches the first-page results that I've clicked on have just passing mentions. I tend to think the topic is notable, that there will be substantial coverage, but where are specific links to online sources that have it? Offline sources okay too, of course. --do ncr am 22:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. I've done searches both for Cabot House and South House, which was the previous name. As with the other pages nominated, I recognize that we can have some good faith arguments about what constitutes significant coverage, but I think that, especially with the relevance of this House to women at Harvard, the page passes GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As this is covered in works such as Harvard: An Architectural History. Andrew D. (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... not to mention [61]. EEng (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listed at Talk:Harvard University and Talk:Harvard College. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG or the more specific WP:GEOFEAT. Multiple sources indicate that this architecture is of historic importance.--218.81.14.78 (talk) 12:21, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currier House (Harvard College)[edit]

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

College dorm that has not received significant coverage outside of sources connected to the school. Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Previously nominated for deletion. Result was no consensus. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Currier House --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2 There are separate AFDs running on 4 of 13 Harvard residence houses:

As they have separate differing sources, they need separate consideration, but are related. --do ncr am 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:34, 27 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 18:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, this should be discussed as part of a wp:multiafd. Add this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mather House (Harvard University). Then procedurally close this. --do ncr am 21:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as architecture, as part of a notable institution, and as part of the biographies of notable persons. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the deletion nominator would like to see specific sources providing significant coverage. Got any specific ones? --do ncr am 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they would.

[62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. I think it should be noted that this house has significance in part in terms of women at Harvard. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see significant coverage in any of those sources. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this is subjective, but I sincerely disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable being covered in works such as Harvard: An Architectural History. Andrew D. (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...and as with Cabot House, [68]. EEng (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listed at Talk:Harvard University and Talk:Harvard College. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:50, 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 keep. Rescued by EEng. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard University Shields[edit]

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

Unsourced affair that seems to fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 17:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly merge to Harvard University if it can be sourced. ww2censor (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:36, 27 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 18:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No indication subject merits a stand-alone article. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harvard University. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Listed at Talk:Harvard University. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above, that the symbols were designed by La Rose is sourcable (e.g., [69]. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another nomination by someone who apparently just assumed there wouldn't be any sources. I found 12 in just 10 minutes, now added to the article. Also renamed it Heradlry of Harvard University since that's a natural way of encompassing related subtopics. EEng (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, thank you for doing that. Even if I accept that the page satisfies GNG and does not need to be deleted, I just wonder whether, as a matter of editorial judgment, it would still be better to merge it as a section of Harvard University. It seems to me, subjectively of course, that it would work well as a section, and just does not need to be a standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an HU article properly developed would have very little space for anything, just small sections or even paragraphs linked to larger articles or sometimes just a "See also". The current article is crap and might well quality for WP:TNT, but I didn't want it on the record that this one shouldn't exist sooner or later. Since it's here we may as well leave it, given that the subject is clearly notable. EEng (talk) 15:58, 6 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 (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:24, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar (music video)[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork from Sugar (Maroon 5 song). –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPINOFF. The music video is rather notable to warrant its own article. Interesting that the nominator gets in an argument with the creator of the article in regards to another article and then nominates a recent article he created for deletion... — Status (talk · contribs) 17:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also interesting that I !voted delete on a similar discussion very recently. I was not aware that Tomica created this page, nor do I care about getting petty revenge on an uncivil editor. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Again, this user above (the nominator), comes at articles he didn't even read and only AfD or trims them [like he did on "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" (or specifically its lead)] when it doesn't get the idea of the article. As a creator of this music video article, it's over 30kb long, it's notable per its concept, inspiration and filming. The section in the song article summarizes is it, as its much more longer than its on the song. Also agree with Status, making vengeance towards me and my good faith edits on Wikipedia. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You and Status should both read WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, particularly the section about arguments to the person. This is a deletion discussion about the article and only the merits of the article should be discussed. Your opinions of me and your disputes with me on unrelated articles are not relevant here. Now, getting on topic... the size of the song and music video articles combined is roughly 51kb (that would go down without an extra lead section for the music video), which according to WP:SIZERULE doesn't necessarily warrant a split. That, combined with the fact that most songs do not have individual articles on their music videos, and the fact that the song article isn't very large (the video article is currently larger!!), and that is why I don't think there should be two articles. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is totally WP:POV. I am gonna expand the article since it's began to rise commercially, and when that happens there will be no place for this large info which is now a separate article, both of them combined NOW are 60kb, and believe later it will be even more. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV is a policy pertaining to articles. Of course a deletion discussion is going to include personal opinion. Common sense. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Though people's like you POV... — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...are just as relevant as yours. Enough arguments to the person and snide comments; please discuss the article nominated for deletion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 18:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - per Status and Tomica. The video is literally the thing that pushed the song up the charts. Besides that, the article is certainly long enough. It is pretty obvious that this is just an attempt at vengeance, after what went down here, and a rather weak one at that. MaRAno ^FAN 17:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point was already brought up (and shot down) above. But nice attempt at trying to bandwagon. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shot down- according to you! I (pretty sure Status too) still think this is a WP:REVENGE. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether or not it is, (I've already explained how it isn't) I have given valid reasons for why this article does not need to exist that (imo) have not sufficiently been addressed. The vast majority of the comments here are off-topic attempts at obscuring the discussion. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are not owner of Wikipedia, it has other users here including us, let them tell their opinion and respect it too. Us 3 think it should stay, thus respect the decision. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a discussion is that not everyone is going to agree. I respect the fact that the three of you disagree with me; however, I do not respect the off-topic banter about "revenge" when I have already given valid reasons for deletion. I will gladly discuss the merits of the article with you, but I refuse to engage in anymore petty banter. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:15, 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. WP:SNOW Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbitrationGate controversy[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)

"ArbitrationGate" appears to be a neologism; and where this topic needs to be covered at all, which it probably will in due course, it would be better to do so at Gamergate controversy The Land (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request an admin closes this as a case of doesn't have a snowball's chance of being kept given the discussion to date, so we can all move on with our lives. The Land (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On top of being a neologism that doesn't have wide acceptance, it is solely based off of one reliable source, The Guardian, and not being widely reported at this time in other reliable sources. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Wikipedia deletion policys. It has reliable sources and is notable in the context of wikipedia and the gamergate controversy. Wikipedia editors are trying to delete this article showing evidence of their own misogyny 190.230.238.212 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)— 190.230.238.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Speedy delete. This is just a WP:POINT article. The first sentence is copied verbatim from the Gamergate article with the word "gamer" changed to "arbitration". Shii (tock) 15:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a neologism, and this controversy was manufactured by the press. There are no bans that have been enforced as of me writing this, and the article is mischaracterizing what is happening with ArbCom's enforcement of the Gamergate controversy. There is no reason to keep this page, and the only place where it would even be appropriate is the Gamergate controversy article. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
wp:TOOSOON. Which means that as things stand it's a delete. ~~However I'd argue against any attempt to snow delete it (or close before the week is up) given that the final ArbCom decision is due in the next day or two.~~ In a week it will be clear either that this is a story (and wp:NOTNEWS is an entirely separate argument) or that it isn't. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts this is a clear cut wp:POINT - I withdraw my comments about not going speedy if that's consensus. Neonchameleon (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might be included in the Gamergate article at some point, but currently not notable enough for it's own article. Also, where does the name come from, not seeing any source for it. — Strongjam (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge This is a matter that is of relevance to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Feminism At worst it should be merged with one of the above mentioned articles, but there is no reason why criticism of ArbCom should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.166.55 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 27 January 2015 — 84.13.166.55 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ‎
Delete As said above, this is neologism, the so-called controversy was yes, manufactured by the press. If this was a real thing, it wouldn't need to have its own article, but should instead have been merged with the mentioned Gamergate controversy article. (83.253.93.107 (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC))— 83.253.93.107 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong delete. No need for this. At the very most it could be mentioned in the primarily article, but this is ridiculous pot-stirring. — foxj 15:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. Gawker and The Guardian confirm that WP is misogynist. All of the content that appears in Reliable Sources should be dumped into the project immediately and nobody should be able to argue successfully against using it. MySIdesTheyAreGoneForever (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)— MySIdesTheyAreGoneForever (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Change to Strongly Keep. The arguments for deletion are obviously from white males, even a blind idiot could see they aren't vaginal enough. Only clitoridean arguments should be considered when talking about gender-related issues. MySIdesTheyAreGoneForever (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although a funny article because of the parody its attempting to show, parody doesn't really have a place on WP and it isn't helping the battleground mentality that already exists surrounding Gamergate. Hopefully some editors can see the parody and appreciate it, but beyond that this article isn't appropriate. Ries42 (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not funny. Stop wasting resources on GamerGate, broadly construed. Rka001 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hasty Delete This article is a joke. It's fairly obvious. There is no need to keep it and people might end up taking it seriously. Delete it please.71.192.72.22 (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article exists only to prove a point, and is nothing but a reaction to the ArbCom statement on the GG case. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 15:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to note that the sources for this article were all based on a blog post by a Wikipedia editor who was blocked for a month due to violating his topic block on the GamerGate controversy. This should probably be taken into consideration for the value and verifiability of the article content. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rather than being suborned to the GamerGate Controversy, the Guardian claims that the ArbCom decision is indicative of a long-running bias in Wikipedia against women, which it wraps up the article by focusing on. Other outlets now covering the decision have taken a similar tack. Also, claiming this was "manufactured by the press" is both POV and bears no weight on the issue of RS. Neither can one legitimately claim this is "parody", insofar as that it actually does reference real-world articles and a growing controversy in a manner that satisfies existing WP. One COULD argue that there are many parallels to how the GamerGate article itself was treated and that this is a total reversal of how that was handled, but in fact that doesn't matter to WP either. If there are no WP-based arguments for why this article should be struck, then rather than complain about its existence, one might address how WP came to allow its existence in the first place. Calbeck (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Calbeck, there has been no decision that has been released by ArbCom, so the Guardian pretty produced an article based on a lie and didn't bother to fact check with anyone, or even talk to Wikipedians. It would be one thing if it paralleled what happened with the actual controversy, but it is another thing if it is a blatant lie. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I concur that the Guardian report is inaccurate, it is their report that a decision was released. It's been brought up numerous times that factual inaccuracy from a RS does not invalidate its use as an RS, since it's not the content but the publisher which is given top consideration. Personally, I think that's a WP which should be revisited and refined in light of all this.Calbeck (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I started an essay on this; still pretty early and in my userspace but I would appreciate helpful comments if you have any. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 16:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Just silly and pretty much a textbook case of WP:POINT. Orderinchaos 15:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious. In addition to the WP:BLP violation, there's also WP:NEO, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:POINT. All this really shows is that we shouldn't automatically consider the Guardian a reliable source anymore. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the content (after it has been pruned back to the relevant Reliable Source information) could potentially form a very small sub-section on the GamerGate article. This is at best a "footnote" to the much wider issue. Witty lama 16:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only relevant link on Google for "arbitrationgate" was this article. If this topic is notable enough for any coverage, it's as a footnote or a short mention in an article on a broader topic.GabrielF (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One source's coverage of an issue does not warrant an article; it's not notable, or even significant. The article's title isn't an established name, either. At most, coverage should be a couple sentences in the GamerGate article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the love of god, I hope this is a joke. Per Orderinchaos, this is just silly. The term doesn't even have sufficiant media coverage to be notable, if we get past that. I cannot find any instances of the term ArbitrationGate controversy anywhere on any search engine, evidencing that this is probably just anti-Wikipedia propaganda. I fail to see how people are proposing for this to be kept... In addition, most of the people that have voted "keep" have only edited pages related to this topic, which makes these account obvious SPAs. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 16:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a reminder that deletion discussions are not a vote; even if all the keeps are from SPAs, why they say to keep the article should weigh more than an established editor that says the opposite without any supporting reasons. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep on forgetting that, thanks for reminding me. George Edward C – Talk – Contributions 17:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real relevance, only one outside source that's pretty biased, is reporting on an issue that is currently going on, looks to be made for sympathy rather than info.72.78.145.144 (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable neologism, though without prejudice for recreation if it does in fact blow up into a larger controversy after the case is done. KonveyorBelt 16:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All coverage extends from the mistaken Guardian article (written before the case was completed) , and recite a blog by an editor that was blocked for bad behavior, and so while there are many sources, it is effectively a mirror of one single source. We do have pages that discuss criticism of Wikipedia elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously this just must be my internalised misogyny talking - but this is obviously made to make a point and nothing else. The title isn't established and if we must have coverage of this, I agree that a footnote in the main subject's page is the only way to go about it. As someone said above, in a week this will probably be WP:NOTNEWS regardless. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just silly and is about a clear case of WP:POINT and mismanagement of WP:NEO and WP:NOTNEWS. Also of note is that ArbCom has released its own statement to specifically contradict the validity of the sourced material. There's no policy for this one-off matter but I'm inclined to believe a statement from ArbCom about Wikipedia matters than an external media outlet's opinion. ♪ Tstorm (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is indeed just something that was created to make a point, albeit a pretty good point.--The Throwaway Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.}16:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)— The Throwaway Advocate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic because the media said so and the media never lied to me.[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and per plain SILLY. An "article" about a non-notable neologism, presumably invented by the article's creator, and in turn based on one article in the Guardian written before the case had even ended and essentially consisting of quotes from the blog of one of the soon-to-be sanctioned editors. Said Guardian article was then reproduced by multiple non-notable sites creating the archtypical manufactured "controversy", followed by people shouting at each other on Twitter (as they do every day and all day over a myriad of things). Per Konveyor Belt, this is without prejudice for recreation if the ArbCom decision in itself does in fact become a notable historic event with significant in-depth coverage over an extended period of time in prominent independent sources. Voceditenore (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it from orbit. Simply an attempt to manufacture a controversy where none existed before. bobrayner (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge into a relevant Wikipedia controversy article; I don't find that this stands on its own as a notable concept. Harej (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bless the internet's little heart. Non-notable event with a source that's just incorrect information. Someone is wrong on the internet. Keegan (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a neologism and clearly fails WP:NOT. It has 5 Google hits. I know that counting Google hits is not a sensible criterion in general, but for a topic like this which is completely internet-based, I'd be suspicious at 50000 Google hits. For comparison, GamerGate gets over 5 million. As many have mentioned, the sources are ridiculously lacking, and there is no credible claim of notability in the article. --Slashme (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POINT & WP:NOTNEWS Avono (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this flash-in-the-pan silliness per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:POINT, and others I'm sure. This tiny hiccup of coverage is hardly ongoing enough to write up into anything coherent or meaningful, and in fact these articles are already out-of-date, as the decision is still in progress and some votes are still moving around. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and because the Guardian article is so wrought with untruths, it should not be used as a reliable source for either Wikipedia or Gamergate. It's clear someone has the ear of the Guardian that persuades them to write incredibly unresearched articles regarding those two topics. --DHeyward (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or merge to GamerGate. Beyond the shear stupidity of this, there's simply not enough to warrant its standalone article. Anything worth keeping can be put into GamerGate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:31, 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 Keep. ThaddeusB (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parramatta Advertiser[edit]

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

Ip removed the prod. Article is very short I question the importance of the subject I have never heard of it. Source links look as though they are thin on the ground because if there was any worthwhile links they would be on the article by now as its been here since 2007 with very little edits. Daniel298289 (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not-notable, and I feel I should point out that this could've been speedily deleted as copyvio from http://www.newscorpaustralia.com/brand/parramatta-advertiser -War wizard90 (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't look important in an encyclopedia. It's also very short, and doesn't seem to be a valid stub. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being short is not a valid reason for deletion and we don't judge on "importance", but rather on reliable source coverage or lack thereof. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as copyvio per War wizard90, despite some dubious reasoning in the nomination. Frickeg (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per below, note that this should be without prejudice against recreation using non-plagiarised material. Frickeg (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing to keep now that copyvio has been dealt with. Frickeg (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Parramatta Advertiser is notable:

It was launched in 1933 by the Cumberland Newspaper Group and became its "flagship".[70][71]
The electronic edition of the paper is now under the umbrella of the Daily Telegraph — a notable Australian daily newspaper.
It was the successor of another notable newspaper: The Cumberland Argus — which was incorporated into the Parramatta Advertiser in 1962.
At that time it was the largest regional newspaper in Australia.[72]
Since that time it has been the main local newspaper for the City of Parramatta.
It is notable enough to be archived at the State Library of NSW.[73]
It is notable enough to be archived on microfilm by the Parramatta Heritage Centre.[74]
It is notable enough to be "wanted" for digitisation by the National Library of Australia.[75]
It is notable enough to have its death and other notices be indexed by the Ryerson Index.[76]
It is notable enough to have a Libraries Australia ID and listings on Trove.[77]

However, I do agree that all the current text is straight plagiarism and should be removed. --Very trivial (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous commenter's rationale. Historically significant local paper with a reasonable distribution, passes WP:GNG, no basis on which to delete. The current text is a copyvio and can be deleted, but it needs to be made clear that this is a notable topic and recreations of the page without the copyvio should not be eligible for deletion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "I have never heard of it" is not a good argument for deletion, except perhaps if you lived in Parramatta. Very trivial's arguments for keeping are persuasive.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: The copyright violation appears to have been dealt with by editing. Discussion should now focus on notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in the list of keep rationales provided above, 6 through 10 can be ignored as being consistent with the treatment of even the smallest regional papers. The State Library, for example, makes a particular point of chronicling local history by archiving regional papers. That said, 1 through 5 (history, regional significance, etc) seem like perfectly sound reasons to keep this. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - not sure why this is being relisted (to waste more time and effort) - it was very clear that all my previous points were specifically related to notability, and the plagiarism aspect has now been fixed. --Very trivial (talk) 08:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You only need to !vote once. Discussions are re-listed in the hope a clearer consensus will emerge. While you might have made your point, there is no "right" and "wrong" and someone may still disagree with your assertions. As it was, four people supported deletion and only three supported keeping the article. I'd think you'd be happy about re-listing it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:00, 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Pawlowski[edit]

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

This bio is written in a very promotional tone. He has obtained some local news coverage - not sure if this is enough to meet GNG but I don't believe he is especially notable IMO Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient news coverage of Pawlowski to satisfy WP:GNG]]. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The coverage is there but dynamite for promotional material, original research, and apparent conflict of interest. Vrac (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The article certainly needs improvement, but it has the feel of one that we ought to have. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He was interviewed in major Polish news station ([78]) but otherwise I am not seeing other RS in Polish. The coverage in English sources seems to be for more than one event, so I guess he passes as his actions where covered for more than one newsworthy event. The article is a mess, and the sources are poor, so it's pretty borderline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I appreciate the subject's Christian values, the flowery language in this article has to be removed. Still, I vote to keep the article because it has significant coverage by independent reliable sources. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:54, 3 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

German Trade Office Taipei[edit]

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

Unsourced OR by an intern at the organisation. While it stops short of G11 it lacks NPOV. Bazj (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, because of Taiwan's relationship with China, Germany is prevented from officially recognising Taiwan and so both countries maintain "trade offices" in place of embassies. These trade offices are, effectively, embassies and the directors of said offices have (in most cases) the full diplomatic rank of ambassador. That said, embassies are not inherently notable, nor are analogous trade offices. The question would be whether there are enough sources relating to the trade office's activities to justify a pass against WP:GNG. I wasn't able enough significant coverage to make it so, but then I don't speak Mandarin or German. I'm probably at delete at the moment, on that basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: except for the blurb about their birthday party, all sources in the article are primary. The German wiki article has no secondary sources either. Press I can find in RS amounts to brief mentions. Vrac (talk) 01:39, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Layla Sarakalo[edit]

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

Look, I love Star Trek as much as the next person, but let's get a grip here. She appears for about six seconds in one film as an extra, in what was intended to be a non-speaking part (although she did ad-lib a few lines that ended up being used). I'd be open to the possibility of redirecting this article to the film in which she appeared, but there doesn't appear to be nearly enough notability here to sustain a biographical article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find any evidence of notability for her as a designer. I carried out a basic search to remove the word "Trek" from results and couldn't see anything remotely usable on a quick scan through the results. It sounds as if she isn't really notable in Trek terms either. Sorry, Layla... Mabalu (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage in WP:RS found, fails WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 19:20, 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 Speedy Keep per WP:CSK criterion #2. Bad-faith nomination by permanently blocked, self-described throwaway account. VQuakr (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Debito Arudou[edit]

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

WP:Notability is debatable. After several years, it appears subject is more likely to fall under WP:OneEvent for his onsen case. No notable activities since then; published work is either opinion pieces in minor newspapers or self-published. Most source material either directly- or two-degrees-of-separation-sourced from the subject's own blog postings, etc. PhD studies not appropriate for notability, subject not recognized by any formal activist organization, has not been referenced academically, etc. This AfD created under a throwaway account due to subject's history of stalking/publishing personal details of people he feels have wronged him. White American Naturalized Citizen's Association (talk) 09:59, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obvious trolling from single-purpose account. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Curly Turkey, this is an SPA. (Notability might be "debatable" in a sense, but this chap has achieved enough notoriety, that a wp article is called for.) Imaginatorium (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst the subject may have his detractors, and the article is not of featured quality, the one event claim does not hold up. Notability cannot be lost over a period of time. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:13, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hogan (spiritual healer)[edit]

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

Delete: Previously PRODed but removed. I think this person fails WP:GNG. I question his notability because I cannot find any reliable third party sources for him, neither online nor in books, other than his own book. All the citations are associated with the subject except for a review of his book and the Caulbearer links don't even mention him or support the associated prose. The cathalblackfilms link is effectively self promotional for a documentary. ww2censor (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and badly sourced. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one independent source, cant find any, will try again but it aint lookin good. Murry1975 (talk) 15:27, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radim Rehurek[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. Also, see this essay about posting CVs. KDS4444^Talk 09:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Scopus Young Researcher Award is the only fact that counts towards meeting WP:ACADEMIC, and I'm not convinced it's the kind of "highly prestigious academic award" intended there. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Actually, the original intention for me to create the article was that Radim Rehurek is the creator of Gensim, a widely used topic modeling toolkit both in academy and in industry containing scalable implementations of many natural language processing (like LSA LDA HDP) and deep learning (like word2vec doc2vec) algorithms, instead of the Scopus Young Researcher Award which is just an adjunct I find during completing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvel2 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The software itself may well be notable (looks borderline to me), but that doesn't make its author notable. All of the citations, even the newly added ones, are to works written by Rehurek; nothing independent. Links to Rehurek's website and LinkedIn profile make this look like CV puffery. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. As an analogy or an example, Matei Zaharia is also mainly known for his notable software Apache Spark. Velvel2 (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Velvel2, please only make one "keep" or "delete" comment. I have struck your second one. And the usual word is "keep", not "defend". —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was ashamed to use the word "keep" since I know the notability of Radim Rehurek is weak. Velvel2 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough cites for WP:PROF#C1 and what else is there? WP:TOOSOON to have accumulated academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I have added some independent reliable sources and removed something like CV puffery. Velvel2 (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As David Eppstein suggested above, you are limited to one keep or delete vote. You may make additional on-topic comments in an afd, but repeat votes will be struck.Dialectric (talk) 23:58, 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 withdrawn due to WP:SNOW.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The most that can really be said about this blog and its founder is that it exists. The article was also previously full of dead links or links directly to the Adland blog rather than anything supporting this particular blog's notability. The references used are mostly in non-English sources so it is not clear if they are reliable sources, anyway. The English language sources are all various advertising blogs that are compiling things as a list or concern the blog's owner rather than the blog itself.

There was an AFD on this page years ago that also pretty much says the same thing, but no one ever really responded and it was closed as "no consensus". —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - You claim "the references used are all in non-English sources" - Business Week, AdWeek, Fast Company and Brand Republic are all reputable English-language sources, not sure why you made that statement. Little Professor (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somehing that missed the final draft. The sources are mostly non-English and the English ones aren't solely about the website but are lists of other websites or an interview with the main blogger.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources in English seem sufficient, one dead link and one link without a cite template were both easily fixed. Someone other than me would have to comment on the non-English articles. Artw (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd also note that you are breaking your ban, Ryulong. @David Fuchs: 71.192.72.22 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What ban am I violating?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the one about "articles related to GamerGate", if the quick googling of Adland which I just ran is any indication. No fewer than three pro-GamerGate articles popped up from them on the first search page. Given the otherwise rather specious reasoning for deletion, it would seem you're engaged in post-ban axe-grinding against a source which may in fact end up being referenced in the inevitable GG article rewrite.Calbeck (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the recent arbcom case which ruled a general topic ban relating to all things Gamergate, broadly construed. This blog writes reliable Gamergate articles. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The decision hasn't been finalized yet, so Ryulong is not in violation of anything currently. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thargor Orlando is correct. And my concerns for this website's notability are not out of nowhere. Clearly someone else has had concerns otherwise there wouldn't have been a previous AFD or his recent attempts to question the overall notability. It is frankly extremely bad faith to accuse me of violating a topic ban that doesn't exist yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless. Running around trying to cause as much damage as possible before the ban is finalized is not excused. It's just as Calbeck said. This source is likely going to be used in a rewrite of the Gamergate article and you are attempting to de-legitimize it as a reliable source. This should not be ignored. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is in extremely bad faith to assume those things of me. And the nature of this website as a reliable source (although why you would want an advertising website to be used as a source for an article about what is claimed to be about ethics in video game journalism) and its presence as its own article on Wikipedia are separate. This can be a reliable source and not have an article on itself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My support for keeping this article stands. You present no solid reasoning for why it should be deleted. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I don't really buy your "bad faith" claim about these assumptions. You have been extensively sanctioned for numerous problems relating to Gamergate. Now you are here, out of the blue, trying to get this article deleted. And this blog just so happens to be publishing Gamergate articles which you disagree with. 71.192.72.22 (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sources that are presently in use seem to just list Adland amongst several other blogs of equal import and the non-English ones cannot be determined to be reliable sources in the nations from which they originate. My qualms with this website's notability are unrelated to whatever opinion you think I may have regarding Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per yourself, that AFD is from "years ago" and closed with "no consensus". That is a null result, not supportive of anything in particular. And my apologies, I haven't read much of the actual ArbCom notice. I'm going off the Guardian article which indicated the case had been closed with a definitive ban. Which simply brings us back to there being no particular reason to delete this article.Calbeck (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such an AFD where there was not even any "Keep" or "Delete" votes cast should have been taken as an expired WP:PROD.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected." Even if there was no opposition to deletion at that time, there clearly is now. Barring a sudden massive influx of DELETE requests, it seems the matter is largely settled.Calbeck (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am only remarking that the AFD from 2011 should have likely been converted into a glorified PROD considering there was no opposition at the time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that GameOn (talk · contribs), who re-added the notability tag per Ryulong's citation above, has not otherwise contributed to Wikipedia in over a year, and has made no recent argument anywhere. Further, the template was inexplicably added with a date of January 2011, predating the other AFD. In my mind, it strains credulity to imagine that someone would come back to Wikipedia after over a year, and have their very first action be to re-open a 4-year-old action they received no satisfaction on, without having been WP:CANVASSED in some way. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Little Professor and Artw. Notable vis a vis media and advertising. International impact may be worth adding, see India Economic Times coverage [79] Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing you've returned to Wikipedia to oppose a proposal I made.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's more amazing that User:GameOn appears to have returned to support it, after an hiatus nearly 19 times as long. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not seeing any particular reason to go after this article. If "it is not clear" whether or not the sources are reliable, then it would seem clarification would be the first step before assuming deletion is appropriate.Calbeck (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable due to the reliable source coverage already in the article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Professor and Artw. Also, comment: Ryulong is not currently topic-banned, and he's technically correct about notability vs. reliability (though having one without the other is rare). Random ^(?) 20:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps snowball keep. Given that Adland is considered one of the most influential advertising industry blogs (as per the lede) I think that more than satisfies notability. It could certainly use some work to expand from it's near-stub quality, but the solution to that is certainly not deleting the article. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Svenska Dagbladet, Dagens Media, and Resumé, are all major Swedish news outlets so they are certainly good for establishing notability. How about you do a little research before you dismiss sources for not aspeaking a da English?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as international trade sources have covered it. Saw no reason for nomination. Frr5 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - Seems BEFORE wasn't even followed .... Anyway Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Auerbachkeller & Litte Profesor & Artw. Enough already said. Avono (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adland's notability is sufficiently documented. Willhesucceed (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Strong keep The lede of the article already clearly establishes notability from reliable sources: In July 2011 Brand Republic listed Adland as the worlds 6th most influential advertising blog,[2] while Business Insider in July 2012 put Adland on a list of the 22 most influential.[3] The argument that a blog with that much influence is somehow "not notable", is absolutely risible. Advertising is big business, doncha know. 76.69.75.41 (talk) 21:16, 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 redirect to Miss North Dakota USA. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 18:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Audra Mari[edit]

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

Fails criteria for WP:NMODEL Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 20 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 18:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any comment defending this article in a week, I've redirected it. Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Tomczyk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced biography about a non-notable author. I was able to verify that he has written at least one book, but I am unable to find any in depth sources about him. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NAUTHOR. - Mr X 04:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. The guy's article was deleted twice at AfD already for a lack of notability (which is interesting considering it was during the earlier, far looser days of notability in Wikipedia). This new article doesn't show that anything has changed and a search confirms this. I'd recommend a salting since this has been deleted (via AfD and multiple speedies) about 7 times now. I actually think that this should snow close early since the only change from the previous versions is that the guy has published a non-notable book via his own publishing company, not anything that would really show any true notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches are turning up nothing to indicate that this Thomas Tomczyk meets the notability criteria, whether as WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per Tokyogirl79 - AFD wasn't all that strict back in 2006 like it is today and the article still managed to get deleted back then which to me indicates it was and still is having notability issues, 9 Years on and nothing's changed - Still no evidence of notability!. –Davey2010^Talk 08:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this to 3rd nom since 2nd already exists, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 08:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Multiple AFD's, many speeedies, etc and repeating the same notability issues makes it that the ground needs to the salted
Comment: I'm going through the awards that were recently listed on the page. According to this site Bob Brandon won the Clifton C.Edom Photojournalism Award for the year 2000. I can find no mention of Tomczyk on that page or even on the site as a whole. A search using his last name and the award name shows nothing that would be considered a reliable source. I'll see what I can find on the other awards. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Kosciuszko Foundation Journalism Scholarship goes, it appears to be solidly non-notable. I also cannot find anything to substantiate that he received this scholarship, but that's likely because it's given out to dozens of people each year. (This one is for 2010, but shows how it is given out to a large number of people.) Most scholarships aren't really notable enough to give notability or even really get mentioned in an article, so this seems like it's no exception. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also was unable to find anything to show that he got the American Institute of Polish Culture Journalism Scholarship either, as the official website's records do not show anything for the year of 2000. It also appears to be a non-notable scholarship from what I can see. It's not given out to as many people as the other one is, but it's still pretty much non-notable. The Larry Obsitnik Photojournalism Award also appears to be non-notable and I can find very little about the award at all, let alone anything that mentions it in relation to Tomczyk. I'll remove this section entirely since there is absolutely nothing out there to substantiate that he received any of these things. The only hits I'm getting refer back to the Wikipedia entry. The only one that really looked like it could give notability at all is the first award, which was actually awarded to someone else. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ZMKS Biotech[edit]

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

References do not establish WP:N, all sources are WP:SPS or they are not reliable sources. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 02:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. BakerStMD T|C 17:58, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence this is notable at all, and the two papers they claim credit for don't have the company in the author affiliations. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:41, 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. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald P. Lopez[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, unsure if this person is notable at all. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:22, 20 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 18:16, 20 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 18:16, 20 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 18:16, 20 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 18:16, 20 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 18:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does not look like the subject meets any of the criteria for notability as an academic. Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He is a law professor whose Rebellious Lawyering (1992) has been cited in more than 800 law journal articles. No exaggeration. Please see citations to law journal articles added recently. Iamtheasphalt (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple papers with 100+ cites is notability in any field. I suspect that a GS h-index of 14 will also satisfy criteria 1 of WP:PROF in this field. Law is apparently a very low citation field for academics. According to LSE, the average h-index of a (full) law professor (2.8) is the lowest of any of the social sciences, significantly less than the average across all such disciplines (4.9), and far below the number suggested by Hirsch for a (full) professor of physics (18). I also suspect that being "Kenneth & Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law" at Stanford Law School might satisfy criteria 5 of WP:PROF. There is also a biography of him in the AALS Directory of Law Teachers, published by West. James500 (talk) 05:38, 25 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 03:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very quick google books search turns up "Gerald ('Jerry') Pablo López is undoubtedly the most notable scholar writing about community law practice" in a 2011 book by Alfredo Mirandé. I added a little more to the talk page in case anyone wants to read further. —Noah 06:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments and references provided by James500 and Noah_Salzman. But once kept, this article needs to be revised substantially to clean up the inappropriately promotional tone throughout. Some of the many quote identified by Iamtheasphalt in this good faith edit, now reverted, might be used as well, but in a less ad-like style. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I remember reading about his theories in one of my casebooks last semester. I'll try to find it and reference it when I'm home later. In the meantime, I've drastically re-written the article using some of the references identified by other people. I don't think there's really any serious question of notability; just that the article as previously written was too promotional and did a bad job of establishing notability. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find some notable sources with a search engine search and law database search. I also notice some notable conferences, including a guest speaker at Yale. Sec12345 (talk) 17:58, 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Songbyrd[edit]

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

TV pilot that did not get picked up for series (like 100 others every year), nothing about this one seems particularly notable. — TAnthony^Talk 22:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it's an ophan.— TAnthony^Talk 22:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - TV series that didn't make it past pilot. No significant coverage to show notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:09, 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, Deadbeef 01:17, 20 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 03:45, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 05:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Curry Humanitarian Award[edit]

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

This award presented by a nursery school doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Google finds it mentioned on only 62 pages, 47 of them mentioning in a bio, in passing, that author Jennifer Clement has won one, and most of the rest being wikis and/or social media. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:21, 12 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 11:21, 12 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 11:21, 12 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here. The fact that famous people have received or presented the award does not confer notability on the award itself, as "notability is not inherited". We don't know who judges it or what qualifies them to do so. A well-intentioned initiative that unfortunately hasn't been regarded as worth reporting in independent outlets: Noyster (talk), 09:31, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find multiple secondary sources, [80], [81], [82], [83], and [84]. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 16:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited from people who have won the award. There is a lack of coverage about the award itself. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanveer Ahmed (psychiatrist)[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE as a journalist and WP:ENT for his entertainment career. his career as a psychiatrist is unremarkable too. yes he's appeared in a few TV shows but nothing significant. his journalist career ended when he was exposed for plagiarism so hardly a well regarded career. and being a local councillor doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:49, 27 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 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 02:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trawling through online news articles he seems to pass the only important criteria - people independent of him care to write about him up to the present day. Perhaps he doesn't pass WP:xxx but there seems ample material to cover a neutral and reasonably useful article. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

could you please supply these sources? LibStar (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Finding coverage by him is hampered by the large amount by him and by others with the same name. There is a number of reviews for his book The Exotic Rissole [85] [86], some providing bio details about him.

Rosner, Josh (15 October 2011), "Tasty Australian mix; MEMOIR", Canberra Times

Sheherd, Tory (10 December 2011), "Memoir", The Advertiser

Clark, Graham (26 November 2011), "NON FICTION", The Courier-Mail

Chamberlain, Simon (9 December 2011), "Formed by hands of experience and rolled", Dubbo Daily Liberal

Wilding, Michael (8 October 2011), "Formed by hands of experience and rolled in happy acceptance", The Sydney Morning Herald

Capp, Fiona (6 November 2011), "Non-Fiction", The Saturday Age

Outside the book he gets coverage for other things. "No Bingo" guy [87], accustaions of plagarism. eg

"Indian actor cracks jackpot", Sunday Times (Perth), 11 November 2007

Meade, Amanda (11 September 2012), "SMH columnist on ice amid plagiarism claims", The Australian

Overal, notable enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:31, 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 Keep Bolin (The Legend of Korra), and Soft Keep Mako (The Legend of Korra) and Tenzin (The Legend of Korra) with no prejudice against renomination if they're not brought up to snuff soon. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Korra characters[edit]

Mako (The Legend of Korra) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Bolin (The Legend of Korra) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Tenzin (The Legend of Korra) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

These are characters in a concluded animated television series. There is, to my knowledge - and certainly judging by the articles themselves - not enough coverage in third-party reliable sources to make them meet WP:GNG. Most secondary sources covering them are already used in The Legend of Korra#Cast and characters, which I think covers them at an appropriate level of detail. Sandstein 13:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no remark on the characters' notability or lack thereof, but it seems a bit quick to nominate them for deletion while they're still under construction. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Every article in main space must meet our inclusion criteria at all times. The creator could have avoided this nomination if they had constructed the articles as userspace drafts first, but they didn't, so the articles are now live, and something of an embarrassment. Sandstein 13:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Zaheer (The Legend of Korra), which you added, from this nomination, because the quality of the article and the number of sources cited are sufficiently different from the first three ones that I believe that it should be discussed separately. Feel free to nominate it separately, but I'd prefer discussing these three first. Sandstein 15:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I gave it my best shot in that one go, but will try to add more later. Not sure why the status of the series matters when it comes to creating character pages. I felt there was plenty to write about for Zaheer, but hey, I'm no wiki expert. If the high powers deem it fit, fine, delete it, I tried, no big deal. Sorry if it's an embarrassment to you or the site. Chopperface116 (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've removed Zaheer, which somebody else added, from this nomination. That article may also not be notable, but it's certainly no embarrassment. Sandstein 15:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (discuss) @ 18:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter¹²³ (babble) @ 18:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (notify) @ 18:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against re-creation if G. Capo want's to draft in user/draft space before making them live. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bolin now that the article has been expanded, userfy Mako and Tenzin so that the creator can finish them (although the latter probably isn't worthy of an article). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. These articles are still under construction and are clearly not ready for the main space. Based on a quick google search I think there's enough RS out there for substantial articles on these characters; it just requires some digging. I'd prefer to not lose the bones we have on these, therefore userfy instead of delete. Luthien22 (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is under construction, so the articles would be updated and then cited, so they won't meet the criteria for deletion if it's improved soon. Snowager (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep Bolin~~, I'm not happy with seeing an empty article being made, but I've just added a lot of content to it. Still needs a lot, but it's a start. I think the "team avatar" members have established notability, so that isn't too much of an issue. Zaheer would need to be removed before Bolin gets removed if notability is the issue. (Zaheer probably should get deleted anyway, but regardless) I've found four interviews with the person who plays Bolin bout the character and quite a few sources where people praise his character growth between the third and fourth season, this just by Googling. I liked this source where it was discussed how he has become "the new Sokka." Furthermore, I'm just curious where this will go. The sources are there, and though the character is not often the primary topic, there is more than enough to work with. ~Mable (chat) 09:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: I thought this was just a nomination for Bolin. I haven't looked into the other two articles yet, so I don't have much of an opinion on them. I think Tenzin probably should be removed. I'll check it out right now. ~Mable (chat) 09:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Move Tenzin and Mako to a userpage draft. ~Mable (chat) 09:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Despite the fact that these two articles have been expanded greatly, I still support them to be moved to a userpage. The two articles are almost entirely in-universe, have an incredibly bloated plot summary section, lack any content in their "creation and conception" section and the citations are completely broken. The two articles have a lot of issues. Bolin is still lacking content (it is in need of a summary of the first three seasons, so that's pretty bad), but seems to have much less issues than Mako and Tenzin... ~Mable (chat) 10:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I completely agree. Neither of the two are currently fit for mainspace: the author should work on expanding the creation/reception sections, instead of adding yet more trivial plot details. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ~~though I'm certainly open to userfy.~~ I'll admit I'm not familiar with the concept of userfy. Still, all three articles are UNDER CONSTRUCTION. There's no "embarrassment" if these articles are in the process of being developed. Could we give these articles some time to develop before we decide whether it's worthy for deletion? I put it out here only to facilitate a collaborative work effort on these articles. A handful of folks expressed interest in creating them. UPDATE: At this point Mako and Tenzin's article sections are almost completely filled in, so there's no need for userfy. It just needs info on character conception, which is the next step, sourcing and some condensing. We'll then proceed to work on Bolin's article. G. Capo (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@G. Capo: you say "At this point Mako and Tenzin's article sections are almost completely filled in" but you haven't devoted any time to expanding the creation sections, and very little to the reception. The plot details are excessive and will need to be trimmed. I suggest you refocus your energy on expanding information other than the plot. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*@G S Palmer: Please re-read what I stated. I was planning to complete what I posted above in that order. G. Capo (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@G. Capo: Userfication just means moving the article to a subpage of your userpage, such as User:G. Capo/Mako (The Legend of Korra), which gives you the chance to improve it at your own pace. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 00:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Someone has done much work to make these WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bolin, Userfly Tenzin and Mako due to a lack of encyclopedic material (reception and conception), an abundance of in-universe material (why do the articles even include "personality" or "abilities" sections!?) and a broken references list. ~Mable (chat) 07:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Maplestrip: you already !voted above - would you strike one of your !votes so is doesn't seem like you're !voting twice? G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I misunderstood what relisting meant, especially in this case where it seemed that the recent improvements on the three articles was more the reason for it. My mistake, anyway :s I'll cross out my previous votes. They are exactly the same as what I wrote here anyway, so it doesn't really matter which I cross out. I mainly just summarized my thoughts here >.> ~Mable (chat) 18:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:As third party coverage seems to be the crux, I would like to suggest that sites like Curiata.com (self-published by a group of friends last year) and Hypable.com, which describes itself as "By Fans, For Fans" should not be considered towards establishing WP:GNG, and may not be considered reliable, as the articles seem to be short recaps of shows, followed by a fan's opinion. That Hypable declares "We don’t buy into that philosophy of only posting the big stories. Hardcore fans want to know all the latest news of their favorite movie, tv show, book series and so on, regardless of how big or mainstream it is", suggests low inclusion standards and devoted coverage to subjects that do not necessarily meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards. As the internet becomes ever more bloated and subdivided into obscure news outlets, blogs of various editorial standards, etc. and news/entertainment/opinion become increasingly blurred, I think it is important to keep a critical eye on sources themselves, and not simply assume "published online" means "notable". We would not expect an article on Backstreet Boys to primarily cite Teen Beat magazine, and perhaps sources at least one step removed from fandom and the hype it stirs should be a measure of notability. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bolin, Userfy the rest The sourcing for the article on Bolin is kind of weak, but I believe its ultimately enough to establish notability. The articles on Tenzin and Mako both need extensive work, and should be moved to user space. Also, I would recommend chopping down the appearances section so that it reads as a concise summary, not a long, in-depth analysis of their involvement in the cartoon series. There is no need to get into that level of detail. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Clearly way too much WP:FANPOV here, but all articles have significant coverage from independent sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:10, 5 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bolueta Towers[edit]

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

Non-notable real-estate development project Gaff (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable housing estate. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is a diary piece from El Correo (which seems to contradict the dates in the article, as it is about delays), but I am seeing nothing to indicate this is more than a run of the mill development. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Neuhaus[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician notable only as a member of a county-level government. This is not a level of government that gets a person an automatic WP:NPOL pass — while such a person might become eligible for a Wikipedia article if you can write and reliably source a substantive article about them which would satisfy WP:GNG, they don't get to keep one that just asserts their existence and references it exclusively to primary sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Orange County, New York is a county of approximately 375,000 people, governed by an institution called the "county legislature." This is headed by an elected unitary executive leader, the "county executive." Comparable institutions for a city would be the "council" headed by the "mayor." As a de facto elected mayor of 375,000, this strikes me as a fairly clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN, the special high bar for political biographies. For more on the Orange County system of government if anyone wishes to check out what I am saying, see: Link Carrite (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a president of the United States gets to claim an WP:NPOL pass on the basis of exclusively primary sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - county executives in New York are fairly important, perhaps more powerful than most mayors. Orange County, New York is not only one of the largest districts in Upstate New York, but one of the fastest growing and diverse; he has become a major player in the Tristate area, too. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick google news search about the subject shows plenty of reliable sourced articles - several about the subject, including that he is the youngest executive for Orange County, his plans as county executive specifically vetoes of legislation and coverage of his State of the County address. Enos733 (talk) 23:53, 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. sufficient consensus after relisting. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biotrem technology[edit]

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

Promotional, copyrighted material (removed), possibly translated copyrighted material remaining?, non notable Deunanknute (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree non-notable, also advertising. BakerStMD T|C 18:00, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertising. The Banner talk 18:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC) And sometimes ununderstandable[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. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Schacher[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:CREATIVE criteria for inclusion. References consist of citations to IMDB and blogs. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backstage, Indiewire, Broadway World, and New York Business Journal all seem to be valid sources, and The Black List (survey) site is notable enough to have its own Wiki entry. I have reformatted and fixed citations.UnderPressure (talk) 04:54, 12 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 11:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:22, 12 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 11:22, 12 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 11:22, 12 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mr. Guye (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Tarrant[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Claim to fame is her associate professorship (unclear if current) at California State University, Long Beach, as well as her blogging. Google News search finds no significant coverage of the subject in independent sources, only passing mentions – generally only quotes relating to her field of expertise, as you'd expect from an associate professor at a (reasonably large) public university. Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMICS, either – no evidence that her "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Article history suggests the article was created for promotional purposes and/or as a CV, possibly by Tarrant herself or one of her students. IgnorantArmies (talk) 05:10, 12 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 11:19, 12 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 11:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics) seem relevant criteria here. I've gone through the citations in the article, may of which were out of date urls, and updated them so that it's possible to get a better assessment of her significance. Her works are reviewed in journals; she is quoted in popular press articles from at least three countries as well as referred to in books by academics; she is currently an associate professor in the Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Department at California State University, Long Beach, who refer to her on their faculty page as a "nationally recognized expert on feminism, sexual politics, pop culture, and masculinity." Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledged all of those things in my rationale for deletion. Being quoted isn't enough to meet the WP:GNG – the article actually has to be about her. She's an academic, of course she's going to be published in journals – again, not enough for a Wikipedia article, otherwise every associate professor would have one. The blurb on her university's faculty page is certainly not an independent source, and was quite possibly written by Tarrant herself. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:19, 28 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 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an authority on gender politics, Tarrant is a prolific commentator in national (Forbes, The Daily Beast, CNN, NBC) and international media (The Telegraph, The Globe and Mail, French Morning). In this vein she meets WP:NACADEMICS #7, as having made "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." The subject also meets WP:GNG as the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Inside Higher Ed and sections of this book provide significant coverage of her and more in-depth coverage can be found in interviews she has given: [88][89][90] gobonobo ⁺ ^c 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NACADEMICS 7. I don't quite accept the GNG rationale that Gobonobo describes above, but the NACADEMICS 7 argument seems solid, and is sufficient.. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:37, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AccuVein[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Haven't used it myself, but looks like its real. Article is NPOV, not advertising, appropriate links. Seems reasonable to keep. BakerStMD T|C 22:37, 16 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, Ethically^Yours! 12:05, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article currently doesn't have the depth of coverage we would like, however, there are enough reliable sources out there to help improve the article. I added a few to the talk page. —Noah 01:04, 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) 13:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmukta[edit]

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

Promotional page that was created about 1.5 years ago has still no relevance. Many of the citations don't work and others have only cited its name once, never described. Fails notability for organizations. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:01, 12 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 11:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As a non-commercial organisation it doesn’t appear to meet WP:ORGDEPTH nor WP:GNG. The article makes claims about the organisation's role in India’s first “hug an athiest day” in June 2013, which has been a type of event spread via social media. The broken reference 11 is here and it was also picked up by the The Huffington Post here. There are 11 secondary sources referenced which do confirm its existence but do not establish notability. To me the most important of these is reference 4 as it is a newspaper article that describes 21 meetings being held to by a local group that the article says are part of the Nirmukta network. The brief mentions in references 2, 5 and 10 are relating to people who have had a link to the Nirmukta network, rather than the organisation itself having done something notable. Reference 6 is an article on atheism in India, and appears just to lift some content from the Nirmukta website. The article in reference 1 is here, essentially raising awareness in advance of an event in 2011, which may explain the involvement of this online community of interest. Ref 9 is actually from Dec 2011, reporting after the same event occurred. Reference 3 explains the name, but I don't think it is relating to the organisation itself. The links for references 7, 8 and 11 are broken. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:21, 12 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 20:11, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems like a well-established organization that enjoys some international recognition. Among regular authors are well known names in Indian skepticism and atheism. I've fix the source that were broken and added some new information to it. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even an organization, just a online network with no notability. Hajme (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an subject that has only received passing mentions independent of itself. I do admit I may be biased as this is an article about with an atheistic subject. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:33, 5 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Wahn[edit]

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

no citations, biased statements Kges1901 (talk) 11:17, 12 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 11:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:V. This probably could have been a speedy. NickCT (talk) 12:49, 12 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 20:11, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Agree that it fails the verifiability test. I went looking to see if this was a transliteration error, but the best match I can find near "Zāhir Pīr" are some businesses on the N5 road that come up if you search "Sheikh Wahan, Punjab". There is also a small "Shaikhwahan" but it is not near "Zāhir Pīr". —Noah 07:36, 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, WP:SOFTDELETE--Ymblanter (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Who I Am (Lena Katina album)[edit]

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

Appears to be a fan page, I do not see the notability here. Most of the citations are either from Katina's own website or Facebook and YouTube. No chart ranking either (the one mentioned with peak rank 31 also refers to Katina's website). I believe overall fails wp:nalbums Mr RD 13:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Does not appear to pass WP:nalbums. The VH1 Russia list is hardly a chart. The Dissident Aggressor 16:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 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. There is clear consensus here that this should not exist as a stand-alone article, the only question seems to be if any of the material should be preserved as a merge or even if the title should be preserved as a redirect. Given the concerns about verifiability, a straight delete seems like the right course of action. If reliable sources can be found, that decision can certainly be revisited in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-Sasanian commonwealth[edit]

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

Per comments by myself and others on the talk page, this article appears to be a WP:SYNTH effort to suggest the existence of a Jewish-run autonomous province within Sassanian-occupied Palestine in the 910s.The fact that Jerusalem was conquered with Jewish help and run for a time after by the Jews is well known, but that is another animal altogether. The article's main source is The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614 compared with Islamic conquest of 638, which is of doubtful reliability and anyhow pretty much says the opposite (end of chapter "Conquest and Disaster at Jerusalem"), while most of the other sources are used as context fillers. The title of the article is apparently freely invented as it does not appear in any scholarly literature, and the key statement on which the entire article rests, "it appears Jews were given permission to run the region, and they did so effectively for the next five years", has been unreferenced since the article's creation. Constantine ✍ 14:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jewish revolt against Heraclius - as creator of this article, my intention was to present an important chapter of Eastern Mediterranean history, but with very little and contested sources it is problematic. It is certainly notable, but Constantine rightfully asks whether sufficient sources can warrant an article on its own and some might also question the naming.GreyShark (dibra) 17:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't doubt your good intentions, but the sources simply don't bear out the article's subject. If we agree that the subject and its title are essentially original research, then merging is the wrong thing to do; the right thing is to excise it from Wikipedia, because it is simply wrong information. Plus we have to bear in mind Wikipedia's prominence and its use as a reliable source. Already I have seen the "Jewish-Sasanian commonwealth" crop up in amateur blogs and history websites. Besides, the relevant articles on the Jewish revolt and the siege of Jerusalem contain AFAIK all that is known on the subject, and with some pretty good sourcing too... Constantine ✍ 20:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Srnec (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Jewish revolt against Heraclius - which could do with having AD or CE added to some of its dates to make it clear that this is not about the war that ended the existnece of the Kingdom of Judah. If (as Constantine suggests there really is nothing to merge, then plain redirect. The suggestion seems to be that there was a quasi-independent polity under Sassanian suzerainty for about 5 years. I do not think that a state that lasted a mere 5 years deserves a substantive article, as opposed to a section in a wider one. I doubt it was called the "Jewish-Sasanian commonwealth", but apparently we have that name going about for it. Accordingly this is a potential search term, so that a redirect should survive. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Jewish-Sasanian commonwealth" is not a term anybody uses. It's another unfortunate Wikipedianism that will spread, as Constantine indicated. It should be deleted, not left as a redirect. Srnec (talk) 16:08, 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 20:13, 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, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 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.