Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 July	8 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Bag of Nails[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Truthfully, I'd have expected a response by now from somebody. Are AfDs really this slow?--AC325 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, sometimes it takes a few days and I often looked everyday but I also let it run a few days so I can accumulate all the good ones. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but draft/userfy if wished) unfortunately as there's not much coverage to suggest outstanding notability with my searches here, here, here and here and I'm sure there's more at local news websites. SwisterTwister talk 04:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 08:58, 12 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

San jitsu[edit]

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

no evidence of notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maproom (talk • contribs)

Delete Un-notable martial arts discipline. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 00:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete The article has been speedy deleted as promo and recreated (also as San Jitsu, both with no change) multiple times. The martial art has no demonstrated notability or WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not notable, and a promotion article. Deleted before. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article about a non-notable martial art. My search found no significant independent coverage of this art. Papaursa (talk) 20:14, 12 July 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Anne Johnston[edit]

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

I accepted this from AFC because I don't think it is unquestionably deletion-worthy. Nonetheless, I believe it should be deleted because I cannot verify that she meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. The 100 papers referenced in the article are not 100 papers by her -- they are 100 papers on this general subject matter. Searching for her name plus "electrophoresis" in Google Scholar gives next to nothing of importance, and the papers cited in the article are not particularly noteworthy based on citation counts. (Note that she seems to have gone by PA Van Tets for some publications, but this doesn't help citation counts.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I misread this point in my earlier comments. I think the papers listed in the article ore her only publications. The most prominent is the paper is systematic Zoology, a major journal in the subject, but according to Google Scholar it has only 9 citations ( the search term I used is ("PA Johnston" deer) & similarly with the subject words chromatography and Odocoileus. The other people by that name seem to be in different fields . Gerard Frederick van Tets, on the other hand, is notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG, whom I respect based on his comments at other AfDs. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar finds other highly cited work by Patricia A. Johnston but it seems to be someone else. The correct search term appears instead to be Patricia van Tets, which gives results matching what DGG says above. In any case, we have no evidence for passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 11 July 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 Special relativity. There is no consensus for any specific outcome (delete, redirect, merge or keep), but there is consensus for the view that we should not have a separate article about this. So I'm closing this as a redirect as the least destructive "not keep" option, allowing any content deemed worthwhile by editorial consensus to be merged from the history to elsewhere. Sandstein 21:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to special relativity[edit]

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

This article is attempting the impossible: To provide a non-technical introduction to Special Relativity accessible to the general reader that still maintains rigor. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was started in March, 2005 with noble intentions. It was to be a mostly non-mathematical, introductory text written on a level comparable to a science article that one might find in the science section of the New York Times, that an educated "general reader" without a current background in math or technology should be able to understand.

Unfortunately, the nature of the subject makes such a idealized elementary treatment virtually impossible, and bitter complaints about the article can be found even in the earliest archived Talk pages. Here are some recent criticisms:

"I think this article is close-to-useless "as an accessible, non-technical introduction to the subject." It mentions concepts such as affine spaces and fibre bundles that even most undergraduate students have no idea of, and say incredibly little of how special relativity came to be." -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...in the case of special relativity, there happens to be a demand for jump-in-introductions. So we find many in the literature. Unfortunaly, most are just rubbish and merely present the author's misconceptions and misunderstandings about the subject. The more correct you want the treatment of an advanced subject to be, the less accessible it will be for the lay person. That is why, in my opinion, this article should not be here. It will never serve its purpose." DVdm (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There is too much jargon in this article for it to be considered introductory. Where is RobotRollCall when you need her? http://www.reddit.com/user/robotrollcall" 93.172.56.90 (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The article currently veers between elementary examples (eg passengers on a train) and mathematical proofs. While these two styles are suited to text books, though for widely separated age/competency classes, they are insufficient in style and gradation to satisfy the needs of an encyclopedic article." LookingGlass (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Since there is already an article on Special Relativity, which includes an introduction, why do we also need a separate article on "Introduction to Special Relativity"? This article is almost entirely unsourced. It seems to be just a place where people can come to present their own personal ideas about special relativity. I don't think there's anything in this article that isn't already in the article on special relativity (other than some things that don't belong in Wikipedia at all). Shouldn't this article be proposed for deletion?" Urgent01 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"It's an essay, which has some virtues and some of its material should be incorporated into the main article. But the essay is completely unencyclopedic." CecilWard (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I removed the link to the intro article from the main article because right now the main article is far more accessible to the general reader. The intro is too technical and too incoherent. It's more like a garbled intro to advanced physics students, which makes this article pointless." 109.186.38.41 (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It's been about 1 1/2 years since I last looked at this article, and it hasn't improved any. It is far too technical for poets and middle schoolers, and it offers nothing that is not covered better in the main article on special relativity." Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The time has come for us to admit that the goal of this article is an impossible one. The main article on Special Relativity already includes an introduction which is every bit as accessible as this article, as well as being more concise. In Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Merge_analysis, I performed a detailed paragraph-by-paragraph comparison of Introduction to special relativity with Special relativity to see what would be salvageable in a merge.

My conclusion was that the only sections of Introduction to special relativity that were not duplicated in Special relativity were unacceptable for merging, since they were written in a non-encyclopedic, textbook style in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK.

I am thus

Nominating Introduction to special relativity for deletion
~~Recommending that Introduction to special relativity be submitted to Wikibooks in the Science section as a "Freshly started book" with the title Introduction to Spacetime Physics~~

Wikibooks already has a Featured Book titled "Special Relativity"

The "Special Relativity" Wikibook is divided into two sections, an introductory text and a more advanced text.

I am not all that impressed with the "Special Relativity" Wikibook, and think it could use some competition.

Although Introduction to special relativity is currently hopelessly muddled because it is trying to be simultaneously a textbook and an encyclopedia article, I believe that when freed from the constraints of being an encyclopedia article, it could shape up in a few years as worthwhile alternative to the introductory text part of the "Special Relativity" Wikibook.

Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question Are "introduction to" articles a recognized/accepted kind of things on ENWP? We have Introduction to general relativity, Introduction to virus and others for some of the science topics. If yes I'm gonna quote "AfD is not for cleanup" and !vote keep. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 06:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is are major differences between Introduction to general relativity and Introduction to special relativity. Introduction to general relativity is a featured article, extremely well executed and doing an excellent job fulfilling its mission to provide a non-technical introduction to the subject. Only two equations appear in the entire text: E = mc² and the Einstein equation, $\mathbf {G} ={\tfrac {8\pi G}{c^{4}}}\mathbf {T} .$ It is completely encyclopedic in its writing style, explaining the essence of the theory in non-mathematical fashion using simple explanations aided by well-chosen figures and insightful analogies that have long been standard in popular expositions of this subject, supported by 49 inline citations to high quality secondary and tertiary sources. On the other hand, only three sentences in the ten core essays at the heart of Introduction to special relativity (i.e. sections 1 through 10) are supported by inline citations, and the (rather unsuccessful) pedagogical tactics used to explain Minkowski spacetime are not ones that I recognize from any of my other reading. So far as I can tell, these ten core essays represent WP:ORIGINAL. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 03:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Mission creep, really, and duplication. Wikiversity and other projects are better suited for educational endeavors. This attempts a pedagogical goal, but in the end it doubles the efforts of an existing article. The usual thing would be "merge and redirect," but the nominator has discussed the implausibility of that. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to be clear, is the WP:DEL-REASON per #14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia"? Specifically WP:NOTTEXTBOOK? Praemonitus (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, not a textbook, but I also thought one of the prime reasons for deletion was duplication of existing articles. If you have John E. Smith and John Ernest Smith, then one's gotta go, assuming they cover the same biographical subject. Well, if special relativity covers the "introduction" and sister projects cover the pedagogical element, then either this article or special relativity would be a duplicate in content. Perhaps it's convoluted reasoning, but it's what has been argued by the talk page, per above. More tellingly, it's a flaw in the concept of the page and not just its execution. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reluctant delete from Wikipedia for that reason. Praemonitus (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Had Introduction to special relativity been executed well, I would never have put forth my nomination. There are, after all, a number of articles on Wikipedia that have a significant textbook aspect, particularly in high school mathematics: Quadratic equation, Loss of significance, System of linear equations come to mind. But the mission of this article was never clear, and it suffered deeply because of this confusion. An example of what this article could have been is visible in our sister project, the Simple English Wikipedia, where the Simple English Wikipedia version of Special Relativity does not shirk from using the necessary math. The Simple English article explains the meaning of events, observers, and transformations, presents the Lorentz Transformations, then presents a few main results. Introduction to special relativity really should have been named something like Introduction to spacetime physics, in which case the appropriate level of mathematics would have been evident.

I understand your reluctance. Removing this article will remove Wikipedia's only real attempt at approaching special relativity from a modern pedagogical viewpoint. We have to look to Wikibooks for that, and as I've stated before, I'm not totally happy at the Wikibooks introductory presentation, either. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy-based reason given for deletion. --Mark viking (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (strong policy-based reasons for Mark viking): An article with this title should be about introductions to special relativity, and sourced as such. Introductions to special relativity are nowhere mentioned. So it is not an article about introductions to special relativity. It is a personal essay, and thus a schoolbook example of wp:OR and wp:SYNTH. And it is rather poorly written, as abundantly evidenced at Talk:Introduction_to_special_relativity#Merge_analysis. And of course, more policy-based reasons at WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. - DVdm (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is wikilawyery. By that logic, "list of foo" articles should not list foos, but instead should be about "lists of foo" as a topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same logic, and no wikilawyery. List articles usually do not draw conclusions from various sources and don't clash with wp:SYNTH and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. This article does. See the article and the merge analysis. - DVdm (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These intro articles were a bit of a fad in the sciences in 2005-6ish. They're difficult to write and most look like they haven't been maintained all that well. It may be that they've outlived their usefulness with better resources available on other projects aimed at the same audience. I wanted to vote keep on this one, but on reading the article I don't think this is salvageable, even if the topic might be. Time for WP:TNT. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comments and WP:TNT, I have decided to strike out my suggestion #2 that the article could usefully be transwikied to the Wikibooks project. My original thought was that, once transferred to a project that welcomes tutorial submissions, I could do a bold rewrite of the article, completely reworking the explanations (which did have a few good points) and adding solved exercises. Thinking it over, I was overestimating my own capabilities and the time that I have available. So blow it up. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is important as it provides an introduction to the topic suitable for a lay reader, which the article special relativity does not adequately do. Contrary to the nominator's assertions, special relativity is not that hard to understand, and the article does not do a bad job of explaining it. To delete this, and leave only the main article which delves immediately into technical terminology, would be a mistake. As Mark viking points out, there is also no policy-based reason for deletion, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The WP:TNT argument is really a stretch, as the article is perfectly readable right now. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to special relativity is perfectly understandable to me and to you, because we are already familiar with the subject. However, if we put ourselves in the place of an intelligent reader unfamiliar with physics, we would find much that is mystifying. Consider the following paragraph:

Since by definition rotations must keep the distance same, passing to a different reference frame must keep the spacetime interval between two events unchanged. This requirement can be used to derive an explicit mathematical form for the transformation that must be applied to the laws of physics (compare with the application of Galilean transformations to classical laws) when shifting reference frames. These transformations are called the Lorentz transformations. Just like the Galilean transformations are the mathematical statement of the principle of Galilean relativity in classical mechanics, the Lorentz transformations are the mathematical form of Einstein's principle of relativity. Laws of physics must stay the same under Lorentz transformations. Maxwell's equations and Dirac's equation satisfy this property, and hence they are relativistically correct laws (but classically incorrect, since they don't transform correctly under Galilean transformations).

The article only manages to avoid math by throwing a lot of undefined terms at the reader. What does a rotation in Minkowski space mean? What really is a "transformation"? What are the differences between Galilean and Lorentz transformations? What are Maxwell's equations and Dirac's equation about? What does it mean that they don't transform correctly under Galilean transformations? This article provides the naive reader a bunch of vocabulary words without providing understanding of their meanings. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could answer a lot of these objections (e.g. "Minkowski space" is defined and thoroughly expounded on in the article, as are the differences between Galilean and Lorentz transformations, etc.) but really, there is no policy-based objection here. At worst, even if these objections were valid, they would be reasons for clarifying some of the text. The idea that special relativity is just too hard for ordinary people to understand and we should give up is unreasonably fatalistic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that special relativity is too hard for ordinary people to understand. It is easy to explain what special relativity is all about, as evidenced by the excellent lede paragraphs of special relativity. What is impossible is to explain the how and the why of special relativity without math. The unsourced, WP:OR, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK essays making up the core of this article inconsistently jump between elementary examples and algebraic proofs. The use of algebra makes this article unsuitable for poets and middle schoolers, while the avoidance of math in explaining, for example, the Galilean and Lorentz transformations makes the article unsuitable for a reader interested in any sort of genuine understanding. Ten years of editing have given us an article which can't figure out what target audience it is supposed to be aimed at. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a general audience it's appropriate to use high school algebra accompanied by ample discourse and explanation. This is what the article tries to do. I know it is possible for this to succeed, because I learned special relativity while I was taking algebra in high school, before I knew basically anything about physics. Your criticisms have to do with your perception of the quality of the article, and are not a reason for deleting. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My conversation with Praemonitus brought up an interesting possibility. If the consensus goes towards delete, would there be any objection to converting the article to a redirect to the Simple English Wikipedia version of Special Relativity? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - if this is not encyclopedic, then I don't know what we are doing here. The Wikipedia Foundation might as well just close down. This is exactly the sort of thing that Jimbo Wales was talking about when he co-founded this website. It's not so bad as to require WP:TNT. No good reason to delete is proffered. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Special relativity, but don't delete the article history. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 22:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article on Wikipedia should be an introduction in no small amount (by definition of an encyclopedia article), and the lead of an article an introduction to the article-proper. The deletion-leaning persons above convince me that this article cannot be saved. However, I think a redirect to special relativity should have no negative consequence, given the age of the article. --Izno (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind to redirect after re-reading the discussion. I get it now. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Biblioworm 21:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted by multiple people, this article is still too technical to be legitimately called an "introduction". However, this means that the article needs work, not deletion. These separate "Introduction to..." articles are not forbidden on Wikipedia (just type "Introduction to" in the Wikipedia search box). In fact, one is an FA. Also, as mentioned by some others who have commented here, the nom has not produced any policy-based reasons to delete the article, and I am not satisfied by the reasons put forth by DVdm. The main reason mentioned (i.e., WP:NOTTEXTBOOK) does not seem to be valid, since the point of these "Introduction to" articles is to inform via simplification. As far as I'm aware, WP:OR is not a stand-alone reason for deletion. --Biblioworm 21:20, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sabino Renteria[edit]

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

Not particularly notable local politician, not demonstrating the depth of coverage required by WP:NPOL. Article is promotional rather than encyclopedic: when all the political advertisement ("father, community activist, lifetime citizen") is removed, what is left is fairly slim. ubiquity (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, Austin is a significant enough city that a well-written and well-sourced article about a city councillor could be kept under WP:NPOL #3 — but is not a large enough city that a city councillor automatically gains an entitlement to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists. Of the nine sources being cited here, three are his own website (a primary source) and the other six are not substantive coverage of him, but are merely namechecking his existence in the process of actually being about other things. So WP:GNG has not been satisfied here. And further, the article reads very much like a "meet your councilmember" backgrounder in a campaign brochure, rather than a genuinely encyclopedic article about a city councillor. All of which means that while he might qualify to keep a good article, "good" is not what this article is. Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabino Pio Renteria, which was about the same person — it was a much shorter article which just asserted his existence, the end, so this is different enough not to qualify for an A7 speedy, but it's worth being aware nonetheless that the different title used this time may have been an attempt to evade the prior discussion. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable city council member. Coverage is routine and local. I was going to suggest a redirect to Austin City Council but there is no such article; guess that tells us something! --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 14 July 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 deleted as G5 by Bbb23. (NAC) SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Broadcasting System Portugal[edit]

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

Until notability independent of its parent Turner Broadcasting System is established this should not exist as a separate article. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Turner Broadcasting System Europe —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move as suggested as my searches found nothing to suggest improvement or solid independent notability with my searches finding few results. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 9 July 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 Becoming Jimi Hendrix. A strict reading of the arguments presented here would call for an outright delete, but per WP:ATD-R, I'm going to redirect as suggested by Rhododendrites. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Schreiber[edit]

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

Can't find a single independent+reliable source about him. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he's definitely published a few books, I can't find any coverage that provides notability. Fails WP:GNG. APerson (talk!) 21:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 01:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as my searches found nothing aside from some Huffington Post links and this. Although it doesn't concern me too much that the author seems to have started the article, what does is there's no improvement here thus, unless someone wants to draft/userfy to their space, delete. SwisterTwister talk 05:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with any of the editors above, merely sharing my puzzlement. The article makes some grand but far form implausible claims. For example, it is not implausible that a parody of the Guiness Book of World Records entitled, Weird Wonders and Bizarre Blunders: The Official Book of Ridiculous Records by an author I never heard of could have been a "bestselling" book in 1989. And it could be true that Schriber "created the cable TV nonfiction series," North Mission Road - not, I surmise, among the memorable events in television history. However, I took a brief swing at sourcing and didn't readily find anything. ~~so, Delete without prejudice.~~ What are you Laughing At? [1] Schreiber's books are real, it's the notability that is not readily apparent. (Flag me anyone, if you find sources) E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's his IMDB [2] page. I'm withholding judgment for now, hoping that someone will do a more thorough search for sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not support (WP:GNG)& (WP:AUTHOR). Wiki92man (^Talk/_Stalk) 09:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have added book reviews, of which many more can be added. he has the same name as a major league pitcher, which makes articles on him require key word searches. But he passes WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - When I looked for sources, most of the good ones I found were about the book he co-authored, Becoming Jimi Hendrix. In fact, there were enough reviews to justify an article per WP:NBOOK. I'm still not sure about Schreiber's notability, but at least now there's a redirect target: Becoming Jimi Hendrix. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 17 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Marquette[edit]

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

Copy, paste of the draft Draft:Madison Marquette. Article gives undue weight to certain areas and reads like an advertisement. Recommending this article be deleted. Although the draft may be published after the problems are sorted out by the author. JAaron95 (Talk) 15:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 (Talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 (Talk) 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JAaron95 (Talk) 18:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleessentially an advertisement. The only thing resembling a claim of notability is from an unreliable trade publication--and in any rate "one of the most..." is typical nonspecific PR talk. The references are eith mere notices or press releases -- the one from Foster Pepper, for example, is a press release by the firm's own attorney in the relevant transaction. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Although BizJournals isn't great, there are two substantial pieces on them[3][4] I see no reason to label trade journals - like Chain Store Age as unreliable - the trade press is the most likely to cover any given B2B company. If we relied only on the mainstream press, we'd only be able to cover consumer companies and controversies. I also see that the nom said at AFC that it was likely notable and they have 200+ employees, which is still small, but most companies start gaining some marginal notability around 100-150. Reports of the entire article being promotional due to a single sentence is greatly exaggerated. Most of it looks fine. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me to meet WP:CORP, although I would have preferred for it not to have been created by an SPA, which always smacks of COI. However, the references are there, so I'll say keep. LaMona (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:01, 7 July 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SayadawGyi[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)

Non-notable title in Burmese... doesn't belong as an article Ogress _smash! 22:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep , SayadawGyi is notable Title in Burmese such as Sayadaw is notable monk title, may see more at Sayadaw,

Gyi is also notable Title for Burmese in Myanmar / Burma such as Sayagyi U Ba Khin whereas " gyi" word and India such as Goenkaji/ Goenka gyi (in Burmese way) S. N. Goenka

Both combining two words just make it greater ranking person as Sayadawgyi. Sayadaw Title word taken by normal monk and Saya (master) for normal person Title ( non-monk) in Burmese.

Gyi in Burmese literally make it greater person and "Gyi" word quite widely use in ranking as senior. For example Corporal rank in Burmese Army addressing as "Saya" but for Sergeant rank as " Sayagyi", same in schools' customs- normal teacher as "Saya" and headmaster as " Sayagyi", as well as "Bogyoke" means Major General like Aung San and "Bogyokegyi" means full general. " when added Gyi word after front Title then it get changed.

Sayadawgyi can be senior monk/ Abbot, normally much senior in time/ year(s) than normal junior monk, often may in-charge of world monastery or Meditation Centre or have been monk for many years, little similar to Guruji , guruji Title in India but that's Buddhist stuff. Burmese addressing in different ways so shouldn't make mistake rather than who they referring to rather than not by calling their names to make it polite, like using words "Your Majesty" in Royal , they mostly won't address direct name for normal monks and higher monks unless needed.

Sayadawgyi or Sayadawpayagyi Title is widely well-known in Burmese communities in Myanmar.

please may also see more about Saya Burmese in Saya Gyi U Ba Khin , Saya Aye, Saya San, Saya Tin

Please it is in Burmese language in Title and the nominator doesn't speak Burmese ( can't speak i believe), non-Buddhist i hope, wasn't born there and doesn't know Myanmar culture well ,so please leave it for some other nations' culture and customs usages to share knowledge for world communities, let people know and keep much better contribute.

Please may just Edit upgrade by some Burmese experts and make it better article.

Myo007 22:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - honorifics are highly significant to certain cultures and the most common/significant ones are deserving of articles. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:30, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You think gyi and sayadawgyi are the most common/significant of honorifics? Ogress _smash! 02:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do believe they are common, significant and notable, and I WP:AGF that Myo007 above, who I am willing to bet is knowledgeable about Myanmar, knows what he is talking about. Myo007 above, and on Talk:SayadawGyi, has stated the article will be improved by Myanmar experts and I think this is a reasonable request instead of arguing. Please consider reading WP:WORLDVIEW. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is Wikipedia, not a grammar of Burmese. Ogress _smash! 02:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep - Grammatically, "Gyi" is just the adjective word modifying the noun "Sayardaw". It is a simple word just adding the meaning to be greater and higher in degree. Every Buddhism knows the meaning of Sayardaw as the senior monk. "Gyi" going with "Sayardaw" is paying respect and make it greater. VERY SIMPLE!

Stephanie Latt 21:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephanie Latt (talk • contribs) — Stephanie Latt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I'm not going to take a stance on whether honorifics are notable, but this fails WP:V and WP:NAD. ~ Rob^Talk 08:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this back, since someone deleted my comment from the deletion discussion. I would hope this goes without saying, but don't do that. ~ Rob^Talk 20:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the point, it is a high monk Title but not simple Burmese name and yet it is not too easy to earn that Title, there are all Theravada Buddhist monks on earth do the Wa upgrading , in each year there are 3 months of special Warso times and also must become a monk before that, if can be succeed in warso and remained as a monk then he gets 1 Wa otherwise if missed out then need to wait for another year to come to get 1 Wa, lower grade monks will vows/ pay homages to higher grades monks and Abbots and if not high Abbot as SayadawGyi then one may still maintain as normal monk Sayadaw .

Why not too easy ? To get an (The Great) Tile as SayadawGyi because he need to have many Wa(s)/ many years being as monk may be like 10, 20 or 40 years or more, he needs to get though a lot of things by maintaining 227 Sila precepts and many Winee(rules) such as can't have meal after 12 noons, can't sleep on bed for many hours otherwise must be awake, must be abstain from sensual pleasures such as listen music or watch dancing and so on other (if high rules broken such as Parajika then he can immediate lost from monk and become normal person), has to wake up around about 4 AM daily or some mediators may wake from 3AM , many other more, monk lives is not that too easy or need to work hard and much more effort to become a high senior monk Abbot SayadawGyi, thus this title is significantly valuable and need to pass though much patience in his life. In Many cases there are many normal monks such as "Sayadaws" but SayadawGyi can only be just one or there are few abbots in some monasteries (normally they take in-charge whole centers ). They are highly respected as high Abbot in Burmese culture and an Abbot who has that title in Buddhist communities even both people and monks high respect to him. In wikipedia there are Monk and Abbot words under different articles because they are not exactly same but this SayadawGyi is Theravada Burmese version and smaller Wa Sayadaw not same too. Does it honorific? Yes but for example even if we temporarily forget about honorific and respectable Title but this is not still simple title that too easy to get for a monk.

So we should leave it for foreign Buddhist learners for Burmese usage term apart from upgrading the article better. Yes this is not about a opening definition for Dictionary either but simply knowledge share as SayadawGyi article otherwise we would have been put Monk and Abbot article under only wiki dictionary (only) too. If we have been allowed Sayadaw article then we should allow SayadawGyi too but why need separate article because it is like UK Royal Titles , the grades are not same and not should be done with few words mentioned for a high monk Title upgrading. Need to verify? actually not so hard to verify about existence if effort to find out. So we should keep the article and since not too simple easy one to earn then should merge under Burmese names since it is not actually a name but a Title and also at any time if a monk quit from monk-hood then all his Wa(s) lost and even if tomorrow rejoin monk again then need to restart from beginning again with no Wa, yet then he has to pay homage/ vow to other monk even who has just 1 Wa no matter how much his Wa(s) obtained before. so to maintain Great title then 1. he need to keep remain as monk for many years without even short period quitting 2. Can't be have just only few Wa(s) to get title SayadawGyi. it may be still some similar apply on Shaolin monk who may not too easy to become an Abbot at Shaolin but they are Maharana Buddhist and Buddhism have more than one version currently.

Please note: Myanmar(Burma) was under military regime for very long years after military coup the run with bad politics and leaders, there has been one of world longest civil wars conflicts countries with ethnics groups, included in one of poorest, internet access have been limited for long before and until now internet speed is still quite slow enough, closed media connections with outside countries and inside for decades. Not English as one of main official languages like Singapore but mostly spoken Burmese and not as many as some other countries who can contribute in English over online. That's overall may lead to one of process issue verifications online but still may find sources if you want and there is not totally zero yet. But i think we should have exempts in policies for some wars torn countries or poor countries like Burma, Afghan so on , that who have may be English as not main fluently speaking language , have different cultures and ethnics but they may still wises to express and share knowledge as freedom of speech and equal opportunities.

Sharing came out of our pure merit heart of our souls to share what we know and give knowledge to people, if gonna get deleted because of not many enough people capable of contributes online with English on other web sites.

1. The title as the High Holiness/ The Most Venerable/ The Highly respectable Abbot/ Kyayzutawshin SayadawGyi is not just an ordinary title that easy to get and there are honorific titles still can have as articles on wiki if notable 2. SayadawGyi is not actually a birth given name (unlike names some of the Titles could lose or revoked if regulations/conducts not met) 3. honorific is in on hand and precious Title is on other hand as well although both hands attached on same body, no matter don't care for honorific issue on Wiki or not but there are many honorific Titles still remaining as articles on Wiki and even for other language terms such as Indian, Arabic. 4. If we keep Monk and Abbot articles then we should keep Sayadaw and SayadawGyi too, there are Millions Buddhists still out there and a lot of tourists who entry into Burma and the knowledge are needed in Wiki for the people to know. Myo007 18:23, 03 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:03, 16 July 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Marshall (evangelist)[edit]

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

BLP with no sources or indication of notability. Gamaliel (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hardly think that someone born in 1846 qualifies as a living person. In any case, there are some good references in Google Books. St Anselm (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was categorised as relating to a living person. I added the date of birth and death after this nomination of the article in AfD. The BLP improvement tags been been there for years. The article was previously nominated for deletion in 2008 [5] but I see that after some discussions that nomination was withdrawn. The article was later moved to a different page name in 2010. The article still needs quite a lot of work. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Information and references have now been added to the article to give some details of what this person had been involved in during his life. I feel enough details are now included to indicate notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The much improved status of this article is encouraging. It clearly now meets notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The extent of his travels leads me to think he was a significant figure in the Brethren of his time (and thus notable). I note that there was a published biography, probably published just after his death. The fact that someone took the trouble to write one suggests that he was thougth notable at the time. WP should adopt that view. The article may be a poor one, but that is a reason to keep it tagged for improvement, not one for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple non-trivial sources have been added to support the existence of this article. The remaining issues can be dealt with through the normal editing process. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 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. Due to lack of participation with no prejudice to a speedy renomination. Davewild (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2016 World Rally Championship season[edit]

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

Hi Everyone! I think the 2016 World Rally Championship season article has no meaning, as there is still no 2016 World Rally Championship calendar confirmed (witch is the only information on the article), and no other relevant information about that season has come out yet. MNSZ (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see no point recreating it when the race calendar comes out. The article can still be built even without the race calendar. Kolpio (talk) 00:32, 8 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do Lectures[edit]

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

Article created by one of the creators of the Australian version of these lectures. Has she established notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I wouldn't care to attend, I believe these series have received their fair share of news. (Is it DO or Do?) Alec Station (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat reluctant keep simply because it seems to have received some coverage and I found more with my searches here, here and here and it's imaginable there's more at several news sources as shown here. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 11 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human Resources Management Graduate Programs[edit]

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

WP:NOT a directory Gaijin42 (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the #1-6 WP:NOTDIR cases would you say this article falls under ?^[1]Ma-V-erick (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment to Ma-V-erick I would say likely #3 or 4. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an incoherent mess and per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a mess, I went into Edit mode to see if I could adjust the parameters for the table but it looks like the code was copied and pasted in the article. The topic has the potential to be an article but not this version. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 10 July 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 Davewild (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Free Market Institute[edit]

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

The article contains two dead links, no sign of notability, and the site link [[6]] purportedly to the organization's web site is just a single page blog. The organization name comes up a few times in the media but there's no evidence that it even exists anymore. Timtempleton (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page was created without the afd2 template. Nominator did not transclude it to a daily log until today. I've added the template--no further comment on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 17:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's a ton of stuff about it but it seems like it's related to accusations against the founders of being secret jihadists and anti-Israel, none of it in reliable sources (though I didn't search too far). I deleted the external link as it seems like the "official site" domain expired and was taken over by an e-cig marketer (thus the "blog" you saw). —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:30, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunmaster Holidays[edit]

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

The page does not meet WP:GNG. DominosChamp2930 (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article, originally contributed by a WP:SPA, documents routine firm approval listing and various associations of the company with larger groups (themselves non-notable) and an award nomination for Global Travel Group, but the nearest to establishing notability for the subject firm itself is a monthly non-notable award. Nor are searches turning up any tangible coverage that could meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sacred Name Movement. There's a vague consensus here for a merge, but less clear how much should be merged. Whoever does the merge will need to make a judgement call on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah[edit]

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

Reason

I think this page should be deleted because of WP:NOTABILITY and because it doesn't have any real sources. Let it be merged with the Sacred Name Movement article. Thanks. In Citer (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- This reads as if it is a single congregation, which has splintered from a larger movement. The movement probably qualifies for an article as being a small denomination, but local churches are generally NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - they're a church, and a stand-alone and referenced subject. Shouldn't remove for arguably reasons of personal taste or "I don't like". They're notable enough, it seems. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Flag me if independent sources can be produced. I have looked and can find no reliable news reports or secondary sources. The problem as I see it is that any group can declare itself a church, but to merit a Wikipedia article a church needs to be written up in reliable, independent secondary sources. I don't doubt that this church is real and significant to its members, I simply have tried and failed to locate reliable secondary sources. No RS, no article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (very little), as notability has not been demonstrated. The only sources given are the congregation's own website and a "Yellow Pages"-type directory. No objection to merging the home page link to Sacred Name Movement. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 15 July 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge N. Amely Vélez[edit]

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

Non notable scientist. He has some nice patents, but that is it. No non-trivial third part material available to sustain a biography about him. damiens.rf 13:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Just because some people haven't heard of him doesn't mean that he is not notable. He developed methods and apparatuses for timing events within an implantable medical device capable of performing many concurrent processes. He also authored a method to help prevent defibrillator output stage short circuit failures in implantable devices.I would say that he is the Puerto Rican Thomas Edison in the medical field. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marine 69-71: His work is fabulous! But, did he received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources? The article fails to show that. --damiens.rf 19:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The patent references in the article speak for themselves. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't. They are primary sources. While they prove the patents existence, they say nothing about how important or influential his work was. --damiens.rf 17:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment - Here is a site of his patent, The "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR TIMING EVENTS WITHIN AN IMPLANTABLE MEDICAL DEVICE", which can be viewed by those who maybe interested and which tells us all the importance of his inventions in the medical field: [file:///C:/Users/Soy%20un%20Campeon/Downloads/US20020107550.pdf] Tony the Marine (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the most appropriate guideline for this person is probably WP:NACADEMICS which he seems to fail. Especially, he is not a fellow of IEEE. Any thoughts, Tony? Kraxler (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article's sources are: a link about the existence of a scholarship program (but not about Amely Vélez receiving it); patent listings; and a bibliographic entry for Amely Vélez's book. None of these do anything to prove notability. Searches of the usual Google types, HighBeam, JSTOR, InfoTrak, and ProQuest turned up no reliable, arms-length sources. Does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:SCHOLAR. To quote WP:GNG, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Worldbruce (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above it fails WP:BASIC, WP:SCHOLAR and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:03, 17 July 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Klevan[edit]

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

All sources are either non-independent (galleries that make money off displaying his art), independent news sources only mention him in passing once or twice. WP:GNG requires that sources be independent and about the subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've been tracking sources at Talk:Alexander_Klevan#Notability. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Do we know how his name is spelled in Hebrew? Tx. Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't list it at the information center for Israeli art, which would seem like the place to list it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

אלכסנדר קלבן — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuliagrig (talk • contribs) 11:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:29, 7 July 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Portable boat lift[edit]

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

Seems to be based entirely on what a "Portable boat lift" is _not_.

A boat lift is very much stationary, part of canal infrastructure.

A ship lift has the function described here, but on a far greater scale.

There are straddle carriers used as boat lifts. We need an article on those. This is clearly not it.

If this article is so keen to distance itself from any other existing and notable form of vessel mover, does it still exist as a WP:Notable topic? I can't see it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:29, 7 July 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 stubify. Consensus is that this is advertising, but a less spammy version could probably be kept as notable. Cutting it down to a stub. Sandstein 07:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Science and Technology Information Center (Ethiopia)[edit]

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

Alleged to by CSD-eligible on promotional grounds, but I think the article may be salvageable. Community gets the final say on this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 01:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not for clean up. Can anyone doubt that if this was a similar government organisation for a country in Europe or even a State of the US, it would have been cleaned up long ago. Unfortunately I do not have the time to improve it. I suggest flag it for COI and needing cleanup and keep for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. --99of9 (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (stubify) -- maybe simply deleting "Strategic foundations" (similar to the original version by Abel Asrat (talk · contribs) - see 3 October 2014 version) could be a solution, removing the worst promotional parts. Unfortunately the originally short factual description has been puffed up by later SPA edits, full of irrelevant details and self-presentation. The article is short of independent sources too, but that could be improved by interested editors over time. For a government organization, that just started full reporting in 2014 it's likely that more coverage will be available in time (or is possibly already available in Ethiopian sources, although an English-language search had little success). The current version is definitely too promotional and gives undue weight to overly detailed self-descriptions. GermanJoe (talk) 18:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify Probably is notable, but this is a puffpiece. Keep the intro, maybe some of the history, but not much else. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Shankar[edit]

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

fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. the alternate foreign language article in Farsi is very bare. I could find sources for other Raj Shankars but not significant coverage for this neurochemist. Given that his research is in medical sciences one would expect significant coverage in English, which there isn't. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:28, 7 July 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. (WP:NPASR). No consensus has occurred here. Discussion regarding potential merge targets can continue on the article's talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Editions[edit]

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

Seemingly NN company. While it's founders are probably notable, I've been unable to come up with anything that would pass WP:GNG or WP:CORP for this project of theirs. There is a mention of it on the antiopic website but they're a business partner. The Dissident Aggressor 06:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Parmentier (band). -- haminoon (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I disagree with merging, because it is verifiable the label has releases other than those by Parmentier. The most notable of the artists listed appears to be Vladislav Delay. I'm not even sure Parmentier is notable, in fact I was going to comment that the Sigma Editions article appears to be a walled garden, with the exception of Delay. At first glance the subject appears to be possibly notable by the number of notable artists signed, but the articles for these artists are likewise missing sources. Right now I'm leaning delete, but possible sources include this. I couldn't find anything else. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the walled garden observation and had come to that same conclusion. Unfortunately, the only way to break out of a walled garden is to delete the NN label since artists can inherit notability from their label, but not the label from the artist. The Dissident Aggressor 19:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said merge with Parmentier because they ran the label, not because they were on the label. However because there is so little verifiable information on the label and Parmentier scrape against the notability guidelines, it may be better to merge it into both Rosy Parlane and Dion Workman's bios. -- haminoon (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be better. The Dissident Aggressor 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to one of the founders if possible as the best my searches found was Books. SwisterTwister talk 05:32, 13 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GaffGun[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable product, also reads a bit like an add. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for total lack of third-party sources. Alexius08 (talk) 06:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homepage video has 675K views on Vimeo and product has been featured on Gizmodo, among other places. 2601:601:C501:5900:21B8:A016:CA36:48F6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be mentioned at another article aside from the only outlinking article (tape dispenser) as my searches found nothing good aside from this and this. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 11 July 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NEC HYDRAstor[edit]

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

Advert made up of vendor websites, press releases and other primary sources. CorporateM (Talk) 03:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of this article are currently: 8 research papers, 5 professional press releases, 4 vendor websites, 2 independent blog entries. This is quite good proportion, as for article about a commercial product. Vendor sources are cited only as sources of technical details. We have tried to strip the article of anything that could be considered advert, and make it as informative as possible. But it is article about a product, and anything written about a product could be considered advert. Please suggest what changes you think should be done, instead of outright deletion.--AI~plwiki (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you mean by "we"? CorporateM (Talk) 07:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Tlasica. We have created this article together. --AI~plwiki (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Awards appear to make this product notable. Stand-alone article justified under WP:NPRODUCT. ~Kvng (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 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. Consensus is that the company does not qualify for a Wikipedia article as per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdgeWave[edit]

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

Came up in one of my routine searches for articles that mention Network Products Guide, a pay-for-play award. Started trimming the promotion, but noticed almost all the sources were primary (the company's website) and the few secondary sources don't appear to mention the org. CorporateM (Talk) 03:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confused as to why it would be deleted? It's a company website and all information is verifiable. Considering almost all companies have similar Wiki pages, why would this is any different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, What do we need to do to update this page to meet guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? The company?

For a company to merit an article in Wikipedia, there must be significant coverage of it in reliable secondary sources, independent of the company (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). Furthermore, articles must be based primarily on such sources. Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing, or public relations.

Most companies do not have pages on Wikipedia. If you find a similarly sourced article on another company, the essay "Other stuff exists" may help you understand why that doesn't matter in this forum. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What determines "significant coverage"? 5...10.... 15 articles? The company, and it's security experts, has significant coverage. I would be happy to provide sources and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Significant coverage, and in fact the rest of the guideline, is a good read. In general number does not matter as much as the quality and depth of how the sources go. Specifically simply press releases (that is mostly reposted as-is) and routinal reportage (like board member or personnel changes) almost never count to notability. According to my own search, the subject's collaboration with Huawei [7] might suggest a slightly better potential than the thousands we turn away via speedy delete, but is still lacking in very compelling evidence of importance to solidly keep. PS. If you are working for the company you have an inherent conflict of interest where there are more things to be aware of. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. What can be done to improve the page to have it notability? EdgeWave has partnered with the USTA to provide security for past 7 years^[1]. If that is the sort of notability that's needed, I'll update sources and provide more references. - Sean

^ http://timesofsandiego.com/tech/2014/08/27/san-diego-company-provides-wifi-u-s-open/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.230.5 (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source does not help prove notability because it is not independent of the company; it's a regurgitation of this press release. Worldbruce (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything but press releases and routine announcements (company X bought company Y). Note that there are two accounts, Memerick and Swreynolds that are single purpose accounts having edited only this article. It would be good for those users to read conflict of interest and sockpuppetry, in case they are not aware of those policies. If those do not apply, then "userfy" may be a solution, with a pointer to the articles for creation process, where they can get some guided experience in editing and article creation. LaMona (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of press releases and info from the company website that fails WP:ORGIND. I would usually consider U-T San Diego (the erstwhile Union-Tribune) an acceptable source, but in this case even its first two and last paragraphs are lifted straight from a company press release. The 1999 Windows IT Pro article appears independent, but says almost nothing about the company (or predecessor as it was then). The brief merger announcement in Infosecurity Magazine also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. All in all, does not meet WP:CORP. Worldbruce (talk) 10:01, 8 July 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 Socialist Party (England and Wales). I have kept the article history in case there is anything to merge. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party Wales[edit]

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

Generally no citations to any of the claims. Page is not for a political party, only a regional branch within a political party that has not had any media attention or general notoriety. Any useful information from this page can be put into the actual political party page, the Socialist Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drowz0r (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful with the page Socialist Party England and Wales.

Page does not contain enough reliable information or citations to have it's own dedicated page. Nothing improved since 2008, including citations. No media attention or general notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drowz0r (talk • contribs) 01:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:26, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Bang Band[edit]

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

No indication of notability, local band that fails WP:Music Karst (talk) 06:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We really need better sources here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to delete for now and draft/userfy - My searches actually found more sources here, here and here so far (I continued searching but I found enough negatives to make me stop looking). At the least, this could be accepted but it'd be nice to have a little more and I'm not sure if there any. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 11 July 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 SK1 (Nom confirmed on his tp he'd withdrawn) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Bracchitta[edit]

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

No independent, reliable sourcing with in-depth coverage found - just a few passing mentions, gallery bios and exhibition announcements. Important article claims are unreferenced (all events and awards), the only reference is a gallery featuring that artist. GermanJoe (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nom) - while it-Wiki is a separate project with separate rules (and we aren't bound to their decisions by any means), I find 7 (!) deletions of the article on it-Wiki troubling. It looks like there is a lot of interest to promote this artist via Wikipedia. GermanJoe (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a few articles about the artist, and listings in galleries. He appears to be internationally known. Ragusa news on an exhibit, Modern engravers. The latter lists awards he has won, and that his work has been shown at the Venice biennale (I'll check that). I will add these to the article. LaMona (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After the latest sources added, I can not help but agree with the maintenance --Stellato46 (talk) 09:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Saxus (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (as nom) -- added another ref and the EL from LaMona above (thanks). The coverage is still a bit thin (some sources are not completely independent and/or only regional), but together with several awards this has improved enough for a weak keep imo. The article also avoids any promotional fluff, which is always a positive point. GermanJoe (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:25, 7 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Botticelli[edit]

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

This athlete has not played any games in the NFL or any other top-level league yet, and does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON. No notable coverage/awards related to college football, either. This is WP:TOOSOON. ~ Rob^Talk 23:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Press coverage needs to be evaluated to determine whether he passes WP:GNG. A quick search reveals some significant coverage in mainstream media sources, e.g., this this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from what I can find it's all "Minnesota" coverage and not necessarily widespread... but the hunt is not over. I believe we will end up keeping this one, but let's let the discussion run its course.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't fully evaluated, but it should be noted that the media outlets found so far are not small local papers, but rather the state's largest metropolitan dailies, the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Star Tribune. Cbl62 (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm of the opinion that for a college athlete to qualify as notable without winning major awards, the coverage must be exceptional (i.e. national coverage). This seems to be in-line with the examples of "significance" for college athletes listed at WP:NCOLLATH, where they suggest significance is achieved by national coverage (or awards/hall of fame, which doesn't apply here as far as I can tell). A few bio pieces in regional newspapers is typical of most starters at top-level programs, but that is a result of the notability of the team, not the notability of the individual. ~ Rob^Talk 04:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rob -- I am not advocating that this article be kept, but your comment misconstrues the manner in which WP:NCOLLATH has been applied. NCOLLATH has been interpreted as an inclusive one: if an athlete passes it, he's probably good to go. But if he/she doesn't pass NCOLLATH, he/she may still be shown to satisfy WP:GNG. In assessing college football players under GNG, I typically give lesser weight to small-town newspapers, greater weight to major metropolitan newspapers and regional newspapers, and the greatest weight to national media outlets. But there is no precedent for requiring national coverage or for ignoring regional coverage. It's an overall balance that's required, and in applying that balance, I often vote to delete college football bios; in this case, I'm on the fence. Cbl62 (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:UNOPPOSED comes to mind here. I haven't made the time to research it, and apparently no one else has either. We can always re-create it later if deletion proves to be the wrong decision. I believe the nominator made a good faith nomination and this can function like a WP:PROD.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:01, 7 July 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Goldberg (volleyball coach)[edit]

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

Not a notable person. JDDJS (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets requirements for coach. Long-time head coach of Division I team. Several times named Coach of the Year for the conference. —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:25, 7 July 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Axcelis Technologies[edit]

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

Speedy deletion declined because of "possible significance", though it is left unclear from the article what this significance is. Seems to be a part of Eaton Corporation that was "spun off" in 2000. Maybe Axcelis Technologies deserves a short paragraph there. Currently the article is cited only to a Google Finance table. I can't see anything of great consequence online in any general news sources to suggest the company is widely known. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:GNG. From a quick Google search, the company has recently received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Sovereign/^Sentinel 11:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For example? Sionk (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently has a six percent market-share for something called ion implaters[8], the smallest of all the vendors listed in the EE Times article. $200 million in revenues would usually suggest some marginal notability, but I haven't found anything in-depth yet. EE Times does have a lot of blurbs about layoffs and pay cuts at the firm[9][10][11][12] and other things[13][14][15][16] Looks potentially borderline to me. I would lean towards delete, if only because nothing in the current article is actually sourced. CorporateM (Talk) 22:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:25, 7 July 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. Consensus is that there is significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Greaves (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Being a "prolific journeyman" doesn't make him notable, nor does winning just 4 of his 100 fights. Jakejr (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly his boxing record doesn't make him notable. Being the subject of a documentary supports notability, but nowadays it seems anyone can make a video and get it aired (an exaggeration, but not without some basis). If the documentary can be shown to be notable, I would say Greaves is notable. Papaursa (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet WP:NBOX. Mdtemp (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in The Independent, BBC Sport and The Guardian. A chapter in this book is dedicated to his career, which the author also wrote about in The Daily Telegraph, as is the aforementioned documentary film - as part of a BT Sport film series. If national coverage in three different formats doesn't meet the notability bar, I'm not really sure what does. Fuebaey (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficiently well known and with enough coverage to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Sources have been added to show the subject meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Upon a review of the sources presented herein, the subject meets WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 15 July 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. Closing as no consensus, because WP:NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR do not conclusively create presumed notability. Per the top of the section for these criteria (Additional criteria), it states, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Rimsky[edit]

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

It was difficult to assess as I don't read Russian and he lived a long time ago, but I couldn't verify that he meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to say Keep He seems to meet WP:NACTOR #1 and WP:DIRECTOR with significant roles in multiple films, some of which he also wrote or directed (L'heureuse Mort most obviously, but also possibly Ce cochon de Morin, Le nègre blanc, Pas sur la bouche, or others - at least three of those films have been restored and rescreened recently[17][18][19]). He did most of his work in France in the 1920s, so online sources are rather limited and I'm unable to show in-depth coverage without access to suitable archives (Google Books doesn't have much French content), but he still seems likely to meet the notability requirements). Colapeninsula (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 13:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:ACTOR —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:26, 8 July 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. (WP:NPASR). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALFA (XACML)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable. The article as it stands does not come near to demonstrating notability – all sources are apparently closely connected to the author(s) of the project. In-depth coverage in independent sources is entirely absent. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALFA is another representation of XACML which is already included in Wikipedia (just like SAML and other OASIS standards). ALFA is part of the OASIS family of standards. Its formal definition can be found here. David.brossard (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it would seem. I'd have no objection to a redirect to XACML. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALFA in itself is large enough to warrant its own page, its own explanations. I get requests for information on ALFA, ABAC, and XACML all the time including from academia (there are several papers that reference ALFA) so I would rather keep it a separate page.David.brossard (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:22, 7 July 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 03:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jompson Brothers[edit]

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

Fail WP:BAND JMHamo (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best I can find for secondary source coverage is [20] and [21]. I don't think that's enough. Agtx (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:22, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 19:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

City of Rockford Pipe Band[edit]

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

This is a well-written article, but there doesn't seem to be enough coverage to actually meet the criteria for notability. Ostrichyearning (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awards and sources cited do not meet WP:BAND. Agtx (talk) 18:36, 12 July 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 U.K. Subs. Davewild (talk) 07:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Garratt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. One very weak source is not enough. We need several sources that discuss Nicky Garratt directly and in detail; not passing mentions. JMHamo (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 16:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to UK Subs (there's not much here) as it seems he may be best known for this and not to mention was a founding member with my searches finding nothing particularly good to suggest independent notability here, here with my remaining searches finding nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 11 July 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. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Reza Eftekhari[edit]

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

No indication of notability, one archived reference that appears to be largely promotional. External links are all dead. Karst (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though the article is in terrible shape, I think he is notable because (a) a search in the links above shows that he has a prolific output; (b) in this article (which is about someone else, so not a puff piece) he is referred to as one of "the preeminent voices in Persian music"; (c) there is a very full article about him in the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia. It needs someone who can translate Farsi to get material and references from there. JohnCD (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and with the condition that someone familiar with the subject can improve the article; it seems the Arabic article has quite a bit of information and some sources (although I'm not familiar with any of the those websites) and my English searches found nothing. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 11 July 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 Polish Academy of Sciences. Those arguing to keep failed to state any policy-based arguments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Eldizzino with the following rationale "notable". Well, a good start to proving that would be adding references. I can't find anything but passing mentions (and the Institute's own history of page). Yes, this Institute exists but why should it be in an encyclopedia? We are not Yellow Pages. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- QUOTE from Polish Academy of Sciences: The Polish Academy of Sciences, headquartered in Warsaw, is the top Polish institution having the character of an academy of sciences. Being a society of distinguished scholars as well as a network of research institutes, it is responsible for spearheading the development of science in Poland. It was established in 1951, during the period of Poland People's Republic.
- It is THE institute for Pharmacology of the PAS. Then look what you have for ONE USA university alone: Category:University of Michigan. Then look what you have in Michigan: Category:Universities and colleges in Michigan. Then look Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by state.
- Could it really be, that it is less "notable" than every single item in this USA-category. Yes, of course it could. But could it also be that, there is some cultural/language bias present here? Eldizzino (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not really a valid argument. But I'll try to AfD at least one of those Michgan articles, too, if it makes you feel better. CAMiLEON looks about right. And I added Camp CAEN for good measure. I am sure there are more. We should delete such articles, not add more to them. Again: this is an encyclopedia, not a directory listing for every organization out there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think I fixed the problems. Please take a second look. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how, User:Poeticbent? I still see primary sources for in-depth coverage, and otherwise, passing mentions. Yes, this Institute exists, nobody denies it. But why is it important enough to be in an encyclopedia? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively and Redirect to Polish Academy of Sciences. The main article has plenty of room for information about its different parts. No need to spin this off to its own article -- and certainly not based on the sources currently provided, which as Piotrus points out are largely primary. I'm not seeing any policy-based arguments for keeping. If the material should exist somewhere on Wikipedia, that doesn't necessarily mean it should have its own article. I will note, however, that The Pharmacological Reports, one of its journals, meets WP:JOURNALCRIT#2 and so could likely sustain a stand-alone article itself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Polish Academy of Sciences as usual for academic institutes. Article shows no independent notability. Sandstein 07:39, 18 July 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. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARP Jayaraam[edit]

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

Already tagged for notability, this person is not notable. There are claims that he has directed ads and corporate videos which don't make him notable. Don't believe his work as a lyric writer makes him notable enough to pass WP:DIRECTOR Gbawden (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We need better sources. The ones in the article seem WP:QUESTIONABLE; anyone is welcome to defend them and ping me back. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koh Na-young[edit]

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

This looks like a clear case of WP:TOOSOON to me. Koh Na-young was signed to a label just 11 days ago and hasn't released any songs. I searched Naver for Korean news and there is no significant coverage as far as I could tell. The most recent news is the announcement that she has been signed to MBK Entertainment and will release a song for the soundtrack of a web drama (hasn't been released yet). The only other news is from when she auditioned for Superstar K and a judge thought she resembled a Chinese actress. Random86 (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Random86 (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also couldn't find much on her and I'm fairly certain that further extensive research would not produce enough articles or achievements to establish notability at this time. Peachywink (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found nothing good and there's nothing to make me believe there's good coverage (unless, by any chance, in Korean). SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 11 July 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. I found a couple of reviews online, so I have userfied this to my own space to see if it can be resurrected. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pist[edit]

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

Kept in 2005 but things have moved on. One thing that has not moved on is this article: it still fails to explain why they might be considered notable, and it still has no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 13:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found from searches to indicate that an encyclopedia article is justified here. --Michig (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches were second to none of finding absolutely nothing and the only links I found were these (certainly emphasizes the independentness and obscurity). SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was a second tier American street punk band during the 1990s wave of American punk. I suspect there are probably enough interviews and such out there to cover an article, but it would require a good deal of investigative digging to find them since a lot of that stuff isn't digitized. Carrite (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Lynggaard Hougesen[edit]

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

Non-notable bio and company article, possibly written by Hougesen himself - tagged since 2010. Google searches show no significant coverage. References and content don't establish notability (most of the refs are self-published). GermanJoe (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. It's a promotional article created by the subject with no evidence of notability and no independent reliable sources. I'm surprised it was never tagged for speedy deletion and that the PROD tag was removed without improvement. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything about him, and the references in the article mostly do not mention him at all, much less provide something significant about him. LaMona (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless any good Danish sources are found, my searches found nothing good aside from this. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Briar Stewart[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a broadcast journalist, relying mainly on sources written by her rather than about her — the only source that actually contains any content about her is a university student newspaper, which is a class of sourcing that cannot contribute toward the meeting of WP:GNG, but is acceptable only for additional confirmation of facts after notability has been covered off by stronger sources. While the award might contribute toward the meeting of WP:JOURNALIST if it were sourced, the only sourcing present for that was a dead link to a PDF press release put out by the organization that gave the award — which is also a primary source that cannot contribute to passing GNG. A journalist does not get a Wikipedia article on the basis of sources in which she's the bylined author of content about other things — she gets into Wikipedia on the basis of sources in which she's the subject, but there aren't any of those here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — sources in article don't seem to establish notability and I can't find any that do. Most of what shows up in a Google search seems to be social media accounts and mere mentions (e.g. "X is a journalist" without saying much more). dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 21:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because my searches found nothing good aside from this and this (a few news links). SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Zaremba[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Article was deleted via PROD for the same reason and recreated by an SPA. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Fails WP:GNG, and been PROD-deleted before- clearly no experienced editors think they're notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm a little reluctant with the salt as it's only been started twice now and I'd like to think improvement can be made in the future but if it's need, I strongly suggest future use of WP:AFC. As for my searches, I found nothing particularly good with this and this (one minor mention) being the best I found. SwisterTwister talk 06:47, 11 July 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 03:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Black Diamond (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable hip-hop group. Natg 19 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My searches found absolutely nothing good even in the slightest. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 11 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Icelolly.com[edit]

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

This page does not meet WP:GNG.DominosChamp2930 (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are several reliable independent sources that focus on this company. See: [22] [23] [24]. The larger concern with this article is WP:NPOV. I've taken some steps towards removing and altering the promotional content on this page, but there's still more to be done. It's at a state where it's fixable without a fundamental rewrite. ~ Rob^Talk 16:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are quite a few sources, just about passes WP:GNG I believe. I agree it needs a rewrite- currently it just trying to celebrity namedrop, if the "Work with Celebrities" and "TV shows" sections cannot be sourced, they should be removed. Also, it should be moved to Icelolly (website) per WP:TITLE (shouldn't use .com in article name). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed those sections for now. Even if they were sourced, it isn't exactly neutral to name drop every celebrity the company has ever worked with. WP:PROMO comes to mind. I think the article is as close to within policy as I can get it at the moment. Everything is sourced except the initial text, which I'm going to go searching for a source on now. ~ Rob^Talk 16:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No opinion on the redirect but anyone can create it. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modoka[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search (as "Modoka", "Modoka Studios", or "Lumodokate Studios". All in-page sources are primary or unreliable. There are no worthwhile redirect targets as none of the games are notable. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 14:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 02:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a stretch but could a redirect to Madoka work a misspelling?--69.157.254.210 (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@69.157.254.210, a misspelling of what? – czar 05:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility that's Modoka could be a misspelling of Madoka. I have no idea how viable that might be but I though it was worth it to at least suggest the possibility.--67.68.29.1 (talk) 02:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, my IP has recently changed So I am the same person that initially mentioned the misspelling idea.--67.68.29.1 (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible but when I search Google or even WP, it's hard to tell if Madoka is being misspelled as Modoka. If you can confirm that it's happening, sure, throw up a redirect after this is deleted. (And be sure to add {{R from misspelling}}.) – czar 03:52, 13 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Processing & Imaging[edit]

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

Advertorial that doesn't prove the notability of its topic. Would require a rewrite to become a proper article, if notability can be established. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet the conditions of WP:NOTE. The only sources I can turn up are press releases by the company. Article is unduly promotional. Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The best my searches were press releases here and here. Concerned with the amount of information but no good sources and unlikely notability, delete for now and draft/userfy if needed. SwisterTwister talk 05:17, 13 July 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) Kraxler (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwood Cemetery (Orlando, FL )[edit]

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

I can not find any independent reliable sources that discuss this cemetery. As far as I can determine this cemetery does not meet our notability guidelines. -- GB fan 20:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the search that Northamerica1000 left and do not think there is enough there to show notability. Most of the sources there are passing mentions, someone was buried there, a monument isn't going to be moved there and moonlight stroll through the cemetery. There is a single article that is all about the moonlight stroll through the cemetery. I do not see that as enough to show it as notable. -- GB fan 23:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass the notability guidelines. --Anar chyte 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This custom search provides some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, in light of the sources available in Northamerica1000's search. bd2412 T 16:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and yes did review the "search" linked. Kierzek (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though I will admit that to some extent that's because ILIKEIT--I believe we should keep articles on monumental/historical locations such as this one. I'm going to look a bit harder since I can't help but think that there ought to be more material, given that this indicates the cemetery as a boundary between segregated areas (and this points in the same direction), and this (from NA's search) says there is a plot with unnamed graves containing victims of lynchings. There has to be more, and in expectation of that more I say we should keep this for now. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keepThis is a historically important cemetery for Orlando. We should expand this article as much as possible but we should keep it.Jimmy19761976
Keep - This article appears to fall under WP:GEOFEAT. Although there is no inherited notability with places (the list of notable people buried there won't count), places "can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance". In a nutshell, locations are notable due to properties, facts, significance, etc. involving the location itself and not by those who own, visit, or live there. Looking at the sources found and provided by Drmies, I agree that there are sources that establish notability with the location itself, and hence meets WP:GEOFEAT. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GroundCAD[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Prod removed by article author without comment or improvement. --Finngall ^talk 21:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete as my searches found nothing good and I would've said draft/userfy but there's not much to begin with but if it helps the user, go ahead. SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and not even a stub class. Kierzek (talk) 20:26, 7 July 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. Withdrawn by nominator with no one supporting deletion (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 21:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dakhira[edit]

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

This does not seem to exist. It is not mentioned in the single source provided. Google maps shows a town called Al Dakhira not far from Al Khor, and an island called "Purple Island" near a mangrove swamp nearby, but no island called Dakhira. ubiquity (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: now that the confusion has been cleared up, I support this article. ubiquity (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it appears to be a town on the coast with a beach of the same name. Here it is on a map map. There are many alternative spellings including Dhakhira. As a populated place I do not think it is eligible for deletion. NotAnOmbudsman (talk) 17:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. But that place is a town (the one I mentioned), and not an island. Was it your intention to write about the town? If so, I'll be glad to help. ubiquity (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it is a relatively large city, and not an island. It is one of the two cities which the Qatari municipality of Al Khor and Al Thakhira takes its name after. The article should be renamed to Al Thakhira per the government-conducted census. In the mean time, I think this AFD could be resolved simply by renaming the article. I will also add some references to the page to establish notability. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a reserve of the same name in the area and a beach (also of the same name) in the area. I am not entirely clear on what the reserve includes and whether the island is part of Dhakhira or separate. At any rate, I apologize for the confusion and my sloppiness with the initial entry. Thanks for helping to clarify. (ec) NotAnOmbudsman (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Abrouq and Umm Tais could also use some attention.. NotAnOmbudsman (talk) 17:52, 7 July 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. No consensus on the original question, but trout User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) for renaming the article while the AfD was in progress, especially since he said he would only do it if there were no objections, immediately had two people object, and then went ahead and did it anyway. GIven that there was no consensus here for a move, I'm going to move it back to the original title. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of closed stack libraries[edit]

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

This list, if completed would include hundreds of libraries. I cannot think of an earthly reason why the world needs a list of closed stack libraries -- some libraries are closed for very practical reasons (the contents are not shelved for browsing) and others for reasons having to do with security of contents. No one is actively editing this article (I had a crack at is several years ago and it was very frustrating to do so). Thanks for considering. Merrilee (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Merrilee. Libraries that have closed stacks have them for so many, varied reasons, that this page creates confusion more than it helps a Wikipedia visitor. There would need to be substantial disambiguation regarding the particular reasons why libraries have closed stacks and which reasons apply in a given case. That disambiguation would be a daunting task and, in the end, not substantial enough a benefit to justify the work. It makes more sense to me to delete this article. Mazarines (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you think the reason that the stacks are closed is important, then add the information. "his list, if completed would include hundreds of libraries" ... so what, we already have lists and categories containing thousands of entries ... this list now has about a dozen entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a list of libraries, which is always going to be larger. Considerations of space are irrelevant per WP:NOTPAPER and any merger or restructuring of these lists would be best done by ordinary editing rather than deletion per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is poorly defined, and I'm not even sure that it could be defined in a useful way. Closed stacks do not mean that users cannot view the items, they simply do not allow users to roam the stacks. Many, if not most, libraries have some of their materials in closed stacks, either for security reasons or because of space constraints, and many libraries that have significant closed stacks have some open areas, such as reference collections. Plus, I'm not sure how such a list informs anyone using Wikipedia. As the policy on lists states: "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." This article doesn't meet the guidelines. LaMona (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "poorly defined", you just defined it. If you look at the list they are libraries within larger library systems, usually the manuscript, or rare book, or special collections depository within the university library system. Smaller universities might have a room devoted to special collections, but these are full libraries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a special collections library is not necessary closed stacks and closed stack libraries are not necessarily special collections -- the special collections at the Seattle Public Library are in open stacks and are a knockout collection. The Northern and Southern Regional Library Facilities in the University of California lirbary system are both closed stack libraries that have nothing to do with special collections. Having a list of closed stacks libraries is like having a list of libraries with compact shelving, or libraries that have wrought iron staircases. It is a feature of the library that tells you almost nothing interesting about the library or the collections. Merrilee (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "... usually the manuscript, or rare book, or special collections depository within the university library system." You are taking the word "special collections" out of context, the concept equally applies to manuscripts and rare books. While a library may switch to compact shelving, or replace a wrought iron staircase with concrete and reinforced steel, they are not going to place original manuscripts, or rare books, or minimally organized boxed material on open shelves for the general public to rummage through. While most libraries have a room devoted to closed-stack material, here the entire library is closed stack. Large universities can afford to devote a stand alone library for their non-circulating, closed stack material such as manuscripts, and rare books, and boxed special collections. In some cases the library is just a room within a larger library, but still called a library, instead of a room. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is what you are really after a list of libraries that have special collections? I'm not saying that is any better as a list. And as I've stated previously, there are special collections that are in open stacks. So in fact, there are cases where special collections materials are placed so that the public can "rummage through." What do you think is achieved by having this as a list? Help me understand. Thank you. Merrilee (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest moving to full article about the concept of "closed stacks" instead of "list"", per @LaMona:'s arguments about poorly defined list, and @Merrilee:'s arguments about the list being nonsensical and hard to place limits on (which it is). The article could have examples drawn from this set of "closed stack" libraries, and we can make sure that we fully explore the different why's, hows, and implications of closed-stackness per @Richard Arthur Norton (1958-):'s changes. I am going to boldly make this move later today (or this weekend) if there are no serious objections,Sadads (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do object, mainly because closed stacks are much less interesting historically than open stacks. In fact, the entire history of library shelving itself is interesting, and there is an entire book written on the subject (Henry Petroski, The Book on the Bookshelf) that has a considerable bibliography. There is mention in some WP articles (e.g. Angus_Snead_Macdonald#Innovations_in_library_shelving, Bookcase#Library_shelving) but nothing approaching a reasonable treatment of the subject. If you would like to begin a stub on library shelving, with a historical approach, I will do my best to contribute. LaMona (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with @LaMona. Merrilee (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to moving it to Closed stack library and changing the list to "Examples", I think that would work the best and cover your objections to the list just being a small example of a large number of libraries using the system. The text can be lengthened and the list annotated as to why they use the system, if we know why: rare books, special collections, original manuscripts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton I don't know why you insist that closed stack libraries = rare books, special collections, original manuscripts because, as I have explained and as LaMona and others have, they are not parallell. I thought we were continuing to discuss but I suppose not. Merrilee (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LaMona and Merrilee: This has nothing to do with the relative "interestingness" of the topic: as a searchable key-word within the field, it definitely meets our "notability" thresh-hold, and the number of sources makes a pretty good argument for drafting this as an article, because it meets WP:GNG. Eventually it might be upmerged to a larger discussion of different stack policies -but I think you would need someone with a serious history of library science focus to do the survey mentioned above. I would recommend getting a historian or student to do some of this work (however, part of me is reading this as that we should have three articles: "history of library stacks", "open stacks (libraries)" and "closed stacks (libraries)") really the problem here is that we haven't done a thorough enough study of different library science topics, Sadads (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadads, those G-scholar articles support my argument, not yours. They are about the relative benefits of different shelving options -- not one of them is a list of libraries with closed stacks. This focus on a list of libraries is just wrong-headed, IMO. There's an interesting topic to be found in this, but a list is not of value. LaMona (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move back to List_of_closed_stack_libraries. Wikipedia is a history resource, it and other electronic resources replacing libraries, there is absurdity in deleting a record of the closure of traditional information repositories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can tell, all of the keep !votes above boil down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. The list isn't well defined, but definition isn't the only requirement for a list to exist. Stand-alone lists are subject to notability criteria, and my search for other lists of closed stacks libraries (not specific examples) turned up almost nothing but Wikipedia-derived content. There is a better case to be made for the subject article vs. the list (although a move during AfD is frowned upon because it it confuses what everybody's talking about), but I would say delete to the subject article as well. This is first because it's just a WP:DICDEF (with a list of examples), but more importantly because I don't see sufficient sources to justify a stand-alone article. I wouldn't have any objection to merging selectively to another library-related article, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Library#Organization and merge any definitional elements there. The list is clearly too large for it to be complete enough to be useful in the foreseeable future. Sandstein 07:35, 18 July 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. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lee County Pipes & Drums[edit]

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

Minor local band, no significant coverage. Ostrichyearning (talk) 22:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete as my searches found nothing particularly outstanding regarding coverage with the best here, here (only one) and here. SwisterTwister talk 05:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable external sources found on search. Darx9url (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable band....William 12:24, 8 July 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) Kraxler (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 MVV Maastricht season[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NSEASONS as club does not play in top division but played in 2013–14 Eerste Divisie. Qed237 (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Qed237 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2013–14 Eerste Divisie. Eat me, I'm a red bean (take a huge bite) 23:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Eerste Divisie is not a fully professional league. Current consensus is that only clubs that play in FPLs are notable enough to justify individual season articles. No sourced prose whatsoever in the article raises serious WP:NOTSTATS concerns. Fenix down (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - your right @GiantSnowman: I clicked on 2013–14 Eerste Divisie and saw Jupiler League, so thought Belgium and saw Maastricht and thought Belgium too and that Jupiler now sponsored both tiers. Whoops! Fenix down (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: What? They to play in second tier in Holland, I cant find them in 2013–14 Belgian Pro League and in the article it said they met Dordrecht and Jong Ajax and they play in Holland second tier. Qed237 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - err @Qed237: @Fenix down: the Eerste Divisie i.e. the Dutch 2nd division is fully-professional, so this does meet NSEASONS...needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 17:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Okay I was not aware of the Fully-pro requirement. Do you have a link to that consensus so I can verify that we should go by that and not NSEASONS? Qed237 (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 17:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GiantSnowman and meets WP:NSEASONS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typemock[edit]

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

While this product is known in the development community, neither it nor the company itself meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. There is little coverage other than blogs and forums. A draft was repeatedly declined for those same reasons, and recently created in article space by an SPA with (I assume) a conflict of interest. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This source looks reasonable, but is not enough alone. I don't object if better/more sources are found, but most of the current article looks to be original research. CorporateM (Talk) 21:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This, this and this source are notable, as well as the Patent. Meets WP:CORPDEPTH as per sources presented in this discussion. It might be non-notable...only if you have never developed software. The software forums are flowing with posts on the company Elilopian (Talk) 12:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC) — Elilopian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 18:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Patents and forum posts do not grant notability, and neither do those three sources. Since you are associated with the company, I would think you'd be able to come up with something akin to WP:SIGCOV but obviously that's not the case. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need to talk with that style, the whole reason that this deletion came up is because someone is trying to make money out of this. See this e-mail we received "Thursday, June 18, 2015 7:04 PM [...] send the second payment [...] or I will have to take down the Typemock wikipedia page.". The company is of value to the development community. Simply stating that articles from Microsoft, and Visual Studio Magazine, do not grant notability is an understatement. These articles discuss the subject in detail (as do other articles found in the web including StackOverflow, JetBrains, NCover, blogs.msmvps.com with a simple google search), are reliable, are secondary and not written by typemock and they are independent of the subject. I think that the closeness of the threat email and the deletion consideration shows (I assume) a conflict of interest. Which will lead to knowledge not being free Elilopian (Talk) 12:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC) — Elilopian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Elilopian: Thank you. I'll assume then that the article was initially created by someone you paid, against the Wikipedia terms of use and conflict of interest guidelines. Because your draft was repeatedly rejected... because your product does not meet the inclusion guidelines. There was a point where they could have removed it, by tagging it with {{db-user}}, and we have seen a spate of those lately (and unfortunately). However it's too late for that now - whether the article is deleted or kept depends on the consensus reached here, which is not subject to spammer blackmail. If you had treated Wikipedia with a bit more respect and observed our guidelines, perhaps your article wouldn't have been accepted, but at least you wouldn't have lost the money you paid. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FreeRangeFrog: Thank you. I have a lot of respect to your guideline, I have no idea why the author decided to choose those references. But to the point, have you noticed the following:

"The Art of Unit Testing" Osherove, Roy (2009). "How frameworks like Typemock work". The art of unit testing. Manning. ISBN 978-1-933988-27-6. what makes for a good isolation framework and how frameworks like Typemock work under the covers. This reference is used in Mock object so it is surely WP:GNG see also pdf of first edition and Whats new in the 2nd edition
Typemock appears in wikipedia page List_of_unit_testing_frameworks this should also be WP:GNG
Typemock Isolator and Isolator++ appear in wikipedia page Unit_testing
See these articles stop-designing-for-testability and what-does-easy-really-mean.html this is from the same reference supporting Mock object so it should be WP:GNG
Article in drdobbs.com
Article in mashable
Article about application development in eweek
One of many articles in infoQ
Article in Italian magazine programmazione
Article in NCover see wikipedia entry NCover
Article in JetBrains DotCover see wikipedia entry DotCover JetBrains and this
Article in SmartBear TestComplete see wikipedia entry SmartBear TestComplete
Article in Microsoft see Microsoft

--Elilopian (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those do nothing to prove notability. Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Self-published material produced by a company on their own website normally doesn't meet WP:RS. The relevance of the Mashable article is debatable. Other mentions are often brief: giving TypeMock as an example of a mocking framework rather than discussing it in depth - hence they are sources for mock object but not for TypeMock. Having said that, the Osherove book seems to have a more substantial discussion, and the Dr Dobbs article is explicity about TypeMock. I make that 1 or 2 solid sources, the jokey coverage in mashable, and brief mentions in Programmazione, eWeek, and InfoQ. Having said that, if the Osherove cite is as good as it looks, that might just meet WP:GNG. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 14:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Carney[edit]

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

This article about a political candidate does not seem to meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. Folklore1 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unelected candidates for office do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot demonstrate and reliably source that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough. But nothing written or sourced here suggests any reason why he would qualify under any other inclusion criterion to counter his failure to satisfy WP:NPOL. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 7 July 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 Michael H. Hart. MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History[edit]

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

A list of influential people written by someone whose views are not provably significant, sources are primary, unreliable or not independent. There is no credible evidence presented that this book is in any way significant. The fact that it is largely nonsense with white supremacist overtones is incidental to the fact that it appears to be insignificant. Guy (Help!) 10:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by WP policy on books since there is no real secondary coverage provided. But don't delete by "I don't like it" or keep by "other stuff exists", which both apply. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A ~~redirect~~ Merge to Michael H. Hart makes sense. The articles pretty much duplicate each other.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and transfer to Michael H. Hart article. A couple of years ago I renamed this article from "The 100" which was even more misleading. But there are 8 more items in that disambiguation list which are more or less as insignificant. His article claims there are 500,000 copies sold (uncited) though a Barnes & Noble site says 60,000 which I find more plausible. The main reason for controversy seems to be ranking Mohammed as No. 1, which does not in itself suggest white supremacy. That did I believe generate plenty of comment at the time. Chris55 (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 60,000 number was printed on the back cover of the 1992 edition. Presumably the sales total increased with the new edition and the last 23 years. Dragons flight (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7 times for a reprint? Seems highly unlikely to me. All I can see is that Hart is a good publicist. (60,000 is a significant number and there have been translations.) Chris55 (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notability doesn't hinge on the number of copies sold, the number of times it was reprinted (which is only a reflection of print run size), or number of translations. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "The 100 is probably the best known ranking of historic figures by influence. It has sold more than half a million copies since the first edition in 1978." [25]. If either of those sentences is true, it should be an obvious keep. I would also note that Google Scholar turns up 200+ academic citations to this book [26], though mostly for the anecdotal value. Given that we are talking about a book whose "recent" version is 20 years old and whose original version is nearly 40 years old, I'm not surprised that it is hard to find quality reviews of it. However searching for "Michael H. Hart" + "The 100" does show 170,000 hits on Google [27]. I suspect digging in their would find usable references, though most of the first hits are either trying to sell the book or blogs that wouldn't necessarily qualify as RS. Ultimately though, I do think this book has had a significant impact as a work of non-fiction, and is deserving of an article. Dragons flight (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big "if" which requires verifying, and no one seems to be able to do that. The quote comes from Who's Bigger? and the authors of that book provide no citation and aren't necessarily a RS themselves. In fact, they have an incentive to puff their competition in the genre to look better/more important/bigger than "The 100." And what about "known ranking of historic figures by influence"? Is that a crowded field? Doesn't look like it [28], although it looks like Hart spawned a cottage industry of Christmas present books. Did you look at any of the Google Scholar citations? It is not supposed to be used as a hit counter, but a resource to find RS dealing with the article's subject in depth. How could "Autism and creativity: is there a link between autism in men and exceptional ability?" have anything to do with Hart's book? Has anyone created WP:GOOGLESCHOLAR yet? It would be better to have usable references and a verified significant impact right now, rather than your suspicions and thoughts. Sorry if this seems harsh, but there is no there here. Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did look at some of the Google Scholar hits. The ones I checked tended to be using Hart's work as a source for some small factoid. For example in "Population Size and Civil Conflict Risk: Is there a causal link?" (Economic Journal, 2010), Hart's book is cited to establish that Thomas Malthus, one of the 100, "ignited a fierce debate in the circles of policy makers concerning the necessity for population control and the benefits derived from government-led poverty relief programmes". In The strategic teacher: Selecting the right research-based strategy for every lesson, an example lesson plan is discussed wherein student's are provided with Hart's ranking criteria, asked to think critically about it, and then propose their our ranking criteria. In Spinal Cord Injury—Past, Present, and Future (J. Spinal Cord Medicine, 2007), Hart is cited for "In the field of microbiology, Louis Pasteur (1832–1895) advanced our knowledge of sterilization as well as the 'germ theory' in general". In "Daoistic Humanism In Ancient China: Broadening Personality And Counseling Theories In The 21st Century" (J. Humanistic Psychology, 2003), Hart is credited with stating that Laozi's "book, Dao De Jing ... has been regarded as one of the best philosophical books in human history".

I've looked at less than 5% of the hits but most of what I did look at seem to be of a similar anecdotal flavor in that Hart's book is cited to establish some brief anecdote or detail. If there are references in there discussing his work in detail, I haven't stumbled across them. That said, hundreds of citations (even if they are often anecdotal) is still evidence of an impact. Dragons flight (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that work. I've run into this Google Scholar argument before, I wasn't kidding about creating an essay for that shortcut. The best I could find was the academic journal notability essay, but it gets at the point. Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)#Notes and examples #4 "the presence or absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used to determine notability. At best, it is a starting point." But going back to the main point, the book notability guideline explicitly (although in a note) says "The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book." The 100 is perfect for mere mention and almost useless for anything more substantial. What would be the point of covering the book in depth? Beyond books sold, what impact could it even theoretically have ? Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michael H. Hart. I believe that this book is notable, but not terribly so. The article on the book is currently about 6k; the article on the author is about the same. Combine them and eliminate any redundancy caused by that, and we'll have a nice little article on an author and his signature accomplishment. bd2412 T 20:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Keep per Dragons flight. The book's sales and long-time popularity more than justify an article. WP:NBOOK criteria 1 is easily satisfied by the published references and reviews. Gamaliel (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What published references and reviews? Can you link to ~~two sources~~ another (I'll grant Who's Bigger, even though Hart's book is little more than a foil in it) which satisfies #1: "The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself." and note 1: "The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Mnnlaxer (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One reason I like merge is that now this article is marred by the opening sentence which warns the readers that the author is a white supremacist. It's kind of like saying: "Here's a book, but don't read it." Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically white separatist rather than white supremacist, though that may be a distinction that makes little practical difference. The line about the author being a white separatist was very recently added, and one could argue whether or not it really belongs there. Personally, I actually think the context is interesting, but maybe there is a better way to mention it? Dragons flight (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's one reason I suggested merging the articles. The other article starts out: "Michael H. Hart (born April 28, 1932) is an American astrophysicist and author, most notably of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. He has described himself as a white separatist and is active in white separatist causes." If this article is kept then there should be an "About the author" paragraph where the info is given. But then we would have two mostly identical articles, not that that is against policy. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael H. Hart. I don't think any of the material currently in the article is notable and some isn't even about the book itself. I can't find any significant coverage of the book beyond Who's Bigger?, and that only devotes four pages to the book. Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 12:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This book is notable in the middle east, middle eastern media heavily reported on the fact that Muhammad was number one, they were also bewildered a Jewish person put him there, although these details are largely unnoteworthy it appears not so to the media. GuzzyG (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to some of the more prominent sources for this being noticed in the media? Most of the potential sources I found that were from the middle east were certain Islamic "evangelists" who did not look like they were particularly representative of Islamic thought, in no small part because they adopted a particular form of apologia that is a bit heterodox (i.e. using sources other than the Qu'ran or the Hadith to prove their religious points). jps (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yeah you're right, i think i jumped the gun, although i do think it's incredibly funny we used this book to judge what bios were considered core and to go into our vital article lists but it's not notable enough for a article. GuzzyG (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So are you changing your keep !vote? - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 12:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michael H. Hart. The notability of the book, if any, seems to be difficult to distinguish from that of the author. Sandstein 07:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Possibly merge Hart into here--the book is the more notable. A work widely used by academics is notable, and that's what the GS data shows. That they use it for minor factors rather than extended discussion is irrelevant0-if anything, the fact that theyconsider it worth mentioning for minor facts shows in to be widely known. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my comments on using Google Scholar for notability above? They start "Thanks for that work." - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 12:58, 20 July 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 List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family. MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soprano crime family[edit]

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

Page serving entirely as a massive plot summary, failing WP:PLOT and MOS:PLOT, already found at Sopranos episode articles. Moreover, the characters/cast lists are redundant with an already more concise List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I offer little to reduce paper and discard excess Shad in Net 01:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shad Innet (talk • contribs)
- And what exactly does that mean? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One cannot find the article innocently, because there was no Soprano crime family (I'm thinking of lesbian opera singers adopting children and training them up in crime). This article duplicates existing material in The Sopranos and otherwise goes into fanboi detail about the mythical mafiosi of David Chase's show. This crime family is not notable because it is not real. The show is notable, but it has an article. Hithladaeus (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We used to have scads of these articles in the distant past where a fictional world was related in a real-world style. That time passed a long time ago and although the writing is creative and I would have kept it in the past, it belongs not here, but somewhere else like a Sopranopedia Wikia or something of that ilk. Nate • (chatter) 10:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
.357 magnum Delete: Holy crap, this isn't a Wikipedia article, this is the opening draft for a published fictional concordance, and I wish the author well in getting David Chase to sign off on getting it into print. It just doesn't belong HERE. Screamingly OR, relatively unsourced, blows holes through MOS:PLOT. Nha Trang ^Allons! 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article details the most prominent fictional faction from an enormously culturally influential TV series. Even though the page does have flaws in its widespread in-fictional-universe-style section presentation, those who are knowledgeable about the subject matter, know that this faction had its influence to other works of art or artists and was notably reviewed by the media since the series debut to even today. Notable fictional factions are legitimate articles, and I would compare them to notable fictional character articles. Should you delete The Avengers or Gondor articles in that vein as well? Yes, this article needs a lot of work, it needs sections about is its real-world notability and artistic influence, and of course sources(i.e. expansion), but not snap and mindless outright deletion. --TheBearPaw (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The appropriate "fictional character article" is List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family, which should be improved and referenced. This article, however, is just one long plot summary, directly violating the letter and spirit of WP:PLOT. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is the other article the "appropriate one" to keep. I disagree. These two are different articles, one detailing and listing the individual members, that page is intricately linked to the various plot articles about the series which mention the characters. While the Soprano crime family article is, and should be, about the fictional history and real-life notability and influences of the entire fictional faction. Combining the two would create a page which would be too large to comfortably navigate, hence it is only in Wikipedia style to separate even overall largely the same subject into separate articles. Additionally, your emphasized WP:PLOT policy only says that fiction should be discussed in a "concise" way, but nowhere does it say that it should not be discussed at all (i.e. your proposed outright deletion of the whole article). You can argue about cutting down excessive plot details if you like (which is an entirely different discussion) when talking about individual sections but not go about removing the whole article from existence. The whole article deletion is solely a question of notability, which you yourself below admit is present for this fictional faction. Stimulate the user addition of reception and significance sections with templates calling for that, but not threaten to bulldoze the plot summary scaffolding, because it is, and legally should be, a legitimate part of the article. --TheBearPaw (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - There are certain types of articles that are strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" has nothing to do with notability, but it's still a policy that prohibits dictionary entries. WP:NOTPLOT is a policy prohibiting articles that are solely plot summaries, regardless of notability. This article is a perfect example of a violation of that policy. A plot summary isn't "part" of the article- it's the entire article. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Famous groups of people who are the leading plot element in famous fictions are notable. There ought to be abundant literature. There's a peculiar tendency in WP to include information about even minimally notable shows, and not give proper coverage to the important. Naturally, due care needs to be taken to make it clear they are fictional. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you've written is true. The characters are certainly notable. That's why it's a good thing we have List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family as well as the dozens of character articles. The article up for discussion is exactly what WP:PLOT addresses and forbids. The entire article is a plot summary. Nothing you or the others who voted 'keep' have addressed that policy. If care should be taken to improve anything, it should be the 'List of characters...' article, which is more appropriate. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 12:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant, duplicating existing material and per WP:Plot. Kierzek (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article certainly does not "duplicate material" from other articles, even if looking at its criticized plot sections. For example, sections about the faction's past, such as the "Formation" or "Unrest of '83" sections, are unique plot details that were not pulled from any episode articles but dedicatedly written by users from the whole series canon for this specific article only. Therefore your argument of redundancy is incorrect. --TheBearPaw (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The essential notability of the material here does not seem in dispute — the nomination just asserts that some other page has a better structure for presenting the material. I don't agree with that as this is organised more functionally and historically rather than alphabetically, which helps the reader to understand it better. In any case, per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:CLN, there's no reason that we can't do it in a variety of ways. Andrew D. (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a notability or formatting issue. The article is redundant with character/episode articles and fails WP:PLOT, a policy here which explicitly forbids summary-only articles like this one. Nothing you said has addressed WP:PLOT. The other article is sufficient. -- Wikipedical (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:PLOT is not relevant to deletion as its point is that we should do more than just report plot details. The page in question fulfils this requirement by, for example, pointing out the parallels with the DeCavalcante crime family. It is better for this purpose than List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family, which is the page that you prefer. If we had to choose between the pages then I'd rather have this one. But the point of our policy WP:NOTPAPER is that we don't have to choose. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTPLOT is a policy that forbids articles that are solely plot summaries. It is not a suggestion. We have one article that is consistent with Category:Lists of American television series characters and a similar and redundant one that fails policy. Claiming that the article passes WP:NOTPLOT because of one sentence is a misreading of that policy and would deem it pointless entirely. This article is a prime example of a WP:NOTPLOT violation. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consists only of in-universe plot summary, in violation of WP:NOTPLOT, a policy. Sandstein 07:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a plot summary, and as repeated material that could be summarized in The Sopranos. Aerospeed (Talk) 16:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters from The Sopranos in the Soprano crime family. This article is essentially redundant and a plot summary; while I'm not a fan of having massive plot summaries in Wikipedia if we're going to do it we should at least stick to one article per topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:08, 19 July 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) Kraxler (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Planview[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article has cited a number of third-party references. Sovereign /^Sentinel 03:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Subject has been covered on various top blogs/magazines...below are some examples:

http://www.siliconhillsnews.com/2015/05/22/planview-acquires-troux/ http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/techflash/2015/05/software-maker-planview-hires-chynoweth-as-cfo.html http://groundreport.com/gartner-positions-planview-in-the-leaders-quadrant-of-the-magic-quadrant-for-it-project-and-portfolio-management-software-applications/ http://www.itbusinessedge.com/blogs/charting-your-it-career/projects-planviews-no-matter-how-you-work-approach.html http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2015/06/22/planview-demonstrate-benefits-applying-lean-and-agile-principles-project-collaboration-du#axzz3durUoOeE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjohn39 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Possible wp:sock going on. Account User:Andrewjohn39 is !voting keep on a series of articles created by COI editor User:BiH, but has not otherwise an active editor. The AfDs are: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planview‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KartRocket ‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PaGaLGuY ‎ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/POPxo ‎LaMona (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:LaMona FYI, I don't know User:BiH and the reason I am commenting on the articles created by him is because I read long discussions on his talk page where he also mentioned pages created by him and that are now nominated for deletion because of notability issue. I am only putting evedences of notability and I feel that whoever nominated these articles had not reviewed the references himself and it was a biased decision to nominate them for deletion. Andrewjohn39 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is no such discussion on his/her talk page -- and that was easy to check. And how one ended up on such a talk page would need explaining. So I'm still dubious. LaMona (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help if you have a doubt but be assured that I don't know him...I accidentally landed on his page while reviewing a page created by him and then I went through all the discussions. Apart from this, I am only presenting the fact and doing nothing else..if you don't agree, present counter argument rather than blaming!! someone nominated pages for deletion because he thought that subjects are not notable..I am just trying to prove that nominations were wrong!! Andrewjohn39 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just barely. There are secondary RS providing coverage, mainly tech websites and local business news, but the award and this tip the balance to keep for me.
The U.S. enterprise resource management firm Planview is buying Sweden’s Projectplace, the provider of project management tools such as the recently-launched ToDo. The companies didn’t disclose the purchase amount, but the combined operation will have an annual turnover of more than $125 million, with customers such as Sony, BP, Vodafone, Hallmark and U.S. Airways.
Not a good article right now, but it is notable. Mnnlaxer (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 12:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Jackson, Joab (2013-05-20). "Planview overhauls the look of its portfolio management software". Computerworld. IDG News Service. Archived from the original on 2015-07-13. Retrieved 2015-07-13.
2. Meyer, David (2014-08-12). "Planview buys Projectplace to offer combined resource and project management line-up". Gigaom. Archived from the original on 2015-07-13. Retrieved 2015-07-13.
3. Wursthorn, Michael (2014-08-13). "Insight Venture-Backed Planview Acquires Projectplace". Dow Jones & Company. Archived from the original on 2015-07-13. Retrieved 2015-07-13.
4. Sommer, Brian (2009-02-18). "In a time of cutbacks, Planview unveils a whopper of a new release". ZDNet (CBS Interactive). Archived from the original on 2015-07-13. Retrieved 2015-07-13.
5. Sommer, Brian (2013-07-04). "Planview brings modern UI/UX to Enterprise 11". ZDNet (CBS Interactive). Archived from the original on 2015-07-13. Retrieved 2015-07-13.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Planview to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:23, 13 July 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quaternion rotation biradial[edit]

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

A lengthy reworking of material covered in other articles already, in particular articles on quaternions, geometric algebra, and 3D rotations. It looks novel as the 'biradial' is not part of modern algebra but it is just a very archaic name for a rotor or a rotation quaternion, and the theory is just their theory, and later the theory of geometric algebra. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is not related to modelling rotations. To model rotations of $S^{2}$ , the ~~pure~~ quaternion $q$ acts by conjugation, $u\mapsto quq^{-1}$ , fixing the plane spanned by the real axis and $q$ and rotating the orthogonal plane through an angle $2Arg(q)$ . The term "biradial" seems to have historical significance, and unlike most math articles of this length, the contents seem to be mostly legitimate. Some of the language used does indicate the author was not an expert, but well, it's Wikipedia. I have to look at it more carefully to determine how much of it should be kept, as well as if the term has sufficient notability for its own article, but at the very worst, the useful parts should be merged into quaternion, not just deleted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge A biradial representation of a quaternion treats a quaternion as a object that transforms one vector, or radial, into another vector. It has both versor components that represent a rotation and a scaling component that match the two vector lengths. While I could not find secondary sources sufficient for notability (just one, here), this representation is verifiable. Hence a selective merge of say, just the definition, to Versor or Quaternions and spatial rotation is an obvious alternative to deletion. Quaternion would be an OK merge target, too. The article itself has good content, but is overly detailed. It would be a good candidate for transfer to Wikibooks. --Mark viking (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: I had commented here (which I removed now) that I was going to support making the page into a wikibook, but now I do not support that idea. I have already moved on to writing my things as PDF files. Trying to edit a web wiki format would be too difficult anyway compared to PDF. I should have been writing PDF in the first place. I'm out.Twy2008 (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wrote the article up for deletion. The versor, a widely accepted terminology, was invented by Hamilton by starting from his concept of vector biradial. The versor is built from the unit biradial. In a footnote at the end of the preface to Hamilton's book, Lectures on Quaternions, Hamilton even gives a "hint" about a triradial which he suggested would assist in understanding the geometrical interpretation of his biquaternions. Hamilton seems to have thought that these bi/tri-radials are an important concept for understanding the math. I have also used the biradial concept in a very rough draft article subsection (possible mistakes) User:Twy2008/sandbox/STA on special relativity (SR) velocity-addition formula. I found the biradial to be a useful starting concept to construct Lorentz transformations as hyperbolic versors in Space-Time Algebra (see same-titled book by author David Hestenes, recently published in 2015). By starting with the biradial, the draft immediately derives the Lorentz factor, rapidity, and other values and the unit biradial is the hyperbolic versor of a Lorentz transformation between frames. Versors are mathematical operators that will likely gain usage in the years ahead (see Conformal geometric algebra or Quadric geometric algebra also by me), and the biradial is (I guess, arguably) a useful underlying building block of versors. I understand that the article is large and needs trimming. I could start working on that, but others can also. I wanted to write on this site, but I'm probably going to give up and consider switching to writing small PDF papers on stuff for submission into a web archive. I think the encylopedic writing style that this site enforces is not a good match for how I want to write. The math/sci site editors/admins (a certain handfull of accounts) are kind of harsh on new wiki writers and make the process discouraging. The web format of this site is also difficult to edit with math in it.Twy2008 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible personal bias for AfD I see that JohnBlackburne is the author of Plane of rotation. It looks like he may have some personal issue against my article since the subject matter is closely ralated. Perhaps a strong sense of priority or other similar feeling that could be cultural to his location in the UK. His article covers bivectors and some similar rotational math, but does not appear (I only glanced it over) to discuss the biradial approach nor the many other (I guess excessive) details I also include in my article on both the quaternion and geometric algebra approaches to rotation. The Plane of rotation article takes only the geometric algebra approach to rotation, referencing to works of the Cambridge geometric algebra group. Arguably, the Plane of rotation article could also be put up for deletion since much of the material there is likely also found in other existing articles. I see how things really work around here.Twy2008 (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Quaternion rotation biradial" appears to be an obsolete historical term for the product of an imaginary quaternion and the multiplicative inverse of another imaginary quaternion and, as such, is an unnecessary content fork of the main article quaternion. I could not find a single reputable use of the term after about 1920, with most google books hits from before 1900, mostly to Hamilton himself. Wikipedia should not be in the business of promoting new terms for things (WP:NEOLOGISM) and, by extension, should not be in the business of resurrecting obsolete terms for things as if they were still in wide use. Many of the terms in the article have this character: "quadrantal versor", etc. The notation, too, is unwieldy and unexplained, and seems almost deliberately calculated to produce an impenetrable text. The fact that quaternions can be understood "actively" as rotations (and dilations) is elementary in modern mathematics, without the need to dust off old unused concepts from the 19th century. It is, in fact, already the subject of the article quaternions and spatial rotation. I would not object to pointing out there the geometrical interpretation of $ab^{-1}$ , but I don't see that a separate article written in an impenetrable archaic style is warranted. The second section of the paper, on the "geometric algebra" perspective, appears to be entirely the author's own original research, and as such is not allowed here anyway. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care very much if the article is actually deleted, but I wanted to comment that your perspective on what is archaic is probably distorted. In the history of mathematics, Hamilton's work is still considered relatively recent and has been very important. Prior to Hamilton's work, people studied Euclid's Elements unchanged for about 2000 years under candlelight with virtually no technology or progress of any kind. Do you realize that Hamilton's work on quaternions, starting from what he called biradials, kicked off our modern technological age by providing the mathematical tools needed for Maxwell to express his electromagnetic theory. Also realize that 100 years after relativity theory was invented, education on it is still very poor due to suppressed mathematical development, partly that of quaternions and Clifford algebras. There is no resurrecting of a term that is perfectly defined in a book which is now also free on archive.org, and this suggests more that you would like to bury the information for some reason I can't really understand. In mathematics, any author is always free to invent whatever terminology and notation they like, so your opinion on that is not very relevant. Your opinion of it being impenetrable is not likely shared by many who would make use of the article and the subject in general. You are one of those certain handful of accounts that speaks up negatively quite often in ways not entirely justified. Your comments are a lot of arrogant hand waving. Technically, the article may be in violation some WP rules, because I jumped in not knowning them all and there are so many rules that it isn't too hard for a nitpicker to find some rule an article is breaking. The article has problems, and so do you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twy2008 (talk • contribs) 02:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will overlook the ad hominem personal attacks. I do not mean to criticize Hamilton's work. But his terminology simply did not survive the test of time. We should not write encyclopedia articles on concepts that remain in wide use, using old unused terms for them. There is no comparison with Euclid. Any concept in Euclid can be found in thousands of more modern sources If we absolutely must, we should indicate that the terminology in the article is never used outside the encyclopedia and a few texts that are mostly of historical interest now. And we should presumably have a good reason for doing that. But if the purpose is just to have an article on concepts that are already covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia in a more standard way, just in a language that no one has used in over 100 years—just because it's "out there"—this is not very compelling. Secondly, you have here said that the article is not impenetrable to those who would have use of it. So presumably I am not included in the target audience. Yet I wonder who that audience could be, as you use strange notation, like "Sq", "Vq", etc, which is never made clear, and strange terminology which I cannot find in any sources written in over one hundred years. When an article on elementary mathematics is written in a way that it cannot be understood by mathemticians, one has to seriously wonder what the target audience is. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no personal attacks... but you clearly have something personal against the article and subject. To quote you, "GA people... some of them are a little wacky" is what you said in the talk page of this article for deletion. I am for delete now, but still I felt it necessary to point out the hipocracy and some unexpected politics around here about articles which have competing/overlapping content. This whole AfD is like a turf war within the enclopedia, because the format doesn't allow for overlapping content, although the article has other issues also. You are acting in defense of the other articles on quaternions and spatial rotations of which you have done some editing. It's okay, I just found this aspect of the site surprising. Twy2008 (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you brought up the conversation on the talk page, because I had forgotten about that. I see how my own comment could give the impression of a "turf war", but the intent was the opposite. I had wanted to encourage involvement of other editors to assist with an article that was clearly unsuitable in its present form. (Crude but obvious issues are WP:LENGTH, WP:MTAA.) Unfortunately, that comment did not successfully recruit any experts to help. Instead, three editors knowledgeable about geometric algebra and abstract algebra suggested deletion as a possible outcome instead.

I am astonished at the claim that I have edited the article quaternions and spatial rotation. I can find no evidence that I have ever edited that page. (Indeed, if I had, I think the article would be rather better than it is now.)

But anyway, my reasons for voting deletion here have nothing at all to do with any real or imagined "turf war", articles that I have or have not edited. I have already given those reasons, but here they are again. (1) Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing neologisms (WP:NEOLOGISM). The present article contains a number of those neologisms, for explaining concepts that are usually referred to by other terms and in other ways (WP:POVFORK, WP:NPOV). (2) Wikipedia should not contain original research. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I support the deletion of the article, and all of my other contributions on this site while we're at it. I could explain why, but it is a waste of time here.Twy2008 (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from making you look like a diva, this comment is unlikely to achieve much to form consensus, be it for or against deletion of the article.

Let me tell you that feuds between editors are resolved (when they are) most often by external intervention. Instead of arguing against the characters, plead the facts - not to the opponent's lawyer, but to the court. Tigraan (talk) 11:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very simply, this comment of yours was out of line. This is not a discussion for you to enter into only to make a trolling statement. I entered a delete because it seemed to be the best way to concede that the article has problems and I'm okay with deletion. I explained enough already that the format of this site is at odds with how I wanted to write, and am not threatening to quit as a diva or whatever, I am in fact leaving this site because I want to write in another style. I misunderstood how this site works. It was a mistake to write here. The writing on this site is mainly of a librarian nature, to summarize or paraphrase verbatim abstracts of subjects with only basic definitions and then lots of references to verify notability. The articles here do not actually require subject experts to write them when the article is written strictly according to expected encyclopedic standards. I tried to write too far beyond the format limits. Congrats on making your seemingly clever usage of the diva article. This is probably my last comment here, because I can see that this discussion has lost its true point, ad nauseam.Twy2008 (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 15:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 11:58, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brain fart[edit]

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

Dictionary definitions with little or no possibility of expansion. The sourced definition has already been added to Wiktionary. (The previous AfD mentioned a PNAS article as a possible source demonstrating the notability of this topic, though that article does not mention the term "brain fart" and no evidence was presented that it even describes the same phenomenon.) Psychonaut (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary definition. It's one of many terms for an error, and not a single, exact concept. Wikipedia has entries on specific types of mistake like Freudian slip, Lapsus, Typographical error, Clerical error, not on every colloquial term for a general mistake. I guess you could redirect to error but that doesn't seem quite the same. Colapeninsula (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Colapeninsula. Graham87 14:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Colapeninsula. Kierzek (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Default mode network, which is where the bulk of the original article was moved to back in September. See [29] -- Kendrick7^talk 06:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly delete Per Colapeninsula, except this leaves a gap for an article about a small lapse of attention or small bout of absentmindedness. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if not DICTDEF, then absolutely WP:PERMASTUB. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 21:08, 15 July 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. There is clearly no consensus to delete this article, even taking into account some of the slightly weak arguments presented for keeping it. Moving or merging the content is, of course, an editorial issue and not one for AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of night buses in London[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

These routes are discussed at Buses in London and listed at List of bus routes in London. This article is redundant and basically just fancruft. I am not finding significant third party secondary sources that cover this set of routes apart from the day routes, thus fails WP:N. Also fails WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Charles (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - We don't need a duplicate article - One will suffice and that's basically at List of bus routes in London#Night only routes (N-prefixed), Shame we can't get rid of ~~List of bus routes in London too.~~ both articles altogether. –Davey2010^Talk 01:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you want this deleted because it's a duplicate of an article you don't think should exist? Strange logic. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I trying to say was I don't think either should exist..... –Davey2010^Talk 14:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep London's public transport is much reduced at night with the Tube network closing for maintenance, so the night bus service is of particular interest. The topic is notable on account of the length of time these services have been running (over a century), there has been a book written on this specific subject London's Night Buses, and there is much more coverage in the extensive works on London's bus services past and present. I'd like to see further work done on the history of these individual routes and there is scope for other improvement, but there are a lot of facts gathered here in an accessible way that would be of particular relevance to someone with both a cursory and keen interest in the subject.Poltair (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if a single book is enough to meet the significant secondary coverage requirement of WP:GNG for a stand alone article. Better to expand the existing coverage at Buses in London which is currently unsourced. We do not need a content fork list showing every stop contrary to WP:NOT.Charles (talk) 08:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur! That's why there are undoubtedly schedules printed and online by the local transportation authority. That's their job, not Wikipedia's! Tapered (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki: "a website or database developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content." There's nothing wrong with providing this useful list of information, and it is more convenient for people to search for a list of nightbuses rather than trying to spot out nightbus routes on the list of bus routes article. Deleting this article is just an unnecessary inconvenience. 92.24.203.143 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This community of users has chosen not to provide a directory or guide, so there is everything wrong with it on this wiki.Charles (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per User:Poltair's argument. --92slim (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:PERNOM..... –Davey2010^Talk 22:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references are secondary sources concerning themselves with this list. Violates WP:GNG. Don't let the door hit this article on its way out. Tapered (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main list of bus routes in London is over 100K and so, per WP:SIZE, it is reasonable to split off a portion such as this. The subdivision has independent notability per WP:LISTN as there are substantial sources such as London's Night Buses, The Night Bus and London's worst bus routes at night. Andrew D. (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These routes are included in List of bus routes in London, not split off. The sources given should be used to improve prose content at Buses in London instead of to justify a pointless duplicate article. If the article is kept it will have to be cut down to a basic list without all the cruft anyway.Charles (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Poltair & Andrew D reasoning, although could do with more cites, will attempt to add before end of nomination period. Looloo18 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done N1-N9 copyedited, will wait for resolution on this discussion before proceeding. Looloo18 (talk) 03:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I predict that the majority of "Keeps" with no rational refutation of the "Deletes" will be accepted as "concensus," and this turkey will continue to soil Wikipedia in the same way that turkeys not in their natural environment or in a barnyard would soil a pristine golf course. Tapered (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Comment Many thanks for the pearls of wisdom Nostradamus Busgb (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment It depends if the closing admin has the balls to apply Wikipedia policy and disregard the WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:INTERESTING !votes.Charles (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep prose section now added, if consensus is to retain, suggest article be renamed London Night Bus network or similar. Busgb (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move the prose to Buses in London and delete this unencyclopedic and duplicate list.Charles (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Charles. Tapered (talk) 03:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep In light of efforts to improve since AfD nomination through addition of prose and more appropriate cites (kudos to those involved), a keep. Astbam (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is mostly written from primary sources, the transport authority and bus company websites, which rapidly change and are not stable sources. Secondary sources are needed to meet WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that whatever improvements are made, it will still violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Tapered (talk) 07:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep While the article does draw on primary citations, notably from Transport for London, given that it is the organisation that oversees the service does stand to reason there will be some. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states primary sources can be used, but should be done so with caution. By and large in this article they are used to verify basic facts, such as where routes operate from/to, with much of the other information backed up by secondary cites from trade press, national newspaper and printed sources.

There are some inappropriate cites, E-Plates and a few others, that need to be weeded out, but based on the recent work carried out since the nomination on the lead and routes N1 to N9, this has been addressed, although obviously still a work in progress.

By comparison the List of bus routes in London#Night only routes (N-prefixed) article which it has been suggested this article is a duplicate of, is just a list with zero cites. While the article may have been in violation of WP:NOTGUIDE, as it has evolved to have more of a history focus, probably no longer applicable. Castroex (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The history can and should be covered at the Buses in London article instead of being a lame excuse for keeping an unencyclopedic list.Charles (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Blocked a bunch of socks. More input from reputable editors would be greatly appreciated. slakr^\ talk / 11:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 11:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update I popped into the London Transport Museum to check the sources and was most impressed by Phillip Wallis's work which is very substantial - two volumes and hundreds of pages. It has a historical focus, going back to 1903 and so WP:NOTGUIDE is irrelevant as we have a rich history to cover besides the current service. Deletion still makes no sense and so my !vote is unchanged. Andrew D. (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This fails to explain why the history of night routes cannot be covered at Buses in London instead of tacking it onto a list of routes. Wikipedia is not intended to go into levels of trivial detail that will be of interest to only a few enthusiasts.Charles (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Wikipedia is not a travel guide; however until List of bus routes in London is made less for travel purposes by removing all the intricate detail that would belong on a travel guide, making it long; it is a plausible split article and notable subject; also of considerable reader interest (~2,500 / month). Until its parent article is compressed, this should stay. Esquivalience ^t 16:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of one article is not normally determined by the state of related articles. AfD is not cleanup.Charles (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not cleanup is an argument to keep, not to delete an article. Notability is not the same as inclusion. There are different standards for list and split articles, and split articles are determined by the state of its parent article. How is merely keeping an article cleanup? Esquivalience ^t 18:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DINC is just an essay. Which policy says there are different standards for parent and split articles?Charles (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Night buses in London. The amount of coverage seems to be enough for a separate article rather than cutting it down to fit in another article but the list can be reduced in size (and maybe removed completely, replaced with a link to the relevant section of the main list) - infoboxes and full routes are excessive detail, and much of the prose for individual routes lacks sources. Peter James (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Requires work, but Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another essay. The house that needs to be worked on is Buses in London, not this redundant content fork.Charles (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am not a very active editor on the English Wikipedia, I hope it's ok if I answer too. In my opinion this list isn't redundant to List of bus routes in London, because this page explains more about each night bus line (good example: line N11) than the other list does and could do. I'd say keep --Metrophil44 (talk) 15:12, 16 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Master Chandan[edit]

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

Declined speedy, because of the newspaper sources. Sure, there's coverage but ultimately I'd say WP:NOTNEWS, this is just a typical weepie news story, & probably the result of a PR push by the Indian Air force. The coverage is pretty well all a single cluster datewise TheLongTone (talk) 11:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BLP1E as "boy rides flight simulator" does not seem a significant event, there's barely any information about him in the sources (not even a full name) and he is "likely to remain a low-profile individual" having died in 2014. --McGeddon (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in the slightest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Due to significance coverage in reliable sources one can consider it to be notable but as per People notable for only one event, it should not be considered notable. — CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks sigcov. Tragic but a "make-a-wish" kid, no matter the nationality, is probably not notable for illness and death alone. EricSerge (talk) 17:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a sad event and some mention in the local newspapers but it doesnt really rise over the notability bar. MilborneOne (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But let's not see this as a Cancer boy given the opportunity to operate a flight simulator of the Indian Air Force. I wanted to share this story to the world that a dream of a child was fulfilled before his premature death. Just please google and see how many cancer kids got this opportunity. May be this will inspire more organizations to come forward to fulfil wish of Cancer fighter Chandan. He was living on payment outside hospital as his parents could not afford treatment, and later got opportunity like this before his death. Pls delete this article. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shibanihk (talk • contribs) 10:52, 9 July 2015 ‎

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

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

The result was speedy Deleted (A1). by RHAworth (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 20:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet saying about hazrat ali[edit]

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

Random selection of excerps from gthe hadith, no reason given why this selection is of particular importance. TheLongTone (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this belongs at somewhere like https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ali rather than here. --McGeddon (talk) 11:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatantly not an encyclopedia article. Bosstopher (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not an encyclopedia article. –Fitnr 18:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A1 - Tagged as such as I'm guessing it's a poem but either way as it stands it's useless, As for the A1 - I wasn't sure on what the hell to tag it under so figured something's better than nothing. –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Head of Family Sokeship Council[edit]

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

Non notable self congratulatory organization. The article is promotional and had been declined several times during AfC for lack of reliable third party sources. Bypassing the process did not change the situation. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete for now (and maybe draft/userfy for now) simply because I can see this being a better article in the future but, at this time, I'm not seeing many good sources with my searches here, here (quite a few results, particularly Black Belt magazine and it mentions some of the honrs "most prestigious, largest organization, etc) and here but I'm not sure if that's enough. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of this organization. The coverage I found generally consisted of "so and so is being honored by the WHFSC", which is neither independent nor significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 20:12, 12 July 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) Kraxler (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Kabul Parliament attack[edit]

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

This was redirected to War in Afghanistan (2015–present). However, certain people, including one sockpuppet, kept recovering the article without explanation other than "it's important". Content of the article has been copied already to the other article. Therefore, there is no need to keep this article any longer. I don't mind it being "merged" as long as the discussion reaches the conclusion. By the way, the creator of the article have agreed the merger; so have I. George Ho (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in every major western news outlet. http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2015/jun/22/afghanistan-parliament-attack-live-updates http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/23/uk-afghanistan-blast-idUKKBN0P20G020150623 http://www.voanews.com/content/kabul-blames-haqqani-network-pakistan-for-parliament-attack/2836385.html http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/06/explosions-gunfire-rock-afghan-parliament-kabul-150622060232229.html http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33221051 Stuartyeates (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a significant event. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Significant event 178.135.80.11 (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above.

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. Davewild (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KOI-1686.01[edit]

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

This was a notable candidate exoplanet with some media coverage for being similar to Earth. On further observation, however, it was found that the exoplanet does not exist. It was a statistical error. As such, I posit that it is no longer notable. I understand that this contradicts WP:NTEMP, but I argue that the guideline should be ignored in this case per WP:COMMONSENSE. A2soup (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entries in databases is not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, for so many reasons. First, absolutely no significant coverage in actual scientific studies or the press, with only 7 refs throughout history ([30]). Second, currently the existence of an article actively misinforms readers that the false positive is in any way notable and may exist, when it clearly does not have a planet and has no noteworthy properties. Also, the article itself at the moment is, frankly, a piece of garbage, with the only text demonstrating any noteworthiness being sourced to Wikipedia. Get rid of this before it misinforms more readers. Same goes to all similar articles. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kepler object of interest#False positives. Praemonitus (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Oppose? Everybody has their own vision of common sense, so basing your opinion just on it is ineffective. Opinions should be then based on the established guidelines. The mentioned “notability is not temporary” principle is a very strong counterargument. If needed, we can merge the article into a dedicated “false positive” list or just improved, depending on the situation. — NickTheRed37 (0x54 · 0x43) 17:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument about common sense, but in this case, in which the article is literally a statistical error in the data gathered from a single scientific experiment, I felt justified arguing from common sense. Re WP:NTEMP, this article was supposedly notable (and I realize now, likely not actually notable per WP:NASTRO) only on false premises, namely that it was Earth-like and that it existed. Re merge to list, I concede that it is possible that a List of former exoplanet candidates identified as false positives might meet WP:GNG, since the possibility and presence of false positives in such data is widely discussed. A2soup (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a cost-benefit to having such a list; it would probably be of little interest and still need plenty of upkeep. My only reason for suggesting a redirect was for search purposes, in case somebody came looking on Wikipedia based on outdated information. Praemonitus (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per StringTheory11. There might be merits to a List of former exoplanet candidates identified as false positives, but I really don't see the point. There will be hundreds of those over the years, if not thousands. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:44, 15 July 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Janni Spies[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources in sv.wiki. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And specifically those are? reddogsix (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on notability definitely a Keep. Based on quality of article I would be inclined to delete it and wait for somebody to come along and actually write an article. Examples om mentiones in media: [31], [32], [33]. I could probably find thousands like that. --Harthacnut (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can agree with Harthacnut about the sources. Problem was, I discovered Janni Spies as a RED link. I thought about it, and found *(if not thousands so atleast) some 100's of old tabloid stuff. However, [34] is from a television interview or television documentary. Also the article on Simon Spies ought to be increased and improved. For around 5 years or so he participated more in the hippie-movement than run his travelling agency and Conair of Scandinavia. The article on Janni Spies was something of a stub or a beginning. But using point A6 in order to delete the article would be a gigantic error. I stopped at the point where she redrew herself from publish life. But it's not an exaggeration that she was the second most famous woman in Denmark from 1983 until the mid 90's. And she was well-known in many other nations. Boeing720 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Boeing720, but Harthacnut has a point about the quality of the article, so: Keep and improve. --Palnatoke (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's always problematic without proper litterature. But this was a question of "notability" , which surely doesn't lack in this case. Boeing720 (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep and suggest nom withdraw the nomination. Despite the article having editorial challenges it never was a candidate for speedy deletion under A7 as suggested. And no matter that a new user subsequently reduced it to a one-liner, WP:BEFORE is not optional and can hardly have been followed in this case. Had it been followed, nom would have noticed the thousands of online sources, among them are subject's entries in both Kraks Blå Bog and in Den Store Danske Encyklopædi, which they erroneously identify as trivial. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More inclined to keep - Although the article could be a little better (and I'm familiar with reddogsix's noms), (not being fluent with Danish) I think this can be kept given the sources and the "one of five wealthiest in Denmark" is notable. If there are more good sources, they're going to obviously be in Danish. SwisterTwister talk 21:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to User:reddogsix and Sam Sailor. I agree in most of Sailors criticism, but when I noticed the deletion proposal which I never have experienced in this way previously. There was explination at the talk-page (and my messages number showed ZERO). However I shouldn't have attempted to re-create the article as I did, I'm sorry, this may explain some of Your criticism, Sam Sailor. Part of it may be my fault. But not all. Is it too much to ask of for instance the reason to why this article suddenly was proposed to be deleted. And then finding out the proposal reason to be lack of notability is to me a bad joke. And I'm not even Danish. Boeing720 (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 - The day before this silly proposal, had the article indeed been patrolled without complaints by sign "GBL GBL", are such patrols entirely without matter ? Boeing720 (talk) 03:59, 12 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Story-to-song[edit]

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

Method of songwriting developed by two PhD students a few years ago; only secondary source is somebody (Marieke Slovin?) being interviewed about writing songs in a coffee shop for a local news item on the area, and this is WP:NEWSPRIMARY. Fails WP:GNG with no appropriate secondary sources. McGeddon (talk) 08:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- Haven't been able to find any independent secondary sources that establish notability. Therefore looks like this fails WP:GNG. If two such sources can be found will be happy to change my view. -- Shudde ^talk 10:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from the local news clip, I can find no sources besides those written by or affiliated with the page creator. Kolbasz (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's not a lot of information to thicken my searches but from what I found, there's nothing good to improve and I found several results for other things but not specifically this.. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 11 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jokerz[edit]

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

Yet another slice of comics fancruft with no mention from outside the primary fictional material itself. Per many, many similar articles, we do not consider that alone to achieve notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage outside fan wikis. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of coverage with relation to Gotham City Imposters such as [35], [36], [37], [38]. Not to mention coverage with relation to the comics (see [39], [40]). All of these in addition to increasing use in all mediums related to the "Batman" universe (comic books, animated series, animated films, video games, etc) suggests notability. ~ Rob^Talk 16:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather keep as this was a mention-worthy villain of Batman Beyond and can be improved. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 ^Talk 13:04, 14 July 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 Captain Planet and the Planeteers. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Planet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Just plot summary. No real world information. Fangusu (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Not much there that isn't already in the main series article. Also delete the associated template since nearly all of the links redirect to the series, negating any real navigational benefit. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Captain Planet and the Planeteers. No notability outside of the show. Darx9url (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Captain Planet and the Planeteers. Standalone article not warranted in its current state.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Captain Planet and the Planeteers - Seems better than deletion imho, Bit too early to close for my liking hence !voting instead. –Davey2010^Talk 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Captain Planet and the Planeteers - Most people searching for "Captain Planet" are looking for the TV show, not the title character. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather redirect for now as my searches found several results but maybe not enough for an independent article for now, here, here, here, here and here. SwisterTwister talk 21:35, 11 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ras Barker[edit]

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

Was PROD'ed by another editor but the template has been removed by the original author, with no significant improvement. Article is largely cited to his IMDb entry, and this makes it clear Barker's contributions as an actor were very minor (only one credited appearance in each of the listed UK soap operas, for example). His film, Life is a Circus looks like it falls short of notability, with one very minor award. Overal there lacks any evidence of significant news coverage or achievements by this actor, he fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as CSD A7. This is an article about a person that seems to lack notibility. Article has been tagged with {{db-person}}. Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing independent here. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR with pretty skimpy credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:45, 8 July 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) JAaron95 ^Talk 13:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Mongolia[edit]

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

Unsourced, non-notable pageant fails WP:NEVENTS and WP:GNG Flat Out (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - national pageant, winner goes to Miss Universe etc. No doubt it receives sufficient coverage in Mongolia. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikimandia can you provide any reliable sources to support notability?.There are none at the moment. Flat Out (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - national final for worlds biggest beauty pageant. per WP:GNG--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - to pass WP:GNG it would need to be sourced. If you are going to apply notability criteria you first need a source. Flat Out (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable pageant and as beautifully demonstrated above fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have no case as it doesnt fail GNG. Simply because you write that doesnt mean it trumps facts. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is quite literally the most absurd statement anyone has ever made on here!, I really cannot understand that logic at all! But anyway I have searched on Google and High Beam and found nothing so therefore it fails GNG, The onus is on you to find sources and to add them considering you're !voting to Keep but you both haven't provided one single source .... I wonder why ? ... Maybe because it fails GNG?!. –Davey2010^Talk 14:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

well said Davey2010, how someone can claim WP:GNG on a poorly sourced article without actually citing sources is making a mockery of the AfD process. LibStar (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Says the user that uses this AfD as his personal litter box. Talk about mockery of the AfD process Libstar.. own goals are always welcomed.Now please drop the stick...... And Davey, your delete reasonings are absurd. And factory produced it seems, they are copy-paste right. I am done with both of you. Play...--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of arguing with everyone why don't you find sources ? ... Oh wait you can't because there is none!, Throwing your dolls out of the pram does you no favours you know..... –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

quite simple, you can't argue WP:GNG and show no evidence of sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. You know how WP works, you are not a new user so just saying WP:GNG is met isn't good enough. 3 users: Davey, flat out and myself have pointed this out to you but you stubbornly refuse to listen. LibStar (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~keep agree with Davey2010. Onus is on keep !voters to demonstrate coverage to meet WP:GNG which they haven't done. There is no inherent notability of national fashion pageants. LibStar (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in light of Cavarrone's genuine attempt to establish existence of sources, I am changing to keep. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable contest, regularly well covered in native-language mainstream news organs, eg. [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]... there are just several thousand of available sources to check out there for anyone who care of searching news about something Mongolian under its Mongolian name. Cavarrone 22:32, 8 July 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Rae Costello[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSICBIO. Mutt Lunker (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- If not meeting WP:GNG then very very close. [56] is probably not enough to establish notability alone, but has enough of a mention in [57] [58] [59] to push it over the edge. Someone with access to a greater number of Fijian and Pacific Island news sources will probably be able to find more and make this a crystal clear keep. -- Shudde ^talk 04:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fiji's MOST recognised musician and probably the best known musician in the South Pacific, semi-retired nowadays but that shouldn't matter, with over 30 albums and he toured New Zealand last year. An article like this should go through an AfD where it can be noticed, instead if twas PROD'ed thus i had to find an admin who was involved in fiji related topics to restore it...There isn't much i could do about the Link rot, i wrote the article in late 2008, If you are aware of media in fiji, not much gets published ONLINE, its mainly print since the 70's ..--Ste moc 05:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This man is a household name in Fiji. Not surprised if you've never heard of him, but some people in Fiji have probably never heard of the Beatles. So what? The sources mentiond by the previous three users can be added to the article, too. I'll have a crack at it when I get home from work later on. David Cannon (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is only one source noted at the article, The Samoa Observer, which even hints at notability. The recent addition that he is featured on Reverbnation and Last.FM falls very far short of fulfilling WP:MUSICBIO and denotes only that he has recorded music essentially; the former site is, as I understand it, effectively a self-publishing one anyway. My nomination was purely down to the lack of indication of notability at the article. If, as @Shudde says, there are in fact reliable sources which do indicate his notability, fine, finding them and adding them may resolve the matter. If he truly is a household name anywhere, sources will exist. Going straight to the gutter and shrilly accusing me of racist motives at my talk page is astonishing, baseless and unbecoming, particularly for an admin. Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not accuse you of racist motivations. I did say that is the only rationale that would "justify" doing nothing about the built-in bias towards large countries and "dominant" (read Anglo-Saxon) cultures. You've heard of the Beatles, right? Of course you have; you're an English-speaker and they're part of your culture (and mine). So it's natural that we'd consider them "notable" without a second thought. Haven't heard of Costello? Maybe not; he's not part of your culture (or mine) - so our built in bias is against recognizing his notability. That doesn't mean that it doesn't exist! Yes, I used hyperbole on your talk page, because I think we English-speakers (certainly including myself) tend to have a certain blind spot towards other cultures. We just don't know what we don't know. David Cannon (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And none of this has anything to do with my nomination. It may have been weasel-worded but you clearly accused me of racism, "unless we are racists who regard their cultures as worthless". Who are you addressing if not me? Again above you assume what my motivations and prejudices are. I'm sure the culture he is from, which at least in part and in addition is an English-speaking one, has reliable sources available and to suggest otherwise would appear to belittle it. They were not listed in the article despite the apparent attempt to find them, suggesting that they may not be there because he is not notable. I did not nominate the article because the subject is apprently non-notable in my culture but because there was insufficient indication that there was notability in his own. If he is in fact notable, no problem but let's demonstrate it. To excuse the requirement for the demonstration of notability for any article leaves us open to the inclusion of fan sites without redress and introduces a systemic bias of its own. Other contributors here are calmly and constructively sticking to the matter at hand, so I would advise you to drop baseless hyperbolics from your arsenal. If the end result is an improved article where notability is no longer under question I'd be delighted but let's stick to the issues with the article, not the imagined motives of the contributors to the discussion. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- - Now that I've been away for a couple of hours, I can see that my poor choice of words gave you reason to read into my statement an accusation of racism that was not intended. I was being sarcastic, and this is the wrong forum to do that. For that I apologise. David Cannon (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, happy to drop the discussion about racism. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep per http://natlib.govt.nz/items?utf8=%E2%9C%93&text=Daniel+Rae+Costello http://tokelau.org.nz/Bulletin/August+2014+pre-SIDS/My+Tokelau+song+launched+for+SIDS.html and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=2049225 Closing admin welcome to ping me to help tidy the article if kept. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some relevant quotes found on The Fiji Times

"His (Laisenia Tuedrea's) live music experience went up another level when he was invited to be part of local music legend Daniel Rae Costello's band, The Cruzez" [60]

"True Harmony was originally recorded by Daniel Rae Costello in 1997 and became a hit both locally and in the region." [61]

Unfortunately The Fiji Times archives don't work very well and don't appear to go back that far.

Some other hits were

Life and times of an icon - Fiji Times Online

Feb 14, 2010 ... The late Daniel Costello, widely known as Big Dan .... It's a time in my life that I will never forget," reminisced Danny Rae Costello. In fact, it was ...

Danny calls the islands - Fiji Times Online

Jan 4, 2009 ... WATCH out Oceania, Daniel Rae Costello is back and ready to rock 2009. The man with one of the most natural voices in the region has not ...

Willie wows 'em all - Fiji Times Online

Jul 19, 2010 ... Organiser Daniel Rae Costello and his band, The Cruzez, also delivered two of their most memorable hits Take Me To The Island and Samba ...

"Life and times of an icon" looks like it would be a VERY useful reference.

Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:29, 10 July 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) Kraxler (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adebisi Akanji[edit]

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

Not Notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This artist's work is displayed at major museums, and a Google books search turns up many mentions of the artist in general texts such as Contemporary Art in Africa, African Arts, A History of Art in Africa, and Every Man's Guide to Nigerian Art. CordeliaNaismith (talk)

Could you please point out enough reliable sources that validates your claims? Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of links to books that mention this artist. A quick google books search turns up many other books that mention this artist. Unfortunately, most of these are snippet view so can't be easily used for this article, but the many references to this artist in general texts indicate his notability.

Contemporary Art in Africa
A History of Art in Africa
Every Man's Guide to Nigerian Art

CordeliaNaismith (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but A sculptor notable in African art but I think there are some copyright issues with this brief entry. I think they can be easily addressed but they should be taken care of as it looks as if some of his bio is taken off a website. It would also help if we had a death date as the article discusses him in the past tense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 10 July 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 per WP:SNOW. Inco33, I can e-mail you a copy of the article if you want to try posting this somewhere other than Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon State Hospital Phone Numbers[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIR or WP:NOTWHITE. reddogsix (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#REASON and I dont see "Wikipedia is not a Directory" as a reason to delete the article, I feel its important information that needs to be published.--Inco33 (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand it says on WP:NOTDIR that articles are not directories for or a resource for conducting business, but this isnt for business--Inco33 (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The entry above it reads,"The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are not encyclopedic. Likewise, disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person in the world named John Smith—just the notable ones." reddogsix (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I placed a link to the official website at the Oregon State Hospital page so anyone can navigate from there to the phone numbers. This is not the place for them.--Oakshade (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what is a place for them?--Inco33 (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have read WP:NOTDIR, you may have seen a link to WP:OUT, please read through that. You might try asking about where you can publish a directory at the reference desk. Valfontis (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Page 7. --Oakshade (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a phone directory. Valfontis (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks - for suggestions.--Inco33 (talk) 02:55, 7 July 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) 08:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevergrind[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The current sources are all primary (the official website and an interview without commentary), unreliable (Indie Game Mag and the previously-mentioned Cliqist, neither of which have any reputation as reliable sources), crowd-funded and user-submitted (IndieDB and Kickstarter), and portal sites (Crazy Games and Kongregate). I am unable to find any sources vetted by WikiProject Video games and searches using both the WPVG reliable and situational custom Google searches returned "No Results". A normal Google search finds the typical social media, forums, and spam sites. Note that the article creator, User:Maelfyn, is the self-described "developer of Nevergrind and founder of Neverworks Games". (I have also warned him about WP:COI. If the article survives AfD, it will have to be rewritten to remove POV and spammy language.) Ironically, the game looks fun—probably something I'd play if I weren't elbow deep in several other games—but that isn't currently part of our notability requirements. Woodroar (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Woodroar (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 01:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Woodroar. I couldn't find any additional sources, and certainly not any that were reliable and third-party. It's worth noting that Indie Game Mag's review lists at the bottom a call for developers to submit their games for possible feature, meaning that their process of selecting games to review is not particularly selective. Either way, a single review from a non-mainstream site does not establish notability. ~ Rob^Talk 01:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's not a great source at all. User:Czar actually started a discussion about IGM over a year ago with some solid arguments against. Woodroar (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that this game is ultimately notable enough for an article. It looks like it exists... and that's about it. If I thought that there would be a chance of this surviving AfD I'd re-write it, but I can't find anything that would show notability. I don't see where any of the typical gaming RS outlets have given this any media attention - not even a routine notification that the game is in production or that they held a Kickstarter campaign. (Although it's not for lack of trying - the game's creator does seem to be trying hard to drum up interest.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please delete this article. Sorry for wasting your time. Thank you. Maelfyn (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to others who may be inclined to nominate for speedy deletion under G7, this is probably not eligible because an IP editor made substantial edits to the article. ~ Rob^Talk 13:42, 7 July 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. Davewild (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Console war[edit]

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

Article seems to exist entirely to link the real world phenomenon with the fictional Hyperdimension Neptunia universe. Salient conent from those sections should be merged to those articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPIRE (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

It is better to use Afd than edit warring. However, please note that everyone in Talk:Console war do not agree with your action. Furthermore, the concept of "Console War" in Hyperdimension Neptunia is directly based on real world competition of PlayStation, Wii, Xbox etc, so they are very related to co-exist in the same article. --Cartakes (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article is the Hyperdimension Neptunia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMPIRE (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep, your rationale -- assuming this is OMPIRE -- is confusing and objectively wrong. Claims you make are easily refuted by simply searching for word strings, so in no way is the "conent" the same. This should be the end of the matter, Wikipedia is not up to your personal whims, but based on policies and consensus. JesseRafe (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, OMPIRE was trying to blank or redirect the page without any discussions or consensus in the talk page. He used to claim it was "entirely duplicate content" from various pages, but this is obviously not the case as also pointed out by other editors. --Cartakes (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that this page is malformatted and was not properly submitted, so does not appear at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 July 7. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so. I will try to fix it myself instead (it appears to work now). --Cartakes (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ~~History of video games. Trivialist (talk) 22:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)~~ Video game console. Trivialist (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The current article focuses on the concept of "console war" itself, and the article History of video games obviously does not cover them. Also, how about the section "In Popular Culture" (or so)? It really does not belong to History of video games at all. (Now you change the redirect target, which shows how uncertain you are with the redirect target itself) --Cartakes (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there needs to be a separate article for "console wars"; it seems to have been created mostly to talk about Hyperdimension Neptunia. Trivialist (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just Google for "Console war" -wikipedia (with quotes around "Console war"), there are 528,000 results. Obviously it is a commonly-used term, and a separate article explaining the term itself is certainly useful. The use of this term in Hyperdimension Neptunia series is directly based on the real world competition of PlayStation, Wii, Xbox etc, which is an example of the *extension* of this term into popular culture. An article explaining both the concept of "console war" in real world and the extension of this term in popular culture such as in Hyperdimension Neptunia series definitely makes much sense. --Cartakes (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given that the term is widely used within videogame literature to describe the commercial competition between system manufacturers. As a second fallback, a merge with History of video games might also work. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, a major famous aspect of video gaming. J 1982 (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory

[2] ttp://timesofsandiego.com/tech/2014/08/27/san-diego-company-provides-wifi-u-s-open/

[1]

[1]