Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 30: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 05:04, 7 June 2013

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 May	31 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 20:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T. Michelle Nelson

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

Promotional article for self published author. Only one book is in worldcat, with only 2 libraries holding it DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 23:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 23:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show that she's ultimately notable enough to be in Wikipedia. I see where she's developing a bit of a fan following in the reading blogosphere, but none of that is considered to be a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The closest thing I can find to a reliable source is a press release printed in a local paper and that's not usable either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a speck of evidence this person is notable. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the reasons above. Uberaccount (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 20:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Rizki

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

The only coverage is routine sports reporting so he doesn't meet WP:GNG. According to the article, he has one MMA fight for a new organization (Sherdog doesn't show any fights for him yet), so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. All of his claimed kickboxing championships are unsourced, most of them when he was a minor, and I found nothing to show he meets WP:KICK. Almost all of the google hits were about a footballer with the same name. When I put in his name and "kickboxer", Google returned only 10 hits (including WP and clones), none with significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 23:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost no evidence this person exists outside of brief mentions that may have stemmed from viewing the World Elite MMA Championship wiki page that has a 99.9% chance of being a hoax. Fails WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the creator of this page also created the aformentioned World Elite mma championship page. Luchuslu (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I cannot find sufficient coverage.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Abramsky (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 MasterChef India (season 3). J04n(talk page) 20:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ripu Daman Handa

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

Badly written bio. Possibly enough assertion of notability to escape speedy but very dubious whether notable enough for inclusion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 23:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (natter) @ 23:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Not a notable person. Poorly sourced (only non reliable/self created references provided i.e. Facebook). remove the pageJussychoulex (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MasterChef India (season 3). He has kinda trivial mentions in various newspapers. Looks like people might be interested in searching. Plus the competition is still going on and he could turn out to be a winner. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a reality TV show contestant is not a provided indicator of notability, and being the winner of one falls into WP:CRYSTAL territory. Redirect isn't wholly unreasonable but probably not necessary if the subject doesn't warrant an article, and their name in the main article can still be found via a search. - Vianello (Talk) 18:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Jussychoulex. Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 13:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MasterChef India. No notability independent of the programme. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - this seems very reasonable Uberaccount (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Cran

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

I spent a few minutes doing a quick copy edit and cleanup, hoping to bring some clarity to the article. I removed all the links to the subject's promotional profiles on various online training sites. The information in this article is all fairly available on the official website. We're not a web host. There are claims to authored books, but they all appear to be self-published. A search for reliable and independent sources merely returned a boatload of profiles on promotional sites. Little else here. In my opinion, it's wholly promotional, rather than encyclopedic. (Note that the previous AFD was closed when an editor deleted the article as spam. The 3rd article listed at the right is for a different subject.) Lacking additional reliable and independent sourcing provided here, I would recommend deletion. Cindy(talk) 19:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete as NN. Vanity page. reddogsix (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 22:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 22:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 22:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (parlez) @ 22:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no references provided that are independent of the subject. A google news search only comes up with articles she has written or brief, trivial mentions in news items that are not about her. Fails WP:GNG. freshacconci talktalk 00:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied this as spam last time out. The creator has taken note of my comments at that time, so it's improved enough that it at least merits this discussion. However, there are fundamental issues of insufficient notability and self- (or more like employee-) promotion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet the guidelines. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List Of Take a Ride Episodes

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

Probable hoax. Episode list with no series article. No ghits. Lead actor not listed in IMDb. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G3) - hoax. Google shows nothing (other than this article) when I search for the "show" and its "star" (or the show with any of the actors, characters, or directors); simply does not appear that the show exists. Gong show 20:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List Of So Life Episodes

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

Probable hoax. TV series episode list with no TV series article. No mention in IMDb and no ghits mention this. Purported lead actor not in IMDb. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G3) - hoax. Google shows nothing (other than this article) when I search for the "show" and its "star" (or the show with any of its directors), too hard for me to believe for a show that boasts millions of viewers over six seasons and a movie. Gong show 20:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be a coincidence, but "six seasons and a movie" is a joke originating on Community that has since become a meme of its own. postdlf (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (state) @ 22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 22:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 20:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mace Swinger

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

Unsourced video game article fails WP:NGAME and WP:CRYSTAL. - Mr X 18:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original PRODder with above rationale Theopolisme (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2013 (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) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about this yet to be released game. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Uberaccount (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 05:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetal Sapra

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

non notable physician and author--book is in only 10 libraries -- see also preceding afd DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Not a notable physician.Jussychoulex (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Co-authored a book, that seems to be the most notable thing they have done. Does this merit their own page? Going by the comment above about how popular this book is, I would say Delete. Lesion (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 05:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Khanna

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

non notable physician; book is in only 10 libraries. see also following AfD DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Not a notable doctor. Delete the page.Jussychoulex (talk) 04:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lesion (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Cindy(talk) 23:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Knight

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

This page is likely to have been written by Nigel Knight himself: the user who created it is Nvk21, which are indeed the initials of his name and his university email user ID. Jacopo.luppino (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs a rewrite, but I found reviews of 2 of his books in scholarly journals (one by the very distinguished scholar Vernon Bogdanor) - I added a section to the article - and his critical book on Churchill attracted some media interest. Meets WP:WRITER. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- The question is really how significant his two books are. I know that autobiography is deplored in WP, but he has succeeded in being reasonably objective. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Writing an autobio is discouraged, because it is very difficult to be neutral about oneself. However, it is not forbidden and it most certainly is not a reason for deletion. Perhaps the nom would care to provide a valid argument for deletion, if not, the proposal should be withdrawn. --Randykitty (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- reviews of his books + position establish notability under WP:PROF and probably WP:WRITER also. What Randykitty said holds. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A click on the Scholar button will show the issue. His work is absolutely trivial in impact. His books have 4 and 2 citations respectively, essentially two trees that dropped in the forest while noone was around. Fails other WP:ACADEMIC as well as general criteria too. Pared down to achievements, there is nothing noteworthy.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula and Mscurthbert; unambiguously meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR (4c). If it weren't for the above !vote I'd recommend speedy closure per point #1 of WP:SK, since the nomination statement is not an argument for deletion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously part of the debate, for better or worse, and sufficient refs. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tiny cites on GS. No hope of passing WP:Prof#1. ~~What else is there?~~ Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

What about reviews of books in journals? Or is there a WP guideline I don't know about that says that only Google Scholar online open-source citations count? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do count. It is puzzling though, that a professional academic has so little presence in the citation databases. Ray's comments below seem pertinent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep Fails WP:PROF and is highly dubious on WP:AUTHOR - a few critical (and unkind) reviews do not represent "significant critical attention." That said, he seems to be good at picking a topic that will garner media coverage, so passes WP:GNG just barely. Personally, I think Wikipedia could leave or take this article. Ray^Talk 04:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

365 Head

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

Reference to any reliable third party source can't be found on internet Benedictdilton (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: City and villages are generally kept. Have added geocode to verify existence. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Searching Google Books, I found this which seems to indicate that it might also be known as Rawla. Is this Rawla Mandi? The co-ordinates for the two places are very close together. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article about this village (with a peculiar name!) needs improvement and reliable sources; Keep as per WP:NPLACE Rayabhari (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 20:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Day to Day Economics

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

promotional page for a non notable book; Reads like a copyvio from theb ook jacket, but I have no way to verify that. DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No secondary sources found on Google search. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:BOOK.--JayJasper (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage to substantiate notability. I've removed the section about the author as it was copied from the Random House India author profile. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that this book meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Deli nk (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also, will rename: Khok Sung, Nakhon Ratchasima. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khok Sung

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

This is some sort of reference to the geography of Thailand, perhaps, but what it is exactly is unclear and unsourced. Gamaliel (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expect it is the municipality and subdistrict listed here. I think Khok Sung District is a different place. I doubt it's worth redirecting. Thincat (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Edited to provide some context. No opinion on deletion, but if kept, should be renamed to Khok Sung, Nakhon Ratchasima. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 07:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It does appear to be an actual district with population centers. [1] Agree that it should be renamed Khok Sung, Nakhon Ratchasima as there are several Khok Sungs in Thailand. --Oakshade (talk) 20:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade...real places get kept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thadeus House

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

No sources. The title of the article doesn't match anything in the text and it was created wholesale by what appears to be a single-purpose account. Gamaliel (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an extraordinary article. It seems entirely lacking in encyclopedic content and yet it has been around for five years and quite a lot of real people seem to have busied themselves updating it, correcting spelling mistakes, adding edit notices and all sorts. The bot interventions I can understand. If anyone can throw light on this strange behaviour I'd be delighted to change my !vote. Thincat (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sourcing for either the title in the article, nor the individual who seems to be the subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. There is an unsourced claim for Nadar's notability, but this article, as far as I can figure it out, is about the house of one of his descendents. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above, no coverage in reliable sources. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is really surprising, the article is there for last five years! Rayabhari (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not exactly random nonsense, but close to it. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar · · 06:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Marie Baiynd

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

Essentially promotional article, that I do not see how to fix. There are good references if someone could figure out how to rewrite it.

She is not notable as an authort--her book is in only 60 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - With all due respect to the nominator, this was just run through the AfD wringer this month. Notability is not temporary and all that... Correcting promotional tone is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - But since we are here for a second time and the nominator prefers another AfD to using the talk pages:

Baiynd is a notable retail trader. I decided not to write the article on the book and focus on her with the book included for the following reasons:

1. Baiynd regularly gives presentations to the Market Technicians Association. She has given three of the 107 archived weekly presentations available online and that is more than any of the other experts that have presented since the beginning of 2013 (I did not bother going back beyond this current year for this AfD).

2. The award winning StockTwits service includes Baiynd in their "Suggested list". Getting included in this list by itself is a kind of peer review and is not easy to attain.

3. Three three different books on trading include interviews or quotes by Baiynd (one predates her first book).

4. Multiple interviews and speaking engagements are available that predate her first book (Current refs 3, 4, 15, and 17; also one unused reference in Active Trader that was not used since I did not want to pay for a copy)

5. Options Trading IQ included Baiynd in their 2012 "Top 25 Traders On Twitter" list.

6. Baiynd has written two books and not just the one I had exposure to first.

7. Magazines or news outlets that have mentioned Baiynd include: Active Trader, Futures (magazine), Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, The Wall Street Journal (article this month)

Finally, I am sorry that you do not like my writing style but that does not change the fact that she is clearly notable in her field and worthy of this article. Thanks --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trout the nominator. The last AfD discussion was closed less than four weeks ago, and the present nomination brings nothing new in the way of reasons to delete. The article has 30 references so I suggest that anyone who is concerned that the article does not accurately reflect the published sources uses them to re-write it to their satisfaction. --RexxS (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but after a full nomination process. The last AfD did not attract much attention and included some laughable comments (she would pass WP:ACADEMIC?? really??) so I don't want to use it as an excuse to shut this one down. I have the strong suspicion that this is part of a big walled garden of day trading operators and web sites that exist to promote each other. The article as nominated (before I just cleaned it out) was a mass of poor-quality web sources and trivial statements sourced to them, with the appearance that the statements were there purely to give an excuse to link to those web sites rather than as a solid source of information about the subject. In short, this all seems heavily promotional, and I can understand the nominator's frustration with the situation. That said, the walled garden appears to extend to enough major media sites (such as Forbes and the Wall Street Journal to make her notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be a rough consensus that there's been enough coverage in secondary sources to justify keeping this. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy's Baking Company (Kitchen Nightmares)

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

Amy's Baking Company, although has been in the media pre/post Kitchen Nightmares, is still not notable enough for having it's own article for the following reasons:

1. WP:NOTABILITY - Amy's Baking Company only has been spotlighted AFTER the Kitchen Nightmares episode aired.
2. Most of the article is a PLOT SUMMARY of the show.
3. Not as generally widespread as a typical news article - Only Kitchen Nightmares fans would be interested in reading about Amy's Baking Company.
4. None of the other Kitchen Nightmares have their own article. I honestly don't think Amy's Baking Company needs to have their own article either. =TIMMYC= (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: The body of the article, despite it's minutia-filled, endless summary, hinges on the owners 15 minutes of fame for their bad behavior after the fact. The body of editors seem unable to differentiate between notability and notoriety, the latter being what makes the article of any degree of interest to anyone. National attention has died down to the merest dribble, and we're left with a "so-what?" article about a minor kerfuffle on social media, but no notability. The episode itself was never of any consequence; what generated the now-deleted article on the restaurant itself and now the article on the episode (which was started far too soon to begin with) was the owners' post-episode conduct, which is spelled out in lurid detail, given WP:UNDUE attention. Attempts to shorten the article, and remove the more biased or sensational details are immediately removed by over-invested editors, while efforts to present the actions of involved second parties (such as a petition to recover back tips) are quickly swept away, giving the article a significant WP:NPOV issues. In the end, there's simply nothing worth keeping, and the article fails to meet even the most minimal standards for notability, as does the episode itself. --Drmargi (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A restaurant was featured in one episode of Ramsey's reality TV show and got a splash of publicity because of the emotional response of the owners to criticism. This does not seem like encyclopedic information of enduring interest, and the business does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG with respect to the business, WP:BIO for the owners, WP:N for the TV episode, and smacks of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. It doe not seem appropriate to create a separate encyclopedia article for each episode of Ramsey's reality show, which consists mostly of a detailed scene by scene plot summary, even if the exposure and real or semiscripted "dramah" gained the participants 15 minutes of fame. This would be more encyclopedically covered by a one paragraph summary in the article about that season of Ramsey's show, so a "Smerge" to an article about the season would also be appropriate. Edison (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I don't see the point in trying to prevent any mention of the notoriety this company has at all on Wikipedia. It was short lived, but so are many things that have become memes but still have a mention. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I observe that it is standard practice to recognize episodes of notable TV shows as notable themselves, particularly when secondary sources are included in the article for things other than merely the episode's plot, such as themes, critical reception, impact, etc. None of the other Kitchen Nightmares episodes have articles because they haven't been created yet. Not because they necessarily do not merit them. This episode's notability is the fact that it's the first episode in the show's history in which Ramsay walked out on the owners without helping them, and numerous secondary sources support the article. Deleting such an article would be irrational, and would go against general practices with regard to TV episodes. As for Amy's Baking Company itself, it no longer has an article. Nightscream (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Individual episode articles are routinely deleted as non-notable, and must establish notability independent of the TV show itself. Moreover, absence of other articles does not necessarily mean they simply haven't been created yet. That there are six seasons and upwards of 75 episodes without an article suggests lack of notability far more than any other explanation. As for this episode, the fact remains that it attracted attention, and notoriety mistaken for notability simply by virtue of the owners' bad behavior after the episode, not because of the episode itself. --Drmargi (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need to add: Amy's Baking Company has been spolighted before. In 2010.http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bella/2010/08/ouch_todays_hard_lesson_on_yel.php She was all over blogs and social media then. There was a Wikipedia article for the company itself, also deleted. I think the fact that it made news for a considerable amount of time and that the backlash was the spotlight makes it notable. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you prove my point; bad behavior and sensational news coverage leads to notoriety, not notability. These are two very, very different things. Moreover, what happened ahead of the episode has nothing to do with the episode and would fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. One of the biggest problems with the article is it's become a dumping ground for all the trashy details about the restaurant over time along with a few minor local reviews. --Drmargi (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Individual episode articles are routinely deleted as non-notable, and must establish notability independent of the TV show itself. Hence the part of the opening line of my message above where I said "...particularly when secondary sources are included in the article for things other than merely the episode's plot, such as themes, critical reception, impact, etc."

...bad behavior and sensational news coverage leads to notoriety, not notability. False Either/Or fallacy. Notoriety and Notability are not mutually exclusive points on an Either/Or spectrum, since notability can be achieved either through things that we might consider "good", or things we might consider "bad", or "notorious". If this were not the case, then there would be not Wikipedia articles on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the JetBlue flight attendant incident, 9/11, Charles Manson, etc. Notability is based on some type of uniqueness that is covered in secondary sources. It is not based on our personal value judgments of the topic. The episode in question is the first in the show's history in which Ramsay walked out without helping the restaurant owners, due to behavior on their part that has been documented for years, all of which is indeed covered by numerous secondary sources. Whether we think the Bouzaglos are "notorious" is completely irrelevant to this point. Nightscream (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources, particularly as minor ones as a Phoenix restaurant blog, do not on their face establish notability, just that there was enough of a local kerfuffle to merit mention largely designed to make the restaurant owners look like idiots. I can't help but wonder if you've actually considered how laughably absurd it is to compare two trashy restaurant owners to Kelbold and Harris in an attempt to draw a parallel. Those examples merely strengthen my arguments. In this case, which is all I ever mentioned, the news coverage has led to notoriety, as evidenced by the fascination with the owners' respective legal issues, threats of lawsuits, theft from employees, and more, all of which are significant personal issues, but hardly meriting any time and space here. There's no attempt in the media or in this article to tell a balanced tale of what went on with emphasis on the episode itself. This is all about using the episode article as a vehicle to document the owners' behavior after the episode, despite the section failing WP:UNDUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE at minimum. --Drmargi (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete there was some news coverage but its not about anything notable (people said st00pid things on social media - WOW THATS NOTABLE - uhh, people NOT saying st00pid things on social media is far more notable) and there is no indication that the fluffle in the news actually represents anything of a lasting nature rather than simply the spin generated to fill a 24 hour news cycle. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hold Nomination for 2 months: Howabout we hold the deletion nomination for a couple of months to test the viability of the article? Other articles on Wikipedia survive less scrutiny and they've stuck around for much longer with shaky rationale. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The episode has received coverage. Well... we can't really eliminate an episode for not getting coverage until after it's aired. That's sort of par for the course for all but the most high profile episodes out there. As far as plot summary goes, I will say that it could probably be slimmed down and there hasn't been a lot of fighting over the paring down of the material in the episode summary. Now as far as this only having interest for KN fans, that's not really a fair reason to delete either. That's like saying that only fans of the Family Guy series would have an interest in any given episode. We don't delete articles because only a slim group of people would have an interest. As far as other episodes go, we don't need an article for every episode. Just the episodes that get coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I mean by "we don't need an article for every episode" is that not every episode is notable enough to really merit an article. However if you have an episode of any TV show, whether it's a reality show or a BBC drama series, that receives an extensive amount of coverage, that episode merits an entry. You can have shows that will receive little to no coverage outside of the series as a whole, yet they'll have that one episode that gets that coverage. As far as long-term coverage goes, we don't necessarily have to have months upon months of coverage for an episode. I don't think it's necessarily right or fair to hold a television episode to the same standard that we would a person with WP:BIO1E. If we were going to say that something should be deleted because it only got coverage during its time of release, a good many articles that have established notability would be deleted because they only received reviews or coverage within its initial release. Now I don't mean this as far as small off the way films, books, or episodes, but relatively major mainstream things that have established notability such as Emily Giffin's Where We Belong or The Family Corleone. Their coverage pretty much peaked at their release and died down very soon afterwards, yet they're considered to be notable. It's not entirely fair to say that because an episode isn't going to get every media outlet falling all over it afterwards for months and months, that it isn't notable. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyogirl speaks wisdom. While the restaurant may be non-notable, the episode broadcast to millions is' notable. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Audience does not establish notability any more than the aftermath does. This discussion should hang on the merits of the episode, yet continues to hinge on the media coverage of the owner's nonsense afterward. The episode itself is one more routine KN episode, indistinguishable from another aside from one minor event: that Ramsay walked out. Hardly worth notice, much less notable. Everything else is WP:INDISCRIMINATE reporting of the aftermath, which as discussed repeatedly on the main article page, fails WP:UNDUE and more. As noted elsewhere, it's all aWP:COATRACK effort to use the media nonsense to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. --Drmargi (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So by your logic, the episode articles for many of the major TV shows should also be deleted cause "Just because they rank millions in viewership, it doesn't matter in the long run cause they'll be soon forgotten in a month or two." That sounds reasonable, Wikipedia needs more space to expand. Get rid of the cruft and junk......--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a good life story about how not to behave on the internet, the same medium that makes Wikipedia possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.140.214 (talk) 04:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This episode and the restaurant in question has received significant news coverage. It should keep its own article, even if every other episode doesn't have their own episode. //iXavier <talk/edits/logs> 21:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This show is obviously notable and has received a SLEW of secondary-source coverage in reliable, mainstream media. If we have Pokemón (subculture), which is a barely-notable flash-in-the-pan Chilean hairstyle inexplicably named after an anime show, on the basis of it being mentioned in a few media outlets, how is this different? I would venture that statistically the bulk of Wikipedia articles are things that (1) got attention after they happened, (2) mostly are summarized as a description of an event in their article, (3) are mostly of interest only to people who are interested in them, with the mainstream media coverage slanted towards that, and (4) unique in the sense that a dozen similar things are not in Wikipedia. These are the weakest, most nonsensical reasons to delete an article I've ever read. These people had their 15 minutes of fame, and this generated substantial attention from reliable, mainstream, secondary-source newsmedia. That's why this episode has an article (note, these people do not). What are we, the cover-up police? Do we feel bad about "bad press" for these people? Good thing we aren't the press. The press has already been bad to them, that's why the article sounds bad -- because we draw on, without adding to or synthesizing from -- secondary sources. There has been enough press coverage of this to merit its own article -- if you think this is a WP:NEWS issue, you've never read WP:NEWS. That's also why this article is about the episode, not about the two owners or their company. This kind of pedantic crap is why I mostly quit Wikipedia, but I wanted a summary of the hubbub about this episode of the show, since I'd hear about it from word-of-mouth and a few news sources, and BAM here it is where it belongs on Wikipedia. And people are trying to delete it? I would not be opposed to merging it with the main article about the show except that it would wind up being a huge portion of that article -- huge enough to merit being split, which is exactly why its on its own already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.46.43 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I honestly don't mind mentions about Amy's Baking Company on the Kitchen Nightmares Wikipedia page, but the notability of this episode is about 1-2 paragraphs at most under the "Reception" section. Amy's Baking Company episode, in my honest opinion, still should not be having their own page because...

1. WP:NOTABILITY - Most of the article is an episode synopsis. A paragraph or two about this episode's reception is enough for Wikipedia in the Kitchen Nightmares article.

2. Pokemón (subculture) is an article describing the subculture in Chile, which documents a cultural historic background, hence notable enough for Wikipedia. Amy's Baking Company, on the other hand, is not.

Tibbydibby (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the various editors clinging to this article are honest with themselves, they'll have to admit that the only reason anyone is remotely interested in this episode isn't because of what went on in the episode, but because of what went on after the fact. I'd encourage them to read the long, long discussions in the show's talk page archives regarding inclusion of post-episode outcomes, which consensus as long held fails a number of policies, including WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If that content is swept away, as it should be, this episode is a big ho-hum that merits a sentence noting Ramsay walked out and nothing more. The attempts to keep this episode are all about wallowing in the lurid, but not notable, aftermath, and then only from a narrow POV. --Drmargi (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:N "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The episode has received this. So has the aftermath. The article should stay. Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I headed over here to find secondary articles about the topic, which as far as I'm concerned makes it notable enough for me. DWaterson (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP But maybe not in this category. Their inappropriate responses on Social Media are quickly becoming a defacto case study on how NOT to respond. There are several articles popping up that reference the details of their meltdown on social media to show how damaging these actions can be to a small business^[1].

I'm not sure where it would belong, except maybe under Business Practices/Marketing.QuankedScribe (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)QuankedScribe[reply]

Keep - Lots of TV series only have Wikipedia articles for single episodes; in these cases the episodes are normally notable. This is an example of a notable episode of a TV series. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: There is no reason for a separate article in this case, at best it is perhaps notable enough to have a sub-section in the main Kitchen Nightmares article. The notability must meet a very high standard to warrant a separate article. Creating a separate article for something that is a blip on the pop culture radar, which nobody may be talking about two weeks from now, is not productive and only serves to clutter wikipedia. There are no persistent internet memes that came out of it that may need to be described for future generations, and no more lasting cultural influence than last week's "Game Of Thrones" or "Bachelorette" episode. Anyone searching for it will find information about it in a subsection of the main KN article.148.4.41.45 (talk) 14:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatever the article was, now it's a regular TV episode article, and has plenty of references and content related to production and reception of the individual episode. I'm comfortable with it now. —Ed!^(talk) 01:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. We tried hard to be responsible, limiting coverage JUST to the internationally broadcast episode. This is what responsible journalism looks like: a recognition of widely-publish popular entertainment, and a firm line in the sand defending BLP. I think the current article does a good job of balancing the two. If we delete, we just send readers to other news sources--- sources without our scruples about BLP. --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't really made a strong case for keeping an article that is supposed to be about the television episode- the social media incidents are pretty well purely tangential to establishing notability for the TV episode. Perhaps you meant "keep an rename to Amy's Baking Company real life lesson in social media fiascoes" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The television episode passes WP:GNG by a mile-- a quick glance at the article shows that it obviously got a rather enormous amount of coverage in RSes. If you want to make argument for deletion, look to BLP. But as for "lack of notability", that dog ain't gonna hunt. --HectorMoffet (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the dog that won't hunt is that the media coverage, which is long over, established notability. This article actually fails WP:GNG by a mile, particularly when the notability continues to be hung on one argument: the media furor. The episode received scant media coverage. It was the Buzgalo's bad behavior after the episode that received Lohan/Hilton-style media coverage after the fact. Remove the aftermath section of the article, and then assess its notability. Game over. --Drmargi (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing causality, I'm arguing WP:GNG. It's not my place to guess whether the episode would have been widely covered in a universe where the "aftermath" did not occur. I just look at the sources, note that the episode had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and check the GNG criteria checkbox. --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I might add-- even the article on the restaurant itself met GNG-- there were at least four different "events" connected to the restaurant that were covered by RS. GNG just asks us whether we have enough sources to write something verifiable. I voted to delete the article on the restaurant because of WP:BLP concerns-- the people don't deserve 'ongoing' notoriety. But we can't ignore that the episode exists-- since I know you think that "art"="good art", I won't call it "art"; but the episode, good or bad, IS an anthropoligical "cultural artifact", one that affected a lot of people and one that got a lot of attention in RSes. I don't think it deserves any awards, but who am I to judge the "artistic merit" of this cultural artifact? It got lots of attention in RSes-- I can't let WP:IDONTLIKEIT rule. (and honestly, IDONTLIKEIT -- seems like a reality show took advantage of the mentally ill.) --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First there was an article on the backlash, which was removed. Then someone made an article just focusing on the episode, and even that's getting removed. There was a backlash and media attention and notability of this place, why try to erase it's existence from Wikipedia? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- because we are an an enyclopedia, not a morality lesson to "teach people a lesson" about the effects of their behavior on social media platform. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with teaching a lesson and more to do with the coverage this specific place has gotten in response to the episode. An article for the episode itself seems reasonable. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79. This episode has absolutely received significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Not every episode from the series has, and that's why those episodes don't have articles. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kitchen Nightmares Outside of Kitchen Nightmares, the notability is minor. Within Kitchen Nightmares, it is a very notable episode, and likely deserves its own section as the one episode that Ramsay walked away from. Eauhomme (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the few KN episodes that would even skim notability, and while the episode itself (ignoring anything else real world beyond that) is just barely notable (it has been called out as one of the most strangest episodes of the series) adding the viral-ness and the fallout that occurred at the actual business helps out. If it was just the episode and none of the events happened afterwards, I could agree with a merge, but the documented fallout of the business as a result of their post-airing reaction makes the episode sufficiently notable. (I would also encourage editors to review the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy's Baking Company deletion discussion for the business (which was closed as delete but suggested a merge to the episode article, so that should be considered with some weight here. ) --MASEM (t) 15:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_miscellaneous_minor_planet_discoverers#Mark_Abraham. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Abraham

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

Unable to find any coverage of this fellow outside of social media and wikimirrors. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or any other notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 17:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's an asteroid discoverer, which is enough notability for me. Copied his entry to List_of_miscellaneous_minor_planet_discoverers#Mark_Abraham. This article can now be replaced by a redirect. Urhixidur (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic family relations

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

All original research. We have similar such articles but i dont thik it even deserves a merge. Pass a Method talk 17:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Quotations from holy books do not an encyclopedic subject make, though an original essay they may constitute." Carrite 13:30 Carrite (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing more to add, really - this is the clearest violation of WP:OR I have seen in a while. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more of WP:SYNTH than WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 kehunia Decoity Case

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

This armed robbery would seem to fall under WP:NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not being able to read any Indian sources, WP:NOTNEWS does seem to apply. We'd need someone to verify that it wasn't notable in India, though the tone in the article seems more sensationalized than anything else. I doubt it had any lasting impact. Ansh666 22:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N/CA. There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this event. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of books published by Mercury Ink

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

Inappropriate promotional list DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like this is just Glenn Beck's company publishing Glenn Beck's books. There's already a list for that at Glenn Beck#Books, and Mercury Ink is just a redirect to TheBlaze, Beck's media company, so there's no basis for treating the publisher as a separate topic from either that company or Beck himself, particularly not if all it's done is publish Beck's books. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just redirecting to Glenn Beck#Books might be a quick and dirty way to resolve this AFD. postdlf (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Givin' Up (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Permission to Land. Courcelles 05:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck in a Rut

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Permission to Land. No independent notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. There are also Youtube links used as cites, which is poor manual of style. Bluidsports (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love on the Rocks with No Ice

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holding My Own (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knockers (song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. SarahStierch (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner Lady Arms

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the four criteria met, first criteria applies to the album rather than the song. SheffGruff (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. Poorly written and meets none of the four criteria. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. Not notable. Adabow (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazel Eyes

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bald (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. Courcelles 05:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Country Garden

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to One Way Ticket to Hell... and Back. Not independently notable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Man (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time (The Darkness song)

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

Not notable for separate article; meets none of the 4 criteria at WP:MUS/SONGS, all citations are taken from reviews of the album, therefore no intrinsic notability. Bluidsports (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 23. Snotbot t • c » 15:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eo nomine

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

This article is not even worthy of being called a stub. What should be the article's Introduction is really the entire article. The only other part of the article is a single external link. A definition for this Latin phrase belongs in the Wikitionary, but not every Latin phrase deserves its own article in Wikipedia. SMP0328. (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant amount of secondary source coverage. Could be fodder for a good quality improvement project for WP:LAW. — Cirt (talk) 07:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add the material in this article to a related article? SMP0328. (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reasons provided above. SMP0328. (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the specific info currently included could perhaps be merged to Sovereign immunity, the term has broader applicability, as in the context of prejudgement interest. See, e.g. "Interest Eo Nomine versus Interest as Damages". [2] 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a stub article about a legal concept, not a phrase, for which the nominator gives a reason for expansion, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale of Phil Bridger above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Generally, we have kept all legal terms, unless they can be merged properly somewhere, or are so obscure that we can't find any modern sources. Since neither exception applies, then it should be kept. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Early Years (DC Talk album)

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

This was part of a series of similarly titled released by the parent label (EMI Christian music). The series received little media coverage and as album shows, were not particularly notable. No WP:RSes chronicle their existence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FrieNDA

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/FrieNDA

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

Portmanteau neologism with no evidence of notability or traction. Contested PROD. Richfife (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep: this is a term heard much in new media, lean startup, and new product development conference settings; I can source more information on this if required. Also, though, if the feeling is very strong that this does not belong, then I will seek to add an entry in the wiktionary instead. Greyskinnedboy Talk 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I'm not finding much of anything online. The urbandictionary listing has gotten 24 votes (two of them down) in the last 6 years. The standard for Wikipedia articles is verifiability, not truth. - Richfife (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Gentleman's agreement as an example of modern use. (Alternately, delete as neologism.) The term certainly looks like a neologism to me: all the references that I can find seem to stem from this blog post; it feels almost like a walled garden. A handful of sources might exist, but they only attest to personal use, rather than broader acceptance of the term, consistent with a finding of neologism. The original blog post is dated to October 2008; for having existed four and a half years, there's remarkably little out there on it. It's already referenced in Gentleman's Agreement, but perhaps the term might justify creation of an additional subsection on modern use: while "FrieNDA" (and permutations) might be a neologism, the sources indicate that the term was coined as a result of the phenomenon of making certain oral agreements. While the term might not be suitable for inclusion, the attestation for a modern use of the gentleman's agreement would be. Ourai ^тʃ_с 06:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary, with appropriate trimming. I doubt there's enough to say about it to make a truly encyclopedic article. —Darkwind (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Horrid acronym/pun with no good sources. Warden (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism with poor sources, not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above - it seems to be a neologism without the level of sourcing we'd need for a standalone article. No objection to a mention at Gentleman's agreement, if there is consensus for it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:DICDEF - a redirect may be appropriate, but the strongest arguments appeart towards deletion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flip (slang)

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

Dicdef, sources don't support the term or any other content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly doesn't seem to be notable enough to have its own article. Likely a case of undue weight. At the very best, only worth a brief mention in Filipino American, but nothing more, if that. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 16:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Pinoy, which is essentially the same, both being slang and somewhat derogatory. FWIW, my boyfriend is Filipino-American. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification: here in the Philippines, Pinoy isn't considered derogatory and in fact, most Filipinos are proud to be called "Pinoys" and don't think of it as pejorative. It can be considered a term of endearment, unlike say "Yank" or "Seppo". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am a Filipino, and I can say that the term is virtually unheard of, at least in the Philippines, and I've never heard any of my relatives living in America use it (in fact, I've only heard of "Flip" used in this sense because of this AfD). It's not used by local media either, and worst of all, it's not mentioned in a lot of (if any) reliable sources. It could be mentioned in the Filipino American article, but since the term is quite obscure (at least in my opinion), at most a very brief (maybe one line) mention would be enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Redirect to Filipino American. This might be systematic bias of available internet searchable sources, but if one were to look up "Flip" slang Filipino one would find multiple academic journal entries, and a number of book entries (some dictionary definitions, others a little more in-depth). Now I understand that some of the arguments are based on WP:NOTDICTIONARY, but it maybe possible to cobble something more than a stub entry based on the sources I found to write a history of the word, and its then its present usage in the United States (and possibly elsewhere). Otherwise as the majority of internet searchable sources are from the United States, and thus my systematic bias statement earlier, the article can be turned into a redirect to Filipino American as an alternative name of the subject.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. But that doesn't mean the tiny amount of content here can't be merged into Iraqi Arabic, as the tag on the article already suggests, with Khuzestani Arabic becoming a redirect to Iraqi Arabic (or the appropriate section thereof). I would consider that the best option. Angr (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khuzestani Arabic

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

Per here. Irānshahr (talk) 19:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per reasoning provided.--TV Man 13 23:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since Irānshahr chose not to retype his/her rationale, and since JorisvS might want to archive that talk page, I am copying this from User talk:JorisvS.

Please present some linguistic literature which describes the Arabic spoken in Khuzestan as a subvariety in its own right. It is treated as Mesopotamian Arabic and is indistinguishable from the Arabic spoken in southern Iraq. [3]

Simply because somebody created a stub named "Khuzestani Arabic" doesn't make it a recognized subvariety. I could create an unreferenced stub named "Najafi Arabic" but it wouldn't make the Arabic spoken in Najaf a subvariety. "Khuzestani Arabic" is only ever spoken of in an Iranian context when discussing Persian in relation to the Arabic of Khuzestan.

I'm not even sure that somebody from Ahvaz presents with any accent to somebody from Basrah, much less a unique dialect. Moreover, the Arabic spoken in Khuzestan Province isn't a homogenous entity to speak of; you have cities like Khorramshahr and Abadan on the opposite side of border with Iraq, and you have cities like Ahvaz and Dezful in the center and north of the province.

If you have literature which says otherwise then please present it as it will be of interest to me. Irānshahr (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cnilep (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The link provided by Irānshahr ([4]]) does not treat it is as indistinct. The only thing it really says is that Mesopotamian Arabic is also spoken in Khuzestan, which no one denies. The external link in the article (Khuzestani Arabic: a convergence case) says 'Khuzestani Arabic, a Mesopotamian dialect, ...', hence does seem to treat it as distinct. --JorisvS (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I suggest that you take it to the Khuzestani Arabic talk page and possibly mention the issue at, say, Talk:Varieties of Arabic to get more input. Your points may be valid (I wouldn't know) and should be sorted out there. However, as long as there's an article on it, it should remain in the template. --JorisvS (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)"

If you've suddenly become an expert overnight then present some linguistic literature which describes the Arabic spoken in the Khuzestan Province of Iran as a dialect in its own right. As I explained to you, there are cities in Khuzestan Province that are literally on-the-border with Iraq, and there are other cities in Khuzestan proper. The dialect spoken in the two isn't exactly the same to even speak of a "Khuzestani Arabic" outside of Iranian contexts where the influence of Persian on the Arabic of Khuzestan Province is discussed.

The writer in the linked article coins "Khuzistani Arabic" for convenience: "[...] the dialect of Arabic spoken in Khuzistan province to the south of Iran (henceforth, Khuzistani Arabic, abbreviated as Kh. Arabic) [...] Kh. Arabic, a Mesopotamian dialect, [...]", and doesn't make the claim that it is a unique subvariety. No such claim is made by any linguists.

Linguists recognize two varieties of Mesopotamian Arabic, and identify three subvarieties in the southern variety. None of which are associated with Khuzestan. If in fact a variety unique to Khuzestan did exist I would not have argued otherwise, because it makes no difference to me either way beyond matters of accuracy. Irānshahr (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I've done here is say what I think these two sources say, nothing more. Regardless of whether Khuzestani Arabic is considered a distinct subvariety of Mesopotamian Arabic or not, there will be a dialect continuum, which means that dialects from adjacent areas (i.e. also those just on other sides of the border) will be virtually identical. This also means that the Khuzestani of one place will be somewhat different from that of another.

Maybe I should also clarify what I mean when I say 'subvariety': I don't necessarily mean one of the main subdivisions of a variety, but may also mean a subdivision of a subdivision of a variety (and etc.). What I take "[...] the dialect of Arabic spoken in Khuzistan province to the south of Iran (henceforth, Khuzistani Arabic, abbreviated as Kh. Arabic) [...] Kh. Arabic, a Mesopotamian dialect, [...]" to mean is that there is a dialect of Arabic in Khuzestan that the author will henceforth call "Khuzestani Arabic", not that he groups the varieties spoken in the region out of convenience. --JorisvS (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's also treated as a distinct topic. Doing a Google Books search I found "Contact-induced grammatical changes in Khuzestani arabic" by Maryam Shabibi. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Based on what has been discussed here so far, I now tend to oppose deletion. --JorisvS (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's been two and a half weeks, with little argument beyond the nominator's original rationale. It seems unlikely that re-listing the discussion will help reach consensus. I'm tempted to close this discussion as no consensus, except that I have commented in the discussion, above. Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jay LaBoy

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND and WP:BIO. There's a list of citations that appears lengthy if you don't actually look at them, but almost all of them seem to fail WP:RS. The only one I can see that would be considered a reliable source is the MiG Alley Flyer paper, and that only gives a small passing mention about the article subject. The award given to him was from a RESTAURANT, and so isn't of note, he doesn't have any charting records, he hasn't been a member of any notable bands, he hasn't recorded for what I would believe are notable record companies, and he is currently working as an entertainer for a cruise line. A search of the Google news archives turns up little more than adverts for some shows, which can't be used to establish notability. Non-notable per WP:BAND WP:BIO. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the nominator has basically covered everything. We need solid sources.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote has been struck as coming from a sockpuppet account. See this SPI. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I can do to improve this article. I have a few links to articles when he was in Russia. That's about it for now. [5] [6] also a news report on his visit in Russia. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrpW76MmJQY&list=PLB26E5BE9A88E4CFB&index=10 Thisandthem (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, should be deleted. Koala15 (talk) 04:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Lack of significant coverage or factors that would get him past WP:BAND. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 01:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Habibi

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

References of the article are mostly blogs or news article that mention him very briefly among others. I've found nothing else after a search in Persian. Noted that both of the articles in Persian and English Wiki have been created by two different SPA users. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR.Farhikht (talk) 08:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not notable enough fro wikipedia. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:BIO, references that only briefly mention the subject can still be enough to display notability if several of them can be found. If you are able to read Persian, could you provide some context for how Habibi is mentioned by the news sources? --Jpcase (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure:

In this source, a news article, the subject is mentioned 2 times: 1. An animation will be dubbed in Channel 2 of Iranian TV with Majid Habibi as the head of dubbing team of this animation. 2. Voice actors of this animation are Ehsan Ahmadi, Shohreh Rouhi, "Majid Habibi", and names of others.
This one is a brief interview with M. Raeesi, head of Iranian young voice actors, and he says that another animation will be dubbed with Majdi Habibi as the head of the dubbing team.
This one is a collection of brief news articles and one of them is about a movie which will be dubbed with the voices of Majdi Habibi and others.
I think that 1, 2, 3 are dead links.
This link also a news article cites Majdi Habibi among others as a voice actor of another animation.
The same news article published by Magiran, Iranian newspapers database.
Some photos of some voice actors.
This news article also talks about another animation with some voice actors among them Majid Habibi. and the same news artice.
1, 2 Again some photos.
Other photos.
An article by Majdi Habibi.
This is a report which cites Majdi Habibi.
This one is a short interview with Majdi Habibi about working as a voice actor in Iran.

Among these sources, Mehr News Agency is a good source I think.Farhikht (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to do that. The references that simply list his name amongst those of other voice actors would be too trivial to establish notability, but I believe that the first two, which make special note of him for being the head of dubbing teams, might fall under the section of the guidelines that I mentioned. If so, then when taken together, multiple references like these would be enough to establish notability. I assume that more than two would be necessary, but then there's also the interview with Habibi, which I think would constitute significant coverage. So I'm going with a Weak Keep --Jpcase (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 16:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've thought about this one a bit and been unable to come to any firm conclusion, especially as interviews are close to being primary sources. I would, however, like to thank Farhikht for helping us with the Persian sources. Dricherby (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Dricherby.Farhikht (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent in other articles, see [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kabirat (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Datu Tucao O. Mastura

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

CSD contested by SPA. Article about non-notable local politician and gubernatorial candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Dewritech (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, subject has receive passing mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, but none of those sources give the subject of this AfD significant coverage; therefore the subject does not appear to be notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Subject is mayor of Sultan Kudarat, Maguindanao, a 1st class municipality of 121,324 people, however per WP:POLITICIANS mayors are not considered automatically notable; furthermore WP:POLOUTCOMES gives guidance on presumed notability of mayors, which the subject of this AfD does not appear to meet.

Subject may fall within the scope of WP:ROYAL but there doesn't appear to be a guideline about notability of royalty.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - subject is the descendant of royalty, but the Philippines is a democracy and does not recognize any titles such as his ancestor(s) held. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the nation-state the individual is in doesn't recognize the title, doesn't mean that it doesn't impact the possibility of notability. For example see House of Hohenzollern; although no longer the Kaisers of Germany, they house is notable, and the heads of the royal house still is notable, as they often receive significant coverage. That being said, the subject of this AfD does not appear to have received such significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral - Unfortunately, there's not enough reliable sources about him. However, there's a possibility of systematic bias here, since we do have articles on royal descendants for other kingdoms. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, he does appear to have been mentioned in several sources, but mainly because of coverage for his candidacy for governor. I'm not sure if that would be enough to be considered significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:POLITICIAN would say no. However, it is possible that there is enough coverage in Filipino sources to justify an article on him as the "Kingmaker" of the Mastura family and/or on the Mastura family as a political dynasty. Does anybody reading this discussion know what the coverage is in any of the Philippine languages? --Orange Mike | Talk 00:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence, while sources increased when he ran for governor, it did describe him as the "kingmaker" in those parts. Now since most of the "kings" he "anointed" won pretty easily, that could've meant something. –H T D 15:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is a BLP article and can not be left unsourced, but if in the future sources are found, there is no prejudice against recreation.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chanelle Peloso

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

No assertion of notability. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 01:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe with better referencing, this could become a notable subject.--TelevisionMan13 (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shonkhobash

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

The article is on a Bengali little magazine, I have searched in Google (English and Bengali) but can not find many sources writing about this journal. According to the article the journal started publishing in 2009. Since this is not that old, I hoped to see more reliable sources. They have added a wordpress blog as official site. The Facebook page has 130 likes. In short, I am unsure if it is a notable magazine! Tito Dutta (contact) 17:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. This is an important philosophical little magazine about the new philosophy Drishtantoism, which is started a new era in Bengali literature. It is a known issue that not too many newspapers cover little magazines. But, I can find mentions in provide some links of webpages, avoid wordpress, webs, blogspot type URLs. Newspapers (no problem if it is in Bengali) will be helpful. --Leela Bratee (talk • contributions • email) 14:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an appropriate rationale. In fact, it's copied almost verbatim from what User:Titodutta suggested you would have to bring to the article in order to keep it. At this point, we need reliable, third-party published sources establishing the importance of this subject. Woodroar (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are categorized bellow related to this article :
About publications & address : Bangladesh online business directory
Description : Bangladesh Yellow Pages
Philosophical work : Drishtantoism
So, I think it has important for its philosophical work about the new Bengali philosophy Drishtantoism. And I requested to keep this article and give chances to others by expanding it. --Leela Bratee (talk • contributions • email) 02:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but we're looking for reliable, third-party published sources. Directories such as Yellow Pages are essentially user submitted: they may show that something exists—although they really don't, because all an entry means is that someone paid to list their business—but not that they are notable. We're looking for sources like major newspapers, journals, and books written about the subject, not just a one-sentence mention on a blog. Woodroar (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ^King Jakob _C2 13:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Rise Interactive

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

Despite the impressive looking array of reference, they are either press releases or local awards of a trivial nature. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accepted this at AFC based on the organization's local CBS coverage, coverage in CNN Money, Illinois Technology Association spotlight, and other passing mentions like this one. More recent coverage in Direct Marketing News and Technori make this corp, IMHO, notable.Rinkle gorge (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some recognition in places like The Chicago Grid [8] and Chicago Ideas Week [9], plus those listed on the article itself and above, help the article meet primary criteria at Wikipedia:ORG, so Keep. 115.187.74.68 (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masum Pervez Rubel

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

Grossly unsourced content; the only given source (though reliable) only suggests that an actor with that name exists (he's only been quoted about saying something not so relevant to his career as an actor). Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. Will change my mind if someone can provide more reliable sources that prove something more than the actor's existence. smtchahal^talk 05:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. smtchahal^talk 08:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Shah (actor)

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

Completely unsourced article. The actor might be notable, but someone needs to prove it with reliable sources (as I'm too lazy to do it myself). smtchahal^talk 05:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-six references are already present.--Corey.HamsUSA (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al Khair school

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

No sources, very limited content. Only recently established. ^Tom... _{the magic...} ^TomatoTalk 15:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep This outcome would be consistent with the de facto notability standard and AFD practice of keeping articles about legitimate secondary schools. This school's website says it includes a secondary division as well as primary, and reportedly has 350 students. Since it was started in 2003, the "only recently opened" basis for deletion stated by the nominator makes little sense. Certainly it needs more and better sources and editing. The search button at the top of this AFD reveals some news coverage: brief mention of academic excellence, this site calls it a primary school with pupils through age 16, but may be outdated. Age 16 would normally be past primary, and at least "middle school," but would not be as convincing it should be kept. Perhaps someone in the UK can access better sourcing on its grades taught at present. Schools often start with primary grades and expand the grades taught as the population ages. Edison (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep -- I would like to get a better feel for its size. If it teaches up to 16, it qualifies as a High School, whose articles we normally keep. If it started with four pupils, I just wonder whether it now only has (say) 100, in which case I would doubt its notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified secondary school, which are usually kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified secondary school educating to GCE. Fully recognised by UK government. Needs a lot of expansion though, including infobox, crest, and links. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This was a tough call, but essentially we have 2 people wishing to delete the article and 2 people wishing to keep the article. Essentially the users wishing to delete argue there are no secondary sources, those wishing to keep argue there are. As such, I believe that there is no consensus to either keep or delete this article. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity Trip

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable student society, in fact more like a statement for a student society which is no different to every other university societies, in fact a billion miles, let alone nowhere as notable to even its own rowing societies.

All sources are from its own student magazines and therefore with reliable third party sources Donnie Park (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inexplicably, this article has survived four AfDs, none of which provided a convincing case for notability. I'll look over the sources and possibly comment on the article's merits later. Them From Space 18:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it survived 3 AfDs and claims to be supported by reliable third party sources, such a shame nobody can get off their backside to improve the quality of this article nor use those sources to make it less vulnerable to future AfD. In all, I'd say more like a statement for a student society with sources coming from their own websites which dosen't make it as special as it claims to be. Donnie Park (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Donnie Park (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was also nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varsity trip by the way, so this is the 5th nomination. Reading through all the past AFD to try to understand why this thing was around, I found some good points made. This has been getting coverage since 1922, they older than the winter Olympics, this the longest-running team ski competition in the world. Their games do get coverage then and now. Dream Focus 14:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. All I could find is sporadic press coverage, usually of a trivial, tangential or routine nature, often based on press releases and promotional material provided by the association itself. Far to little to establish notability in accordance with any of our guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some sources not currently used in the article:

"Sponsor pulls out of Oxford and Cambridge skiing trip after students strip off in the snow", The Telegraph, 22 January 2011. Talks about debauchery, nudity, sponsor Scott Dunn is pulling out.
"Oxbridge Gone Wild: Stripping Skiers Scare Off Sponsor", AOL News, 24 January 2011. Debauchery, angry sponsor.
"Oxbridge students compete in debauched challenge on ski slopes of France to win free holiday", The Daily Mail, 24 January 2011.
"Oxbridge students’ ski trip snaps cause sponsors to pull out", Metro, 24 January 2011.
"Gli studenti di Oxford danno scandalo sulla neve: sponsor inorriditi", Montagna.tv, 25 January 2011. In Italian. Machine translation to English.
"Oxford students warned about behaviour after Varsity skiing trip", The Telegraph, 8 February 2011. Talks about debauchery, warnings from the dean, a sponsor pulling out.

Despite all of these news items which are basically reporting the same incident from early 2011, I could find nothing in WP:Secondary sources about the early establishment of the trip, about the significance of the trip, about comparisons between the trip and the Olympics, etc. I found nothing whatsoever about the trip in books. If this article is kept it should be trimmed of all tables and history, trimmed down to the most basic statements about the sort of debauchery which made the news, and moved to a more descriptive title such as Cambridge and Oxford ski trip scandal. Me, I would prefer to see the article deleted than some silly scandal given its own article. Binksternet (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Students cavorting half-naked in the snow simulating sex acts and eating, gasp, yellow snow doesn't even register as a blip on my debauchometer, and surprised it even raised an eyebrow in this day and age. Must have been a very, very slow news day. Can't see how an article about students acting silly would deserve a place here on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has only two links from other articles to it, making it suffering from WP:O. I think I would vote for a weak delete, for being orphaned, and a lack of notable people for who, for example, this might have been a stepping stone to the Winter Olympics. Or organizers who became important politicians or businessmen. But maybe I am not valuing the event on its merits, and for that, relisting it again might be the best option.Jeff5102 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BMW GT Models

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

List article which is redundant due to Template:BMW_cars 1292simon (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 03:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. I'd like to leave this nominated please, because I think the subject can be covered using the BMW 5 Series Gran Turismo and BMW 3 Series Gran Turismo articles. 1292simon (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert to a proper disambiguation page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 15:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but change focus entirely, or at least expand it: BMW GT cars implies their GT racers much more than the Gran Turismo models. If it must stay in its current state of focus, move it to BMW Gran Turismo. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Regardless of any canvassing issues, there is clearly not any consensus to delete here. The subarticles should, of course, be merged upwards where they have no independent notability, however. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International Council of 13 Indigenous Grandmothers

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

Non notable group, self declared group, all references re either dead links, or blogs (excepting one catholic reporter ref), or self published items by the group.

Article is not written in an encyclopedic manner, and is written like a pamphlet from the group. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

nominator delete Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article may need an edit, but that an entire book was written about them from an independent publisher, and that they're the subject of two different documentaries? That's significant. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book is by them, using a (ghost?) writer, not about them. It is primarily collection of their essays etc. I do however concede the documentary as a sign of notability, but the award the documentary won was restricted to films about indigenous cultures, and the source discussing the documentary is in fact the same book just discussed Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also note from our page on the publisher, that everyone involved with that publisher appears to be from the same family, so the notability and editorial oversight that would make this a reliable source may be suspect "Samuel Bercholz (Chairman),Sara Bercholz (Executive Vice President),Hazel Bercholz (Vice President)" Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is kinda ridiculous. I just spent what seemed an eternity listening to "Grandma Aggie" spouting on for nearly an hour [10] and managing to say nothing whatsoever beyond the blindingly obvious or the ridiculous ("I have been teaching people all over the world that water can hear...Masaru Emoto, the Japanese scientist... has validated what I've been saying, that water can hear"). But these mighty sages have had some coverage. There are quite a few references to them in various items in google books [11]. It's all new-agey stuff, but there seems to be enough to pass the test of notability. Paul B (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep, unfortunately I agree with Paul B. It's all nothing but new-agey bullshit smoke and mirrors and self-promotion, but they seem to be good at self promotion. He iro 17:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since all of the available sources seem to be self published and self promotion per Gaijin and Guy Macon below. He iro 20:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created this article, some years ago, - I'm still no good at grammar (as you can see). I have just replaced an archive link for a dead link. Also, thanks for this heads-up have found an article by Mail Tribune newspaper relating that the Tibetan Grandmother is the 14th Dalai Lama's sister (I didn't know that when I wrote it and my chief interest is in the Vajrayana). I have never met any of the group - or spoken with them either. As I can't write in my own mother-tongue of UK English for toffee so my apologies for my poor grammar. If I was the group's 'ghost writer' I think they'd have picked a better one... Best, Fountain Posters (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the ghost writer I mentioned was the author of the book, not the author of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

self published primary source I also note that the vast majority of citations are to the "Out of babylon" podcast or "future primitive" podcast, both of which are a self published podcast, and furthermore a WP:PRIMARY source since it is an interview with the (one of the) subject of the article. I posit that these are an unreliable source, and everything sourced to that needs to be gutted, or at a minimum heavily caveated as "so and so from the group claims that" etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just read the thing. Really, this belongs in an encyclopedia?Stenen Bijl (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sources really, the sources just keep getting worse.

by my count, I see

Indian Country Today - possibly rs
National Catholic Reporter blog - possibly rs
futureprimitive podcast - self published podcast, primary source interview with subject
futureprimitive podcast (x2) - self published podcast, primary source interview with subject
own site
primary interview with subject
WP - WP is certainly a reliable source, but the article is written by one of the 13 grandmothers per the attribution at the bottom
book - consisting of essays written by subjects (primary)
out of babylon podcast - self published primary interview with subject
out of babylon podcast (x2)- self published primary interview with subject
documentary, but not independent, as the "Center for Sacred Studies" made the documentary, and explicitly lists the grandmothers as one of its own projects. In fact per http://www.alternet.org/story/20423/grandmothers_unite the 13 grandmothers was put together specifically for the purpose of making the documentary.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete every single claim of an independent source above turns out to have strong evidence that it is in some way or another self-published. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could find exactly ZERO mention in independent reliable sources. Sorry, but totally not notable by any of our criteria. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 03:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant mentions in independent reliable secondary sources, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've only scanned news sources but the group appears to be on the mainstream's radar screen. Example: [12] Once the selfpub and fringe sourced cruft is removed, there may be the makings of a stub here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll want to give that another read. Especially the information about the author. Fails as an independent source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubify - No reliable sources, little to no mention in mainstream media, fails WP:N as far as I can see. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Related WP:AFDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julieta Casimiro and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flordemayo He iro 08:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also added Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aama Bombo Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage found in multiple reliable sources of the organization, therefore subject appears to fail notability as defined by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of what your own opinion is of the topic, would anyone else find this "notable" or want to know what it is? Yes, but if this is deleted from wp it will be just one more thing that they will have to get their info on from google or other sources. Some snobbish or biased "notability" standards must be in place, because things that are most definitely "notable" to one group of people, are being systemically judged because they aren't "notable" to another group of editors. Because different groups of people consider different things notable, defining notability can be tricky, but this seems like abuse of standards that fail to take into account to whom something may be notable, or even condescendingly portray some groups' interests as less important than those of the more "prestigious" people, and therefore destined for the memory hole. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Part of me wants to keep all these subjects— and to tell the truth about them. And that article in this case would read something like, "this new age center out on the west coast called up a bunch of older women on the theory that white males have lost touch with something or other and assembled a group which has no real claim to any kind of teaching authority. Nobody really cares about them but if you want to read up on it there's this book they've published." But our standards don't allow writing that article either. Instead, everything I touch here seems to be part of a publicity campaign to make this group (and by extension the sponsoring center) look like something of some importance. I have to object being used as their advertizing agency. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again you seem to have some trouble here distinguishing between "the truth" and what is strictly your opinion, or else you seem to think they are one and the same, and expect everyone else to either see it your way or shut up. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not subscribe to an ontology in which it is possible for there to be a set of opinions, each of which gets to become subjective "truth". My assessment may well be in error, but my intent is that it correspond as closely as possible to the objective reality of the situation. And after several decades of doing this, it seems to me (and to a lot of other people) that my assessments tend to be accurate. And I am willing to be corrected: you can go back into the FT/N archives and see a couple of cases in which my initial impression was mistaken. Yes, people should see things my way, and I think less of people whose defense of their own opinions is no stronger than an sense of entitlement to believing as they please. You accuse me of a virtue, not a fault.

Be all of that as it may, in our scheme the material on this council is, at best, of the same ilk as my "opinion". It is only their opinion that they are important, and not anyone else's. Even by the credulous standards of new age material this fails to obtain corroborating support. It's not only that I don't accept their claims to authority; nobody else seems to even care, one way or another. Even you cannot defend the principle that everyone who publishes a book promising some revelation or Truth or whatever thus earns a place on this website. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it. All topics have to "earn" a "right" to be on wikipedia by meeting the approval of your esteemed opinion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a reading of my last paragraph offers a choice between incomprehension or malicious misrepresentation. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Til, you have a misunderstanding of what notable means to wikipedia. Notability is not the same as "important", or "interesting" etc, it means very specifically that they have been covered by multiple independent reliable sources - and this group has not been. To a degree, there is a bias in wikipeida by reliying on what we consider reliable sources, that things like indigenous knowledge or other information primarily passed down via oral tradition etc cannot satisfy WP:V unless some anthropologist writes a paper about it - but circumventing that rule woud open the flood gates to every person's pet fringe topic and they could claim that all the sources just are important people that don't like to write things down. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge all the daughter articles (pun intended) into the main article. I've been here long enough to see this is exactly the sort of list-type article that is usually kept for cost/benefit reasons. As some facts may not be individually key or important in a legal case, but key as a group of facts, so lists of this type keep everything together in one place for convenience and context. I'm not a fan of "new-Age-ism" (pun also intended), but it's what our readers want and has been past consensus to keep. It would be much worse to have a bunch of little articles but not one main article, or other other hand, nothing here when people are looking for it. We have rules for fringe topics, and I think this abides. Slap me with a trout if I'm being unreasonable. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On a serious note, I also think this passes muster because there is significant coverage, in reliable sources such as daily newspapers, over more than one year for more than one event. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources in mind that you think satisfy the policies? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. These four sources are in the article already: (1) This newspaper article from Portland, Oregon has a three-paragraph discription of the making of the documentary, as part of a longer article about the Dalai Lama's visit to that city. (2) This newspaper article from Billings, Montana runs and on and on for five pages about the Grandmas' visit. (3) This is a short abstract of a 532-word article about the group in State College, Pennsylvania's major daily. (4) This is a fairly in-depth article about the film being screened in Washington State. In addition, this mentions the grannies in passing in a longer review about a native American musician, and my hometown newspaper printed this press release for the group. The fact that the coverage exists in six different states indicates broad, if shallow, coverage. Altogether, some of the coverage is certainly spotty, but I think the article now passes. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification that the Mail Tribune is not published in Portland but in Medford, the area from which Agnes Baker Pilgrim is from. (The event described did take place in Portland.) So it is a bit more local than the regional newspaper, but it is a reliable source. Valfontis (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: abundant coverage by mainstream news as well as obvious global significance. Page has good use also because it links to articles about the members. (Should be telling that 11 already have Wikipedia articles.) Would add that the Council might describe such organizations as the "United States" as "Non notable group, self declared group". groupuscule (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) via WP:CSB[reply]

All individual pages were created by the same person that created this page, at the same time, using the same sources, so the fact that the articles exist say nothing about the notability of the people. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, didn't realize this at first. Provides some support for merge proposal. groupuscule (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also looking at these "news items" and seeing press release-type material. This hit from the Wash. Post, for example, was written by one of the grannies, and though I couldn't get to the Corvallis hit the title suggests it was written the same way. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about this coverage from the utterly "mainstream" newspaper USA Today? groupuscule (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like yet another rehash of the groups own press release. No evidence from the writing that the writer even left their desk or picked up the phone. Again, all the information about the group seems to come directly from the group itself. The independent comments contain no information about the group, just personal opinions of random non-experts. Even if they were independent of the press release, which is unlikely, they contribute nothing in terms of notability or content. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... groupuscule (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mangoe and groupuscule. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage:

"Gathering, Telling, Preparing the Stories: A Vehicle for Healing" (2010), published by academics in the Journal of Indigenous Voices in Social Work
"Indigenous Grandmas and the SocialJustice Movement" by Raquel D Gutiérrez, in Living Indigenous Leadership (2012), ed. Carolyn Kenny & Tina Ngaroimata Fraser
"Women as Judges" entry in Encyclopedia of Women in Today's World, Volume 1 (2011)

These are open access sources found by searching Google Scholar. groupuscule (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See all the articles linked in this news.google.archive search. This really is WP:Systemic bias vs. elderly women and tribal peoples if you ask me. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 21:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paul B. Many independent mentions in different regional papers and books, and smaller mentions in national media, over ~10 years. – SJ + 22:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sufficient reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Yworo (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The group is mentioned in several sources, including 'Grandmother Earth,' Graydon, Nicola. The Ecologist 38, 3 (Apr 2008): 22-23 and Breinig, Jeane T'Áaawxíaa. Studies in American Indian Literatures 25, 1 (Spring 2013): 53-67,129. I feel that this article meets notability requirements, and adds to Wikipedia's coverage of indigenous cultures. Superbellymonster (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Doesn't appear that the nominator or those calling to delete have lifted a finger here. The Washington Post and USA Today, and the Seattle Times seal the deal, along with others. I'm generally a pretty hardcore deletionist, but there are no valid reasons to delete here. Seriously, it's not even close. Tarc (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wash post article was written by one of the grandmothers. The Usatoday one was discussed above, and is a decent ref. The seattletimes one is a press release giving the date and time of a movie screening and is certainly not any kind of in depth coverage. However, I am willing to compromise on the deletion of the individual articles and keeping the group article, if it is trimmed down to just what can be soruced from the reliable sources and gets rid of the self published or primary source information. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if it was written by one of them, it is still an appearance in a reliable source and that is what will count towards notability. As for the Seattle Times, it is not a press release, Lynda Mapes has been a Times reporter for over 20 years. And compromise? Who the hell do you think you are, you offer to "relent" on this AFD (which is quite clearly trending keep anyways) in exchange for deleting other articles? This isn't a poker gamer or a Yankee Swap, this and any related articles will be decided on their individual merits. BLPs are not poker chips. I find your attitude here rather disgusting. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Mapes is or is not a reporter, she's clearly repeating (uncritically) what she was told, by them. The Wash. Post material is not reportage: it's a guest column, and I do not agree that the Post agreeing to publish it magically converts it into reliable secondary material. That is the central problem: once all the primary source material is eliminated, there is essentially nothing to work from. Even the USA Today article isn't really enough. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, that's what a lot of feature-esque news stories do - repeat, relatively uncritically, what the reporter is told. Heck, that's what a lot of flat-out news stories do. There's no "anti-indigenous grandmothers" opposition group to quote and what, pray tell, do you think the reporter should have asked to "challenge" these women? "Are you really on a mission to create a more sustainable world, or are you out to scam people?" Hint: That's not a question real reporters ask. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per my various comments above. I am increasingly convinced that adequate secondary sourcing doesn't exist. Mangoe (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep The book is both by them and about them, and the publisher took it on, which is a sign. There are several sources on the talk page that tip the scales and bring this group to GNG. If the sub-articles are deleted the content if appropriate should be moved here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin re canvassing CarolMoreDC canvassed for keep !votes in multiple venues and forums, resulting in the sudden flood of keep !votes [13] [14], [15] Gaijin42 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you poor thing. That there is a systemic bias against female editors and subject material has been a long-ranging discussion within the WMF for years. The gender-gap mailing list is not secretive or shadowy, but an open part of the project that highlights areas where, as the title implies there are chasms to be bridged. The sourcing for this subject isn't impeccable nor as in-depth as I'd like, but it is more than adequate to satisfy our notability guides. There are tens upon hundreds of articles out there on Pokemon creatures, My Little Pony fanclubs, minor television characters, and so on that are far, far worse off source-wise than this is. Yet you single this one out and hold it to a higher standard. Why does Safeguard (Transformers), a nerdcruft article sources to a fan site and a toy catalog stick around while the Indigenous Council here, who reliable sources ACTUALLY COVER, get held over the coals? This i a critical problem in this project, and if it takes a bit of outside influence to affect change, then [[WP:IAR|so be it]. Tarc (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am equally against the cruft - I think we should allow one page per show/toy whatever, and bulk move the rest of them to wikia vs the page per char/episode/model we have for many things. I agree that there is sytemic bias here, but it is nothing against females. It is against 1) self promotional groups and 2) indigenous cultures that rely on oral tradition rather than books - but if we allow the second, how would you propose to stop the cruft? Everyone can claim that important people discuss their topic but they just don't like to write it down. I will admit that Carol and others in this discussion have done excellent work at trying to uncover additional sourcing, which may push consensus into a GNG keep (although I would say such hypothetical notability is not sufficient for 14 articles on the group as we currently have) - but doing good work is not justification for blatant disregard for established policies with extremely wide consensus such as canvass and finding actual [WP:RS]]. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"blatant disregard for established policies with extremely wide consensus such as canvass" Nope. WP:CANVAS is a guideline but not "policy". Does it have consensus? Before wikipedia, there was nothing inherently shameful or derogatory about the word "to canvass" in the English language, only canvassing done improperly. There seems to be a "consensus" among those who like to limit participation in the discussion to a small, selected few, that there is something improper about ALL "canvassing" views from the wider public. Robots were supposed to notify all the relevant deletion lists, but only "California topics" and "Organizations topics" got notified. Why? I only found out about this AfD yesterday when robots notified the "Indigenous topics" list about the subarticles' AfDs. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only those wikiprojects had added themselves to this article, therefore only they were notified? (unless the bots were misbehaving). Had the canvassing been neutral (both in message, and forum) then certainly it would have been fine, but she did not go post to reliable sources noticeboard, to fringe noticeboard, etc, only to ones where she thought her POV would be receptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as bias against indigenous cultures is concerned, this group is (judging from its actual history) yet another appropriation of that culture to the ends of white first-worlders. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response on Canvassing from CarolmOoredc:

WP:Canvassing in "Appropriate Notification" section reads: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following: The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion... Since we are all volunteers here evidently there is no law you have to post to more than one; I usually don't do more than one or two. I'm not the only person seeing the AfDs/RfCs/etc. after all. (Now if you post to TEN and only to ones you think will agree with you and not to even more relevant ones you know will not, I think that's problematic.)
Generally speaking I often see articles where there are several deletes, someone may or may not post a neutral message to a couple of projects, but in any case the "keeps" flood in. (Will I get in trouble if I speculate on "deletionists hot to trot"??)
As I wrote to the Wikipedia Foundation Gendergap email list after I noticed the ANI: I thought I'd seen AfDs there a number of times over last couple years. Don't know easy way to search through archives. If they are NOT appropriate, and anything else not appropriate, good idea to put it in the message footer of each message. (Whatever is posted often has some relevant commentary and if not, some usually follows from other editors.) (Note:There is now a discussion of formalizing the policy on canvassing from Wikipedia Foundation mailing lists, since there has been some confusion at some lists, including by Foundation interns and perhaps employees.)
I did get sloppy and put a non-neutral short comment on the only wikiproject I posted to and when someone mentioned it immediately deleted. (At least it wasn't a non-neutral section heading on TEN wikiprojects I complained about last week, which in that case only one person and the closing admin thought might be "a bit much".) Sloppiness happens, esp. when you aren't that aware of who is doing what/why in AfDs, as opposed to articles you are working on where more familiar with the characters and more careful.
I also started a section on this article's talk page to list the various good sources that were popping up. Will have to see if any new ones did - feel free to add yours there. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge daughter articles unless a particular individual member has significantly enough coverage to permit a separate article. As per Tarc, there seems to be systemic bias in thinking that an article with sources from major universities, academic journals, daily newspapers and dead-tree-published books is more poorly sourced than an article sourced to toy catalogs. If we can have an article on every frickin' Autobot, we can have a (sourced) article on a group of indigenous people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fallacy (and if I had my way, the Autobot articles would be gone too): this is just another case of not looking at what the sources are and say. Mangoe (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is actually a good argument in the context of systemic bias. The systemic bias of this encyclopedia strongly favors popular culture topics that are common on the Internet. Nobody bothers trying to AfD those Autobot articles, because they know that it would end up a WP:SNOW keep. Meanwhile, topics related to indigenous people in North America are not part of the dominant popular culture conversation and have far fewer defenses or defenders. There aren't 80 million sites providing breathlessly-detailed fancruft for Native American elders. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. Significant coverage is found in Grandmothers Counsel the World: Women Elders Offer Their Vision for Our Planet, which addresses the subject directly in detail. Claims that all of the sources are self-published are false. As others have pointed out, there are oodles of secondary sources available. Many are articles like this one from The Union Democrat – in-depth, reliable sources that are independent of the subject and assert notability. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 21:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The book is patently and obviously not an independent source.

It has been a great honor to work closely with the International Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers in crafting this book. [....] I have done my best to express what I have heard and learned from the Grandmothers, but my ability to act as a bridge or translator to a wider audience is, to a certain extent, hindered by the limits of my own understanding and experience. [....] Finally, though my name appears on the cover of this book, the words of wisdom expressed within it are not mine, and I do not lay claim to them.

Gaijin42 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets GNG, and not to pick issues with the unsigned comment above this, but generally for such works, this shows that the author reached out to them and worked WITH them, but did not interpret or give the information contained within through paraphrasing or editing. That is to say the contents of the "wisdom" are unedited and unchecked; not that the author works for them. The difference is massive. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would that make it not independent, and primary? Especially as this was used as the source for 90% of the article? (along with the also primary, self published podcasts? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As others have said, there's an Associated Press article in USA Today, a Seattle Times mention, and a guest column by one of the grandmothers in the Washington Post. That's enough to establish notability. Whether it needs to be edited to be policy-compliant, as the nominator said, is a separate issue from whether it satisfies notability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge all the individual bios, and rigorously prune back to sources highlighted by SlimVirgin above. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin(s) - there may have been wiki-canvassing, so that would be not gounds to delete, but to hold open the AfD until a clearer consensus could be found. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air Postal Locator System

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

Cannot find any references for this at all. Therefore no evidence of notability, but does not fit into any of the CSD, strictly construed. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references available with which to establish notability. - Mr X 15:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was created today give it some time to let people add to itPug6666 19:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think giving it more time will make it more notable. Also see WP:PLEASEDONT. - Mr X 20:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This went to AfD a whole 67 minutes after it was created with zero evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed or even that a much simpler prod tag was attempted. - Dravecky (talk) 21:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not specifying precisely that I carried out the steps listed at WP:BEFORE, but I did, and could not find any sources whatsoever, as I mentioned in my rationale, and the only link to it outside the AfD process was added to another article by the creator because it shared the initials APLS.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 21:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced, and as far as I can tell, is unsourceable. Despite the definition given in the article, I really don't know what it is. Is it a sorting system? Is it a package tracking system? It severely lacks context. -- Whpq (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eenies at war

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

Unreferenced; no evidence that the game meets WP:GNG . AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, borderline speedy as advert, with right-off-the-box sounding phrases like "Power up your mega SS weapon to deal devastating damage." and "Equip fully customizable Mobiles and Avatars!" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well phrased by Starblind. --GRuban (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2013 (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) 18:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable game, NPOV issues. Satellizer el Bridget ^ツ 11:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rabih Ataya

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league or for his country's national team. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Player does appear to have played internationally according to this. Slightly confusing situation as there seems to be questions around the romanisation of his name. NFT has this player who shares the same birth date, so I assume is the same individual. Appears to have made one substitute appearance for Lebanon and so passes WP:NFOOTY. Just! Fenix down (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 14:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to meet WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving to meet WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The friendly he allegedly played in took place; Al Ahram, The Daily Star, Soccerway. I can't find a list of teams and substitutions though. I don't think Transfermarkt can be considered a reliable source. Someone more used to searching for Arabic sources might find something. Walls of Jericho (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found the Egypt squad announced for the match here, although it's described as a "reserve team". Unless we can establish that this guy played in the match, the article may have to go. C 679 09:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok I found a match report with his name and a profile there too. Is that WP:RS? C 679 09:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 05:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legatto Group

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

Non-notable company. The only reference is a 2003 article that doesn't mention this company mainly because the company wasn't founded until 2010. I removed the reference and prodded the article but it has been replaced and the prod removed. Fails WP:NCORP. Tassedethe (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS references found in Google, Questia or Highbeam. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Also WP:COI issue. AllyD (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Too like an ADVErt for my liking. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Don't clog AFD to make a point. Take up the dispute with the relevant WikiProjects. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organic electronics

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

Organic electronics was recently merged (and reverted) into organic semiconductors. As such a merge is tantamount to deleting coverage of organic electronics other than semiconductors, I'm bringing it to AfD to give it a wider audience. Discussion at Talk:Organic_semiconductor#Organic_semiconductor.23Merger_proposal has already degenerated into accusations of sockpuppetry. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep As Smokefoot, the merger, themselves admitted, "Of course I know that organic electronics is broader than organic semiconductors,". We should thus retain the overall, broad scope, article. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:02, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Guevara Urbina

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

I'm not quite sure what to make of this article. The current content is simply WP:SOAP and WP:RESUME. Basically all content came from User:Sofia alvarez1 and User:Murbina, both appearing to be single-purpose accounts, the latter likely being the subject himself. The subject itself might be borderline notable per WP:ACADEMIC as from the current article content, but note that WP:GOOGLETEST (in particular Google News) give basically no credible results. bender235 (talk) 14:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. All the references in the article are primary and I can't find any reliable secondary sources for it to meet WP:GNG.Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to be a prolific writer, but that's not one of the WP:PROF criteria and I can't find sufficient evidence that he's making an impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, as noted by David Eppstein above Kabirat (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obelisk International

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

non-notable - upon carrying out due diligence, it appears that there are no reliable third party articles about Obelisk International. This is supported by the improper referencing on the article, whereby none of the references even mention Obelisk International and seem to simply be websites of reputable organisations which either just talk about Brazilian social housing or aren't relevant to the subject at all. In no way do any of them demonstrate Obelisk International's notability. Samstreet133 (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 30. Snotbot t • c » 13:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the nominator's obvious COI Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/EcoHouse_Group. No evidence of notability in the article, and if there's any news about the company out there, I can't find it. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- If what it says about having provided 1 million homes in Brazil is true, then it ought to be significant. However, that is probably the government programme. page from the company website names five developments lists five developments covering under 3500 appartments (or houses). This makes it a significant house-builder, but not on an enormous scale. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only "merge" !votes give improper policy-based arguments or no target. Delete due to non-notability/lack of sourcing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conlang X-SAMPA

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

Conlang X-SAMPA is a non-notable revision of X-SAMPA made by and used exclusively in a mailing list which is itself non-notable. I don't see how this could even survive being included on the main X-SAMPA page as it is essentially a homebrew system.Hermione is a dude (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. I'd suggest working this into the main article on the mailing list, except it continues to not have been written (for 6½ years now). Could be mentioned on the main X-SAMPA article perhaps, but yes, doesn't need a full discussion there. (I've contributed almost all of the actual content in this article FWIW, but this has been forked on one of the conlang wikis by now, so nbd.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I scanned the edit history for quantitative editors but forgot to look for qualitative ones. Hermione is a dude (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge; I can see a page on the list, though someone would have to find the reliable sources. This is sub-notable on its own, and probably not notable enough for X-SAMPA; then again, relatively speaking, how much less notable is this then X-SAMPA?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hermione is a dude (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what my opinion is worth, I'd vote for merge, though perhaps not even in its own section. Even if CXS isn't particularly used outside the conlang community, I'd say it's still enough to make some note of it as alternate symbols, though probably just a sentence introducing CXS and then mention the symbols parenthetically. WovenTales (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WovenTales. You are new to Wikipedia, so let me point you to Wikipedia's policy on notability. CXS hasn't been covered by any sources that I can find except on a few personal websites that are presumable run by members of CONLANG. It is basically the linguistics equivalent of a house rule. It's not even used much in the conlanging community as you imply, it is mostly restricted to CONLANG. Even if it were universal within that community, it would still fail to meet notability. Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However, Wikipedia:Notability says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." It's not relevant to the question of whether or not Conlang X-SAMPA should be merged to X-SAMPA or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are more comments needed? Hermione is a dude (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Elite mma championship

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

This article contains virtually nothing in the way of "well-sourced prose" to satisfy WP:SPORTSEVENT and cites no references at all. In looking for references I'm finding no coverage at all, let along significant, non-WP:ROUTINE, coverage of the event. TreyGeek (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This appears to be a hoax to me. It has fighters from different organizations fighting each other, even retired and/or injured ones. Even if this event actually occurred, there's no significant coverage of it--certainly nothing that shows this meets WP:SPORTSEVENT. I think it's strange that none of the alleged fights appear on anyone's record at Sherdog nor do some of the "fighters" (e.g., Hamza Rizki) have any record at sherdog. Papaursa (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per WP:GCSD G1 (Patent Nonsense) and G3 (Blatant Hoax). Event doesn't exist and IMO the page creator should be suspended for vandalism. Luchuslu (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - This is clearly a hoax, the fighters mentioned are major fighters and if these fights had happened, there would have been coverage of them somewhere. I think it's pretty clear this event never happened. CaSJer (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. LlamaAl (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Huebner

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

WP:BLP1E. Also, as it is the article is a horrid violation of WP:BLPREMOVE. Shii (tock) 12:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My complaint about the article's content has been resolved by another editor. Thanks! I still doubt his notability, though. Shii (tock) 13:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the BLP issues have been resolved. As for notability, it's probably skirting the edges of WP:PROF, but I feel like the one paper he is known for was high-profile enough, in both the press and the academic literature, to warrant keeping the article. (The very fact that it attracted BLP violations, though unfortunate, also supports this). -Kieran (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a related source, but it looks to me that this information would benefit from a merge. Shii (tock) 07:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 12:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (articulate) @ 12:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the subject has received mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources, but IMHO what has really received significant coverage is the paper the subject wrote. Additionally, the subject if taken as an event (the publishing of the paper) it has received significant coverage well after its publication. My question regarding this AfD, has the subject of this AfD received significant coverage outside of the publication of the paper, A possible declining trend for worldwide innovation? Have other papers written by the subject of this AfD received significant coverage?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think one paper with only 38 citations in Google scholar is enough to hang a case for WP:PROF on. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Basically, I agree with DavidE. about his individual notability, but the question is whether people will come across this work enough to look for an article here--I'd be much more satisfied if we could merge or incorporate the content somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 07:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I merged the content into the Innovation article. I think this page is safe to delete now. Shii (tock) 23:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, as noted by David Eppstein above; and as for GNG, his only notable paper was covered in a couple of mainstream sources at the time ((US News and World Report, New Scientist) but does not seem to have made much of an enduring mark. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure yet. I'm not seeing a real biography here. However, I am seeing that the paper he wrote was published in a peer reviewed publication, and has received some press. It probably received more press back in 2005 and maybe 2006 because it was discussed in U.S. News and World Report. Therefore, I think the best thing to do is to search general topic databases for related press articles, such as the databases found in a college or public library like Academic OneFile, Expanded Academic, and General OneFile. So, what I am saying is, I recommend an article based on the paper. I think that might be notable as compared to the author's biography. Biographical facts pertaining to the author could be mentioned in the article, if there are any more. Also, I think this is an interesting topic. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put the same article in a different context that would probably survive notability. It is currently in my sandbox here, but can be moved to the mainspace at anytime. Just let me know what the consensus is. Or we can have the original author copy and post the sand box article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Steve Quinn: Your article fails to distinguish between *rate of change* of technology and *level* of technology; it treats them as the same thing. And I'd like to see a little wider variety of sources rather than just Huebner's work, a couple newspaper stories from immediately after it was published, and one followup research paper. Despite these flaws it is much better than the present article. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - David Eppstein, thanks for the feedback. I will look into distinguishing "rate of change" of technology and "level" of technology. Also, I will search for a wider supply of sources according to your description. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, as noted by David Eppstein aboveKabirat (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in relaible independent independent sources. Transitory coverage in the popular press does little to establish notability. No evidence that the subject meets any of out notability requirements, particularly WP:PROF. No evdience of significant and lasting impact in the scholarly community. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (change to delete) per Dominus Vobisdu. Also, this subject is lacking in sources that show notability per WP:PROF. The demonstrated coverage in the small amount of press that are used to source the article do not appear to substantially cover the subject. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Seventh Avenue (Manhattan). Clear redirect as per discussion (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion Avenue

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

Having done a search myself, I find it unremarkable organization. Not worthy of keeping in Wikipedia. Hussnain.wiki (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (Gimme a message) @ 12:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 12:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ No evidence that this retail outlet is notable. Only reference is an event announcement, which falls far short of WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 05:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC) (Struck previous opinion in the light of Mabalu's more assiduous reading of the rather strange article history.) Restore redirect to Seventh Avenue (Manhattan), which has documented use of this term. AllyD (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore redirect to Seventh Avenue (Manhattan). Almost total absence of sources - I tried searching with Lahore and Pakistan and Vogue Towers as additional keywords - absolutely no hits. Actually, looking at the edit history, I am now puzzled - it looks like the nominator replaced the redirect with the current article, and has now nominated their own work for deletion instead of restoring the redirect they overwrote in the first place? Mabalu (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per above. Brendon is here 10:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt per Mabalu. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and restore redirect to Seventh Avenue (Manhattan). I created this article when I found some information on this organization at some notable newspapers. However after doing some additional research I found that this retail outlet is not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Therefore I nominated it for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.178.141.244 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Nova

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was nominated for speedy as non-notable, but since it has had two AfDs with conflicting results, I thought it needed discussion in case anything had changed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (cackle) @ 12:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 12:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk to me) @ 12:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG lacking substantial coverage by reliable sources. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:NMODEL without proof of unique contributions to pornography or entertainment in general. The keep because she's well-known in Japan argument in the first AfD needs evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per WP:BIO. She has not been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. 122.17.119.74 (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments in ther prior AFD. Probably speediable as G4-repost. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has never been nominated for anything, and being well-known in Japan doesn't hold much weight. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - seemingly nominated in error by the article creator. User draft tagged for speedy deletion and subsequently deleted as such. (non-admin close). Stalwart111 12:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meteor Storm

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

I had created an article by the name Meteor Storm. But, recently I found an article User:Ninney/Meteor_Storm_(film) which shows in the Header section as - Meteor Storm A start-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from User:Ninney/Meteor Storm (film))

Now, we need to delete the page User:Ninney/Meteor_Storm_(film) I tried to delete it but it was marked on the main article page Meteor Storm. How do we delete the redirect link / the page User:Ninney/Meteor_Storm_(film) ? - Ninney (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Ninney (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to delete the redirect link [[16]] & not the main article Meteor Storm - Ninney (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally there is a link at the top of the page, underneath the article title, if you arrive at the page from a redirect. Clicking on that link will return you to the page that contains the redirect. You can put this up for deletion by tagging the page with WP:CSD#U1. I've added the tag to the above page, User:Ninney/Meteor Storm (film), but feel free to revert if you'd like to keep it. Funny ^Pika! 10:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (barney) @ 12:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Grey

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

Writer with no strong evidence of notability. The article cites just one reliable source, but it's not about him in any meaningful way — besides mentioning his name and providing a brief critical analysis of his book, it contains no substantial information about him at all — and Google turns up no other reliable sources about him. I can't properly verify his claimed death, I can't properly verify his claimed friendship with a convicted killer, and on and so forth. Furthermore, the article was written by somebody who is also mentioned in the body as a collaborator of his, meaning there are WP:COI issues here to boot — which, as always, isn't an unforgiveable sin if there are reliable sources we can use to clean it up. But there aren't. And if I trim it back to the one statement in the entire article that can be properly sourced — i.e. the one statement that already is — then there's simply not enough notability there to justify an article at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WRITER. His book Sweet Home Chicago was appreciated by Yann Martel, but I can't find any WP:RS reviews (either in general Google search or on the usual review sites). Book was published by a small press which Grey co-founded[17] which doesn't necessarily prove non-notability, but means he's less likely to get reviews than if he was with one of the bigger publishers or well-known indies. Article mentions another novel Soo Line Sling but I can't find anything about it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Failure to meet WP:WRITER. Brendon is here 10:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:WRITER criteria. Finnegas (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong arguments on both sides - strong enough to find no specific consensus to delete, nor any strong consensus to keep (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Priyadarshini Raje Scindia

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

Fails WP:GNG. Aside from fawning mentions in fashion columns, this person seems to be notable only for being the wife of a politician. Yes, some call her a princess but India - a republic - has long since abolished all royal titles and those who apply them now do so for reasons of vanity. Sitush (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the 26th amendment^[2] to the Constitution of India promulgated in 1971, the Government of India abolished all official symbols of princely India, including titles, privileges, and remuneration (privy purses).^[3]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk) @ 12:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk) @ 12:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Oppose~~ (1) Has been in Verve's "Best dressed - 2008" Hall of fame list.[18] (2)Though officially deprived of titles they are used popularly, she is considered India's top five princeses,[19] internationally too she is addressed as a princess and is the patron of University of Manchester's scholarship programme.[20] (3)She is the head of Maharaja Sir Jiwaji Rao Scindia Museum and the Gwalior foundation and the governing council of Save the children (4) Government publications too mention her as H.H. Maharani Shrimant Priyadarshini Raje Scindia[21] (5)He is addressed as a "royal" by international royalty.[22] (6) She is president of Scindia Kanya Vidyalaya. (6)She is a celebrity socialite (numerous links[23] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed YK's vote from Oppose to Keep. We use "Keep" and "Delete" at AFDs. The AfD Vote Counter doesn't understand Oppose. Well... it doesn't even understand unbolded Delete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Good digging but most of what you have found seems like trivia.

Ok, some people like the way she dresses and some group that seems to amount to a "lad's mag" think she looks "hot" - no Miss World or similar, though.
Patronage of a minor university's scholarship programme, especially when it is keen to attract students from India, says more about the university than about her.
Sure, she is the head of a couple of things that her husband's family seem to have set up: they seem to be fairly minor things and can you imagine us, for example, listing every charity/school/similar that a member of the British royal family patronised?
The "government publication" looks more like a forum index to me - what are we supposed to be looking at there?
How she is addressed by other royals is irrelevant - still a vanity title, it is in fact just one royal in your example, and diplomacy says they'll play along with the vanity.

The fact is, she is not even a pretender and we are not a genealogy website. So, this really seems to boil down to whether she is notable as a socialite (possible, but don't we dumb down enough here already? Do we have any decent sources rather than gossip rags etc?) or because of her involvement with India's Save The Children organisation (which I suspect is not tremendously different from her involvement with the University of Westminster). - Sitush (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be a notable socialite. Seen in various functions and covered that way through newspapers. Eg. HT Leadership Summit 2011. Also listed 2nd on Top 5 Indian Princesses by Yahoo. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't want to start badgering but I think it best to reiterate that the Yahoo "top 5" is basically a meatmarket list from some sort of obscure "lad's magazine". She is arbitrarily listed based on her looks, not her achievements, her family's titular rank among the hierarchy of royals or similar. I could accept that if she was a contestant in some formal setting, such as Miss World or Miss India, but she is not and I'm not even sure that she has ever worked as a professional model. I could create my own top five list right now and get it published on Yahoo. - Sitush (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Forbes list a contest? Is it an "obscure" lad's magazine, well Yahoo disagrees with you. Don't looks make a person notable? Did anyone claim she was a professional model? Yes and I could build a spaceship that would take me to the moon. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link to "government publication" is a Ministry of Youth Affairs", central government site. I don't understand what you mean by forum. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The govt website (note, as with your "royals" comment, this is in fact just one govt source and not plural) invites people to add their details using this form. It is obviously not well-vetted because they cannot even sort out the SHOUTING that some people have added. As it stands, it seems to be some sort of open directory/a cross between a forum and a wiki. It does not bolster your argument. THer rest of what you say is just your usual bs'ing whereby you deliberately misunderstand what someone else said, isn't it? Grow up. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open directory/ Wiki!! Isn't the site owned by the Government of India's, Ministry of Youth Affairs? Are you sure that there is no editorial oversight? I've presented one source, that doesn't mean that there is only one source? Since you prefer to answer here what do you mean by meat-market? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A single source does not justify pluralising. There are plenty of government-hosted websites that allow a certain freedom of expression in phraseology, and those of India are often pretty lax. As for meat-market, I'd already answered - just drop it, now. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She is not a notable person. His husband and father is a notable persons. Her page can not be accepted on the basis of her Husband`s and Father`s notability. I did not find any notable work carried out by her.Jussychoulex (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As it stands, the article looks eligible for Speedy Deletion CD:A7, as it doesn't even make any claims of importance. So if whatever is in those sources shows notability, it needs to be written in the article too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After this time, the only claim I'm really seeing here is "She would have been a princess if India still had princesses", and that's not much of a claim to notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At most, this page could be merged with that of her husband Sesamevoila (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing of substance in the article. The first line says it all. To call her a princess of any sort is an illusion, facetious and a non-starter. By that reasoning Elizabeth II is the empress of India.--Zananiri (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that she is not a notable person. Delljvc (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is India's top 5 princess: http://in.lifestyle.yahoo.com/5-indian-princesses-121204767.html, I just don't know why Sitush is so much against with her. You are so aggressively denying everyone who is trying to keep this article. I think you have some personal issues with her. But apart from your mindset, Priyadarshini Raje Scindia is well deserved article. 117.217.90.138 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've only made two contributions - one here, and one pointless extra source at the article. I wonder if you've forgotten to log in because, so far, Shobhit Gosain (talk · contribs) has not commented here despite creating the article and being active elsewhere since it was nominated. If so, is there any chance that you could log in and confirm? You don't have to (it could give away your location) but if you are indeed the same person then I'd be prepared to try to help you understand why so many of your efforts are being contested. - Sitush (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I completely agree after being said noted that she is India's top 5 Princess. Also she is a renowned socialite after the links has been posted on the start of this article. Shobhit Gosain (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Boing! Merely being the woman who would have been a princess is insufficient for notability. The only claim re notability appears to be the yahoo fluff piece which is about as insignificant as it gets. --regentspark (comment) 18:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a straw man argument, no one is claiming that she is notable because she is a princess, she is notable because she is a public figure as manifest from various sources and tops two lists, the Yahoo list and the Verve list, that anything is fluff is a matter of opinion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh, look at the references. 1 and 2 are there because of her husband. 5 and 6 just list her as a board member. 3 is not available online. For a public figure, this is a fairly meagre haul. That leaves the yahoo lifestyle piece for which I refer you to WP:RS. --regentspark (comment) 18:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the snap shot of the book. I don't see why Yahoo isn't a RS? Also there are other sources that refer her to being on the 2008 Verve best dressed list.[24] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This site mentions that she dressed in a Sari featured in the best dressed list. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo news is probably ok. Lifestyle is not. Anyway, I can't get myself charged up over this so let's leave it to the closer. --regentspark (comment) 18:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the list was created by MensXP.com a Times Group venture. No RS issues here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something more notable about her: http://www.uppercrustindia.com/oldsite/27crust/twentytwo/feature2.htm Shobhit Gosain (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can be notable by their pictures/news in non-notable, non-reliable sources i.e.http://www.uppercrustindia.com/oldsite/27crust/twentytwo/feature2.htm......Jussychoulex (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a book reference and by the way notability exists for following reasons:

Every (*true) Politician in India belongs to any political dynasty.
The concern of the nominator is "Aside from fawning mentions in fashion columns". We have an article on Wedding dress of Kate Middleton which is notable for only fawning mentions in fashion columns. So I see no reason to delete this one.
Though Government of India has long abolished all royal titles yet she is called princess by many (of course it is vanity).
She is a notable public figure and suits wikipedia standards of notability. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon7968, your first point would be good if she were actually a "politician". She isn't. Your second point would be good if we cared about other stuff. We don't. Your third point is kind of a poor one. Notability doesn't arise merely from existence. Are we expected to have articles on every relative of every former royal family in India merely because they would have been called nawab or raja or rani or rajkumar or rajkumari or whatever if royalty still existed? I think not. Finally, your last point would be good if there was some evidence that she was a public figure. If someone is a public figure, there should be plenty of evidence in the form of reliable sources that explain why she is public. The article would be bubbling with newspaper stories about her doings and stuff like that. But we don't see that. Rather, the paucity and poor quality of reference in this article are merely evidence that she is not notable. --regentspark (comment) 14:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:RegentsPark Agree with you philosophically. This article is a perfect example of a two fold lost effort both by nominators and the creator of the article. Anyone willing to know about Priyadarshini Raje Scindia will see fashion magazines or youtube than wikipedia. But given the notability standards of wikipedia I belief she is notable. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RP how are you so sure that Scindia isn't a politician? You can only accurately say that she isn't holding any office, for that matter Bal Thackeray never held any office in his lifetime, would you say he wasn't a politician? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YK, I can't prove a 'not'. But you can prove an 'is'. If she is a politician, you'll need to provide a reliable source that says she is one and I'll be happy to reconsider my !vote. Right now, we're dealing with someone who would have been a princess and has appeared in a couple of photo shoots. Definitely not notable. --regentspark (comment) 13:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have a right to have an opinion, she campaigns for the party[25] and participates in public events with other public figures[26] and politicians,[27] makes her political enough, remember Sanjay Gandhi never held any political office (to the best of my knowledge) he was what he was as his mother's son. But notable in his own right. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon YK. All she does is accompany her husband. Hardly the same thing as seeking or even desiring to seek political office. Heck, I've stood on street corners seeking signatures but that doesn't make me a politician! And the comparison with Sanjay Gandhi or Thackeray is way over the top. If she becomes a controversial figure, I'll gladly support inclusion but all we really have is a spouse who helps her spouse.--regentspark (comment) 14:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you go through the links you'd find that she accompanied her husband and did solo campaigning also.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people campaign. But, you're going to respond to everything, aren't you. So .... whatever. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Solomon7968, the person is notable enough. -sarvajna (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered when you'd chip in, given the presence of Yogesh and Dharma ;) She is not a royal, she is not a professional model, she is not a politician. Her claims to notability are being married to someone and being an occasional feature in trivial gossip columns etc which themselves seem unable to understand that she has no more right to the title of princess than I do. In other words, they are factually inaccurate in detail (ie: unreliable) as well as subjective and fawning in scope. - Sitush (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it sound like "pot calling the kettle black"? "No more right to the title of princess than I do" Well wonder why "New York Social Diary" calls her the "Queen of Gwalior?[28] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea whatyour pot/kettle comment is referring to but wtf is New York Social Diary, aside from another photo source that clearly is fawning and incapable of understanding Indian royal titles or the invalidity thereof? I'm wondering now whether she might be notable as an imposter! - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I request you to communicate in standard English and not in obscene slang. NYSD has been used/ referred 91 times on Wikipedia, what claim to expertise does an anonymous editor have? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not anonymous - plenty of people know who I am in real life. Please read WP:OSE andWP:RS regarding other uses for NYSD. - Sitush (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also included on India's 50 Most Beautiful Woman by Femina in 2012. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 21:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infoecology

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

Non-notable topic with no mainstream coverage Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 12:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also did not find any mainstream coverage. In addition, the only source was not in English. It's possible that this article was created to promote the subject. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 18:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Delete We have an article on Information ecology as defined by the knowledge management and library science folk. But this article is a seeming WP:COATRACK for advertising the Infoecology institute. As far as I can tell, that institiute is not notable; I was unable to find multiple reliable secondary sources for the topic or institute. Without multiple reliable RS, this topic falls below notability threshold, per WP:GNG, and should be deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable coverage of topic. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kelly (footballer)

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

Article about a footballer who has not played in a fully professional league (only in the Scottish Third Division) and does not meet WP:GNG. Article created via AfC. C 679 07:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 08:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 12:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 12:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 12:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep St. Mirren is in the Scottish Premier League and as such he fulfills WP:NFOOTY. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He's never played for St Mirren, though, therefore he doesn't fulfill WP:NFOOTY -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. So being on the team is not sufficient? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, as the policy you link to states, "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then it should be deleted. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all relevant guidelines -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've seen him play, but at the moment he fails WP:NFOOTY. Obviously no prejudice to re-creation if he breaks into the St Mirren 1st team or elsewhere. AllyD (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 05:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World Grand Prix 2004 in Las Vegas I

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

fails WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT. a qualifying event for another event with no third party sources. also nominating:

K-1 Beast 2004 in Shizuoka LibStar (talk) 07:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 12:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (converse) @ 12:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both of these events were qualifying events for the final qualifying event for the 2004 K-1 World Grand Prix. Combined with the lack of non-routine coverage, I don't think these events pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. I could see them being included if someone wrote an article on the entire 2004 K-1 tournament, but they don't seem to merit their own individual articles. Papaursa (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a preliminary qualifying event. There is no need for its own article.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 05:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dream: Fight for Japan!

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

fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and more generally WP:EVENT. a non notable fighting event only covered in primary sources. LibStar (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 12:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 12:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - While Dream is a top tier organization, there's nothing in the article or in the sources demonstrating why this particular event is notable, and all the information looks like WP:ROUTINE sports reporting. I'd reconsider my vote if some well sourced prose were added showing this event had enduring notability. CaSJer (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was some discussion at the beginning of the year as to whether this new Dream is still top tier (consensus was wait and see), but I don't see anything to show this particular fight card was noteworthy and all coverage seems pretty routine. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:DIPLOMAT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Bernard-Meunier

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. coverage merely confirms she held an ambassador position but nothing indepth on her as a person. also a recent discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) did not result in inherent notability for ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was Ambassador to Germany, one of the half-dozen most important diplomatic posts in any country, which makes her one of Canada's most senior diplomats and therefore clearly worthy of an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

she still needs her achievements covered in third party coverage, have you looked? Simply being an ambassador to Germany does not mean an automatic article. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion on which you and I clearly disagree. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me the notability guideline which says being ambassador to Germany means being notable? LibStar (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not bound by rules. Opinion is valid at AfD and I have just given one! I do not need to quote a guideline to back up my opinion. Neither does a guideline need to exist to make my opinion valid. Please note that WP:BIO states: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Amazing how many people think it is! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

your !vote would be a lot stronger if you provided evidence of coverage. have you even looked? LibStar (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one nominating for deletion. Have you? -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from your response you haven't. refer to my nomination coverage merely confirms she held an ambassador position but nothing indepth on her as a person. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going round in circles here. Kindly refer to my first comment. I consider this sufficient to keep the article. Let's leave it there. The decision is down to neither you nor me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear to me you haven't looked for sources. The onus is on keep !voters is to prove notability by finding actual sources not inventing criteria like "ambassador to Germany is notable". Your arguments for keep are not solid. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments to keep are based on my opinion, which is perfectly valid at AfD. If you don't agree with it then that's fine, but please don't try and claim that it's not valid. As I've already said, that's not your decision to make. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are opinions on how a notability guideline is met or not met. Not an opinion that something is WP:ITSNOTABLE by inventing your own criterion. LibStar (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you misunderstand the meaning of the word "guideline"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

clearly you are making zero effort to find sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And all this because I said I thought she was notable. You really must want this article deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure WP:ITSNOTABLE. All this time you spent arguing you've never found one source. Maybe you've tried to look and found nothing that's why you've shown no sources.LibStar (talk) 11:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to reread the section you've just cited to check what it actually says as opposed to what you think it says. I have provided an explanation of why I think she's notable. You just don't agree with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 05:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia is not a question of merely asserting a distinction, but of the reliable sources that can or cannot be brought to support it — especially when we're talking about a WP:BLP. There are lots of people who certainly seem like they should be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia by virtue of their role (this happens quite a lot with diplomats and broadcasters, to name just two examples), but who just aren't actually the subject of enough media coverage in reliable sources to actually get past WP:GNG. These people are not automatically notable enough for articles just because they exist, if the articles cannot actually be properly sourced — but the only source that's present here is a bare directory listing of everybody who's ever held a Canadian diplomatic posting since 1800, and it doesn't even support the article's actual content, because if you click on her name in that list the only posting that shows up is to UNESCO. Which means, in other words, that all we have here is verification of her existence, while the actual claim of notability is wholly unverifiable as things currently stand. Accordingly, I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if real sources actually start showing up — but in its current form it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take this back slightly — for some reason she has two separate listings, one at "Bernard-Meunier, Marie" which does verify the claimed Netherlands and Germany postings, and one at "Meunier, Marie-Bernard" which only lists UNESCO. So the ambassadorial postings are verifiable after all, but now her correct name isn't (both versions are completely plausible). And the mere fact of being listed in a directory still doesn't constitute sufficient coverage in reliable sources to make her notable enough for an encyclopedia article, so this still isn't keepable without sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jovan Nikolić. No prejudice against recreation, but in the interim it should go to the dab page. L Faraone 17:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Nikolic

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

Seems to be impossible to find sources, either searching in Latinica or Cyrillic. Hits seem to relate only to other Jovan Nikolićs at the dab, or a Jovan Nikolić CEO of Quattro Homes, who doesn't/shouldn't have an article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found nothing on the dude whatsoever; furthermore, the article fails to assert the notability of this great soldier, so I guess I will conclude that this was a stb at creating a memorial Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is deleted, could the page please redirect to Jovan Nikolić? Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jovan Nikolić. Appears to be a non-notable mid-ranking officer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage of the subject from reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is hard to say whether to keep or delete based on what's in the article and its (zero) references. So I say delete but no prejudice against recreation if better sources (including Serbian language sources) can be found. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Varnado

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

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}}.

Doesn't qualify as a notable individual according to Wikipedia guidelines. Gospelfan45 (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 30. Snotbot t • c » 05:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Textbook example of WP:BLP1E. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims to notability not supported by verifiable sources. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 11:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (rap) @ 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 12:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are verifiable and well respected in the news and music industry. The Singing News is a print and online publication that has been around since the 1970s and he is widely recognized around southern gospel music as one of the best pianists. what other verifiability do you need? 24.107.242.73 (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - See WP:BLP1E Wikipedia is not a news source. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. Other than the news in question, this person is not notable. Also, The Singing News is not generally known as a true non-bias news source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennethlivingston1 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KennethLivingtson1 was one of the spammers blocked from the original article issues and also no one quoted Wikipedia as a news source so that argument is irrelevant. Also the Singing News is a respected news source for Southern Gospel music news 24.107.242.73 (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citing that a contributor was blocked does not give any real reason to keep an article. Having followed Christian music, and keeping in connection with the Singing News, I can say that it is not as "respected" as you choose to say. Anyone can have things put in the publication for a minimum fee. It's not a true reliable news source. 1forHim (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gospelfan45 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Its interesting that you just created a profile today just to comment on this page 24.107.242.73 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Also interesting is gosplefan45 sneaking back in and trying to edit and undo and change the AFD page to fit his wishes 24.107.242.73 (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP-1E. A classic case, actually... Carrite (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel that he is notable enough to have released albums and have articles about him on mtv and billboard than he is noteworthy but I feel I am speaking to shut ears I apologize if I offend anyone I just do not understand how 3 years after an articles creation, adding one item can drop a persons notability enough to delete their page 24.107.242.73 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Carrite, Anyone can release an album. With easy research, he's not nor has he ever been with a major label. There has not been an article on him on MTV or Billboard. And speaking to 24.107.242.73, it's also "interesting" that your main defense in keeping this page is talking about others edits on here. That has nothing to do with the actual reason for deleting due to him not being notable enough to merit a page. It is rather obvious that you want this page up in order to promote negative information on this person because of your personal convictions. If it's not something you've taken personally upon you, you would not care so much about keeping it. At any point, he is not a notable person. The only reason anyone would want to keep the page up is to have one more advertisement of a crime. It merits deletion based upon BLP-1E alone. Regardless of your personal desires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gospelfan45 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are preaching to the choir, Gospelfan... Carrite (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been articles about him on major music news websites including Billboard and MTV and that was not my sole reason for keeping the page up but as a "Gospel Fan" why do you really want it taken down? You kept trying to remove the arrest information and when you could not, your set it up for deletion. That is very very shady I also sign all of my comments and don't try to hide who it is commenting 24.107.242.73 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact you tried to lie about who it was putting comment sup that deserves special notice by admins 24.107.242.73 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm still learning my way around on Wikipedia, and outside of copying and pasting some of these signs, I don't know how to sign my name to it. Luckily it does it for me. Still, that doesn't matter at all concerning the pages existance. Again, there is no MTV article. The link is not an article, just refers to a cd he made. It's no feature of any kind, simply something done on most any cd released. I've yet to see this Billboard reference. Link us to those articles! You can continue to whine about things being shady. But you've not put up anything that can merit keeping the page based upon Wikipedias standards. Again, your motives appear to be driven by using this page primarily as a way to advertise this mans crimes. Did you truly care about it prior to this? To answer your question (and this has nothing to do with Wiki) As a Gospel fan, I see this as harming the Gospel music industry and not being helpful to anyone other than those like yourself who are compelled to do whatever possible to publicize someones crimes. You're making this a personal "out to get" someone.

Actually you put a fake name on there so it appeared someone else posted it and I am a huge Dixie Echoes fan and a Stewart Varnado fan who simply was trying to publish news I said nothing personal or defamatory against him or the Echoes and I have provided enough sources already 24.107.242.73 (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason an actual article from billboard or mtv can't be provided because it doesn't exist. As a Southern Gospel fan, surely you know that those publications don't typically cover SG at all. No major news or publications would ever consider this man notable. We could add many more useless pages to Wikipedia if we wanted to create a page for every non-notable criminal that we simply wanted to make a page for to publish the news of their arrest. Regardless of your attacks on my postings, it still does not prove that he is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gospelfan45 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not attacking anything simply asking why you did that but you refuse to answer so i suppose the proof is in the pudding so to speak 24.107.242.73 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E and WP:BAND. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany J. Curtis

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

Article fails to establish notability, per WP:NACTOR. Grayfell (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 12:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 12:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, she has had very few roles and nothing that can be considered an independant reliable source comes up in Google. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. She's had some film roles, but none of them seems to have been important enough to catch any media attention. Fails WP:GNG. And without the roles being determinable as significant to these productions, we have a failure of WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathyn Brendan Masters

AfDs for this article:

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

I came across this while looking at a related article up for PROD and quickly found that despite a somewhat promising start, this person doesn't really pass notability guidelines. Of the sources on the article, most are unusable as far as establishing notability goes. Here is a rundown of the current sources:

[29] This is the paper of Columbia College Chicago, which Masters was a student of. This is pretty much just a primary source.
[30] This is a piece about his movie, but I can't verify who it was written by and I don't really think this site can be considered a reliable source.
[31] Some random blog-type site, not really the sort that's a RS.
[32] This is pretty much one of the only RS on the page, as DVD Verdict is usable.
[33] Dead link and even if it wasn't, it looks to be your typical non-usable review site.
[34] NN podcast site.
[35] This is Masters' YT for one of his films, so it's primary at best.

Ultimately there just isn't enough there on the article to show notability and the only truly usable link is one DVD Verdict review. Of the claims in the article, the two books are self-published and the other stuff looks to be relatively non-notable as well. I want to note that I had cleaned the puffery out, but left the sources as they were for any incoming editors to look at. This guy just isn't notable right now, if he ever will be. The previous AfD ended in "no consensus", but looks like it should've been a delete. None of the other sources seem to have ever actually come about. Most of what I found on the internet are junk hits and press releases. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the original editor who uploaded this was apparently someone paid to promote actors and such. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 12:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (message) @ 12:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The included sources are pretty generous with words like 'wannabe' and 'aspiring'. There is not enough significant coverage to warrant an article, and I didn't find anything more that would meet WP:BIO guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice towards a redirect. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tegen Roberts

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

All of the news coverage I found only covered this one event. Thus as far as I can tell, she is notable only for winning money on a game show. The current bio doesn't indicate any other reasons for continued notability. Per notability-for-one-event WP:1E, we don't need this article. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:1E. The article feels like a social network page and there is no lasting notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from what I can tell, her second event is being the second most followed contestant behind Olly Murs, which the article cites (albeit dubiously), and possibly Naughty Boy, as he was also on the show. All it needs is a few more references; if it can't be sourced, just convert it into a paragraph on Deal or No Deal (UK)#Participants.--Laun chba ller 09:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Might merit a sentence in Deal or No Deal (UK game show), which already mentions her briefly as well as other contestants who attracted media interest. But she's not really notable: having got a few Twitter followers off the back of her TV appearance isn't really a separate event from the TV appearance (her twitter success hasn't attracted wide media attention separate from her TV appearance, and being popular on Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/etc isn't in itself grounds for notability, as I think many past AfDs will show). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (banter) @ 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (speak) @ 12:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment from nom I'd be fine with a redirect also if consensus goes that way. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Deal or No Deal (UK game show)- Per WP:1E it is not a notable enough event to warrant its own article. It is not the most anyone has won on a UK gameshow, and she is not the only one to win a large amount on that particular show. I can't see how being the second most followed contestant makes her notable either.Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- possibly after adding something to the article on the show. This might have a list of big money winners. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deal or No Deal (UK game show)#Participants, where she is mentioned. I agree that the article doesn't make any particularly great claims to notability at the moment, and there's little sign that her media attention has been enduring. Robofish (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete without redirect. BLP1E applies. A jump in Twitter followers? seriously? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get Rad

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

Non-notable. I see no indication that the band or album is notable, no chart success, etc. Scott 10:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Inspection 12. There seem to be some reviews and other sources cited, but most of them are just blogs, user-submitted content, and other sources that fail WP:RS. It might be possible to merge some content to the band's article, but a redirect is also reasonable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiara Belen

AfDs for this article:

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

Came upon this after a person claiming to be her publicist made this post at the help desk. The person then added the content we advised against posting, which I reverted (I have also blocked). After looking at the article and finding it sourced through blogs and other questionable sources, some of which I've removed, I began to look for reliable sources. All I have found are newspaper stories in which she is passingly mentioned as a player for UC Irvine's women's basketball team (News Archive search). A search with "next top model" returns nothing. There are many pages of web results, as is to be expected for a next top model contestant, but I have found nothing reliable to support an article as to notability or for verification. I propose deletion, then redirection to America's Next Top Model: College Edition and protection of the redirect.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a quick scan of List of America's Next Top Model contestants suggests that at some stage, someone decided that (in general) winners and runners-up of America's Next Top Model and a selected few others were considered notable. Most of the other names are unlinked so I assume they don't have articles (I've checked a couple and that seems to be the case). Is there any particular reason we would arbitrarily consider winners and runners-up to be notable? Winners I understand, but runners-up? On the basis of WP:GNG (per Fuhghettaboutit's analysis above) the subject would seem to not meet our inclusion criteria. I supposed I'm inclined to delete unless someone can provide some sort of explanation or consensus determination for the rationale behind the haves/have nots of that list. Stalwart111 04:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 12:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (rap) @ 12:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I just removed an entire section that had no references at all - a definite no-no per WP:BLP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible assertion of notability; just one step above Jeopardy! winners of the day. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of James Sanders

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

fails WP:EVENT, WP:VICTIM and WP:NOTNEWS applies. no long standing notability. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talkin' to me?) @ 12:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chatter) @ 12:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep lots of references from independent third parties. I don't know anything about the nominator, but in general deletion nominations such as this make me wonder if someone wants to hide the story. Information in this article may help keep others alive. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADHOM. Murders often receive spikes of coverage but needs longstanding notability. Also WP is not a tool for keeping others alive regarding types of murders. LibStar (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I actually think the relevant notability guidelines are sort of contradictory, or at least interpreted in a contradictory way. WP:EVENT can't make demands above and beyond those of WP:GNG because the lede of WP:N says that a topic which satisfies either GNG or EVENT is notable. Since GNG is met in this case, EVENT doesn't need to be. WP:NOTNEWS doesn't seem relevant in this case, though I'd welcome elaboration on which part the nominator thinks applies; and WP:VICTIM refers to biographical articles, which this isn't. 10:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

a fatal car crash or child abuse case in court will get lots of coverage, however for events like this murder and all murder cases on WP. WP:LASTING applies. Otherwise every murder reported in the media gets a WP article. Indeed WP:EVENT trumps WP:GNG in these cases. Or a big snowstorm got lots of coverage months ago, does that mean an article is created for it. LibStar (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above makes lots of sense and I'd agree if it were an assessment of how notability ought to work; however I don't see how you can reach that conclusion from a reading of WP:N itself, which I'll quote in full: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." (emphasis as original) It seems very clear that meeting the GNG alone is always sufficient, regardless of whether any subject-specific guideline is met.

As something of an aside, I think WP:LASTING is a pretty incoherent guideline. It's phrased almost exclusively in the positive sense, i.e., "events with lasting effects are notable" but only explicitly says that events without lasting effects aren't if they're earthquakes or storms. So to read LASTING as saying that a murder with no obvious lasting effects isn't notable is something of a stretch; but maybe we're supposed to take it as implied. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Craigslist Killer#Notable Internet homicides. This is essentially a run-of-the-mill crime, per Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill. The one detail that makes this special is the Craigslist aspect, and we have an article on that. Boil it down to a paragraph and add it to the list in Internet homicide/Craigslist killer. The changes in Craigslist's warnings hinted at but not explained should also be added -- this is a good opportunity to improve both the Internet homicide and Craigslist articles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - third party sources, and plenty of them. also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested. This is undue emphasis on something that is in its nature quite trivial. The GNG is quite explicit that it does not necessarily mean we must have an article regardless of there being many sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this case went on, and was reported on, for some time, thus passing WP:LASTING] and WP:GNG. In the alternative, merge per DGG. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that this discussion has now been running for over a month, I believe that no consensus is the only viable option. We have three different options that have been put forward in the discussion - Merge, keep and delete. All sides make sensible arguments for their position. As such, there is no consensus that shines through. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ProDG (software)

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

Corporate product puffery. It's a set of very run-of-the-mill development tools with no evident distinctive features, notability or referencing. See also SN Systems. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:29, 22 May 2013 (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) 22:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I can't find any proper references. --Ysangkok (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression is Keep - Meets WP:GNG. I see plenty of RS sources on just a very brief check (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The article is in sad shape of course, and should be expanded. -Thibbs (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked at the five sources mentioned by Thibbs above, and believe they could be based entirely on company announcements. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course that's just a drop in the bucket, though. There's coverage of this product suite in IGN, Edge Magazine, Ars Technica, etc. etc. etc. The commentary may be based on company announcements in some cases but it's not merely publishing first-party press releases. At worst I'd say merge this into SN Systems until it becomes large enough to split out on its own. I don't see any point in outright deleting it. -Thibbs (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be happy to see SN Systems merged into ProDG, provided that we can get some independent (i.e. not press releases) sourcing such that games developers regard ProDG as an important and distinctive tool in their working lives, comparable to Visual Basic or the JDK, and rather more than merely a-n-other C compiler. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - SN Systems merged into ProDG or ProDG merged into SN Systems? Right now the SN Systems article appears to be longer and in better shape than the ProDG article. I'd merge ProDG into SN Systems if merging is indeed required. There's no requirement that ProDG be very notable ("comparable to Visual Basic," etc.). Normal "Wikipedia Notable" (significant coverage by multiple reliable third party sources) should be sufficient. And third party sources that merely use press releases as their source material are not the same thing as citing press releases directly. -Thibbs (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just as an aside, we're working on the ProDG page offline, taking on board the feedback here and generally on Wikipedia. The ProDG page has been left to stagnate too long, and as it stands, needs to be addressed. If we can hold off merging for now, we'll get the first draft up this week and hopefully you folks can assist us making it as suitable as we can. SnClee (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merge SN into ProDG. Any notability that SN Systems have is inherited from ProDG. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's comment I relisted not due to insufficient discussion, but to give some additional time for article improvement. —Darkwind (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge SN into ProDG There's definitely enough material here for a NOTEable article, but I don't think having two articles serves any real purpose. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – clearly notable from the references. SN Systems is a bit more stubby so a merged article would not be too long but this on it's own is notable. A merge, and which way it should be done, can therefore be decided later.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; all sources are promotional. Miniapolis 16:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into SN Systems. If it is easier, merge SN into ProDG (software) and move. One combined article much more likely to survive the next challenge. Both would need much work, alas. Generally companies can sometimes come out with a second product, or change product names, which is why I would lean to keeping the company name as the primary topic. But do not feel strongly if there is some other consensus. W Nowicki (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adler Publishing

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:CORP. No independent references in the article or that I could dig up. Sole edit by an SPA. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is pretty spammy, doesn't make any real assetion of notability and is unreferenced. L Faraone 03:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. I don't see where it passes CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saundarya Rajesh

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

Subject has not got significant coverage in independent sources. A mention in Hindu for opinion on the area of subject. Article looks WP:ADVERT to me. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is clearly, undeniably written as an advert/fanpage but the sources given suggest that the subject is notable and the article simply needs a rewrite. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 04:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , Not a notable person as per Wikipedia guidelines. Jussychoulex (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If folks want to discuss a possible merge they can do that on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 01:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paper bag party

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

No proper source, article blabbering on about irrelevant source. No paper bag party ever took place. Ysangkok (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the existence of a clear source stating the existence of paper bag parties, that last sentence is clearly and simply wrong. Whether the source(s) are appropriate or the topic is notable is a different story; could the relevant writers for this article please explain why paper bag parties are a notable part of the history of African-Americans requiring its own article as opposed to being placed in another article?

Additional issues with this article, even beyond the issue of notability, is the actual content itself; as stated in the section, the Free African Americans section needs to be rewritten in a manner more suited for encyclopaedic content on paper bag parties as opposed to an opinion essay on the history of racism against African-Americans. And furthermore, the lead-in needs to be rewritten for much the same reason, since there is no logical reason why the concept of paper bag parties should directly lead into " larger issues of class and caste within the African-American population"; nor, for that matter, does any source suggest such a connection. These "larger issues" seem irrelevant for the immediate topic, and should be so removed from the page on paper bag parties and placed in a more appropriate article (African-American history seems an obvious destination for this information). Benjitheijneb (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Discrimination based on skin color. I found eight Google Scholar results pertaining to the subject, so the idea certainly exists. However, it is just a metaphor; it's too small a subject to warrant its own article. Therefore, I'd recommend that the article in question be merged with Discrimination based on skin color, an article which already has a section on the subject that could be expanded. Marechal Ney (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A number of scholarly and popular sources attest to the existence of such parties. With some improvement this could be the main article for the "Brown paper bag test" section of Discrimination based on skin color. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Paper Bag Principle is a substantial source which amply justifies our having an article on the topic. Warden (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Piwigo

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 by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}}

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable piece of software Jac16888 ^Talk 18:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"non-notable"? A software which started in 2002, 7000 subscribers to the newsletter and more than 20000 download per months! 500 extensions (with also Lightroom, Aperture, Shotwell... plugins !), more than 12 languages... "Unsourced" is right since only the contributors of a software can know the deep history of a software PS:sry if that's badly formatted Flop25 (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's age, it's number of users, it's number of languages, none of these are an indication of notability - what is required are reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate true notability, i.e. real world impact. If there are no references to be found then there can be no article--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is

http://www.design3edge.com/2010/08/26/best-free-and-open-source-php-image-galleries/

I found many articles about installing Piwigo http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/build-your-own-flickr-piwigo

http://www.debian-news.net/2013/05/12/install-piwigo-gallery-on-nginx-with-debian-wheezy/

http://blog.tinola.com/?e=28

http://www.maketecheasier.com/make-a-custom-web-gallery-with-piwigo/2013/02/25

http://www.softaculous.com/softwares/galleries/Piwigo

etc

Script of the day softpedia http://news.softpedia.com/news/Script-of-the-Day-Piwigo-337822.shtml

and there is the Ohloh page http://www.ohloh.net/p/piwigo : that's a third party website, so could we use their information?

Sry we are not in the NY Times but in European journals

Flop25 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohloh says:

has a well established, mature codebase
maintained by a very large development team
with increasing Y-O-Y commits

The fact that Piwigo is translated in 50+ languages is already a fact that it is widely spread and supported by a worldwide community.

Pierricklegall (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of those could be considered a reliable source, maybe the linux journal one but the rest are just your run of the mill blogs and self-published pages etc with nothing to actually demonstrate notability. And again, the number of languages or the size of it's community do not automatically confer notability - there has to be reliable sources to demonstrate it--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know what to do today, you should check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_photo_gallery_software and clean up Wikipedia like you're doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flop25 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF the existence (or non-existence) of an article does not justify the creation (or deletion) of another - if you don't believe an article on that page meets Wikipedias standards you are of course free to nominate them for deletion as well--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, does the fact that major desktop photo gallery softwares like iPhoto (default photo manager on Mac), Picasa (famous from Google), Lightroom (the number one among pro photographers), Aperture (made by Apple for pro photographers), digiKam (photo manager on KDE for Linux/Windows/Mac), shotwell (default photo manager on Ubuntu, and Piwigo is proposed officialy with Facebook, Flickr and Google publishing) all have created an import plugin for Piwigo isn't a "3rd party source of reliability"? Pierricklegall (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not if there are no reliable sources to back it up, or to demonstrate that the plugins were created by Apple/Google/Facebook etc rather than by an unrelated 3rd party as I'm sure will be the case for the Linux plugins--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. None of the export tools were created by Apple/Google/Facebook of course.Pierricklegall (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that "Powered by Piwigo" gives more than 5 millions results in Google is valuable?Pierricklegall (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:GHITS, and please read through the other links I have provided--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We provided arguments which you refuted, but could we know what are yours? Thx Flop25 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given them - the article is unsourced and therefore does not demonstrate notability--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth of the ones I just looked most of the articles on that comparison page seem to have the exact same issues as this one, and I shall be looking into them--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defford (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC) - Piwigo - reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate true notability[reply]

I started using Piwigo a year ago after hearing from many sources about its “notability” i.e. that it is worthy of notice as premier web-based photo gallery software.
The Wikipedia article on Piwigo appears very high in web searches with Google and Bing, directly after Piwigo.org itself and Piwigo.com, and should not be deleted. It is an important source of reference.

I decided to Google for "piwigo third-party sources" and found the following sources as reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate true notability, i.e. real world impact:-

I read this in a third-party independent review:
http://www.techtangerine.com/2012/01/15/piwigo-and-zenphoto-a-comparative-review/
"I found Wikipedia very helpful in narrowing down on Piwigo and Zenphoto. Apparently, these two Open Source web-based photo galleries have the most features. A close third would probably be Coppermine."
The same article is carried in http://www.haxordoubt.com/

A similar summary is in Linux Today:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/build-your-own-flickr-with-piwigo.html
"Build Your Own Flickr with Piwigo"

The following is from a detailed Linux Journal article about Piwigo:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/build-your-own-flickr-piwigo
"If you haven't considered Piwigo, you owe it to yourself to try."

Linux Tools For Serious Photographers is another independent article about Piwigo:
http://scribblesandsnaps.com/linux-tools-for-serious-photographers/
"If you are looking for a web-based application that allows you to host photos on your own server, Piwigo should be at the top of your list."

Linux Magazine has an article:
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Productivity-Sauce/DIY-Mobile-Photo-Sharing-with-Piwigo-and-ReGalAndroid
"DIY Mobile Photo Sharing with Piwigo and ReGalAndroid"

A General web and hosting related blog by Softaculous describes:
http://www.softaculous.com/blog/tag/features-2/
What you can do with Piwigo
“Piwigo is photo gallery software for the web, built by an active community of users and developers.”

digiKam, an advanced digital photo management application for Linux, Windows, and Mac-OSX, recommends Piwigo:
http://www.digikam.org/news?page=15

New exporter for Piwigo galleries
“Some of you may not know Piwigo yet: it's a powerful web gallery based on usual PHP/MySQL technologies. It's a good solution if you want to self-host your photos and avoid third-parties services like Picasa or Flickr.”

Finally, LMAX Exchange (a Foreign Exchange blog) has a summary about Piwigo:
http://blogs.lmax.com/staff-blogs/2013/02/piwigo-video/
"I settled on piwigo for a web photo gallery"

I trust that Wikipedia will reconsider the case for deletion, especially once the article has been updated with suitable, reliable 3rd party references to demonstrate true notability. Defford (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked the Alien (software) discussion about its deletion: the article is even lighter than the one of Piwigo, and the moderator accepted the Linux Mag Article and the other minor articles as a proof of notability.
Moreover, Piwigo is a tool, the goal of a tool is to be used, so -for me with a common sense- the proofs of the notability of a tool are the number of users, and for software, the number of articles talking of HowTo/Comparison...
So I think the real problem is the content and the source of the article, not its existence Flop25 (talk) 13:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tadjio: I have updated the article including third-party source references. Defford (talk) 09:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources added are not reliable third party coverage, and the current article smacks of ref-bombing every single mention of the piece on the web to make it appear notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you want more references, but adding more references is "ref-bombing" and cause for deletion? Nice double-bind!

This whole thing makes me sad, If anyone has ever wondered why new Wikipedia editors are in such short supply they need look no further than deletion logs like this one. JasperWallace (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's hard to separate out discussions of software notability from their importance, and to distinguish true reviews from press releases, but in this case I think the articles are sufficiently independent to justify an article.,especially the one in LinuxJ DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article as it is now is pretty spammy and many of those external links have to go (not to mention the entire "main featured" section), but as DGG demonstrated, the Linux Journal article seems to evoke notability. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 05:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Hassle

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about non-notable Swedish businessman. The article was nominated for deletion in 2009, and was deleted as a result of the AfD, but was later recreated. All updates/edits are done by throwaway accounts, which edit this article and its sister article Plantagon, but nothing else, and are discarded after being used once or twice, making me believe that it is all being done by a single person for self-promotion and self-glorification. Thomas.W (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nominator) Thomas.W (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The updates made on May 14, 2013 have clear references to Hans Hassles professional background and achievements and hence should be views as factually correct and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.4.6 (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits only added even more fluff, self-promotion and self-glorification to the article. A search on Amazon and several other places on the ISBN # of the book mentioned in the article returns nothing and a search on Google on the title of the book explains why: it is self-published, through a publishing house named "Voice of Change" that so far has published only one book, Hassle's book. And a search on Google on his name returns next to nothing that has to do with Hassle himself, only a handful of articles about Plantagon. And none of those articles makes him notable and worthy of an article on WP. A search for his name on UN Global Compact, which is prominently mentioned, and linked to, in the article, returns nothing, so that doesn't make him notable either, and the passus in the article about him being a member of the "Central Ethics Board" fails to mention that there are several such boards in Sweden and that he is one of many members of that particular board, serving as a representative for "allmänheten", i e the general public, and not an expert. So that doesn't make him notable either. Meaning that the subject of the article fails to meet any criteria for notability. Thomas.W (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though I've never heard of mr Hassle before I notice that his articles (here and on svwp) have links to articles in two of Sweden's major newspapers as well as to interviews on national public service radio and television. At least on svwp this would most probably be regarded as sufficent proofs of notability if the article was questioned there. /FredrikT (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being notable in Sweden doesn't necessarily make a person notable in the rest of the world, and this is about notability on en-WP, not on sv-WP. Thomas.W (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that Hassle was notable because he is Swedish, rather that someone who has caught the attention of major national media in any country might be considered notable. /FredrikT (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 01:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being notable in Sweden is being notable, just as anywhere else in the world. This is the Wikipedia written in English, not the Wikipedia about the english-speaking world. FrederickT is quite correct in this, and Thomas's argument is directly contrary to basic policy. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Obviously notable, passes WP:GNG, issues about editing should be dealt elsewhere; AfD is not cleanup. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Memecoin

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

Declined speedy. The article was copied from Litecoin and had names and some details changed. There are no independent reliable sources for "Memecoin". Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that a page with the same name was deleted a couple of days ago as a blatant hoax. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This article clearly states that it is a fork of the litecoin software suite. There are currently over 52 different forks of bitcoin and litecoins. Each with "some" yet important details changed. Do you know which forks there are? does anyone know? Based on that this article and other forthcoming articles should stay on wikipedia if anything just for historical value. Being the software release date It is not going to have many more reliable references other than the creator links contained within. as far as a blatant hoax well that is untrue as well. Just because the original article was listed as a simple sentence by the poster, this article goes into some depth of the specifics of this fork of cryptocurrency. Hakware (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)hakware[reply]

Keep, good deal of source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the WP:RS mentioned actually talk about memecoin; the rest are either non-WP:RS or aren't significant coverage L Faraone 03:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there is a "good deal of source coverage," as mentioned above, I'm sure not seeing it. Nor do the footnotes showing seem to deal with Memecoin — although Litecoin certainly seems to pass muster under GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am going to hang a hoax tag on this article, in the wake of a previous hoax deletion of the subject and the complete and utter illogic of a currency divisible to units 1/100,000,000th. I would enjoy hearing from the commenter above about the "good deal of source coverage" which he has managed to locate. Carrite (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to Litecoin. Memecoin exists and has associated websites [36],[37] and a software package for mining memecoins. But it seems to be a Litecoin derivative and has not gained much traction yet. I've been unable to find any independent reliable sources for the topic. Without independent RS, this topic falls below general notability guidelines, per WP:GNG. Might be worth a mention in Litecoin as a derivative, but the topic is marginal even for that. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, so there is no prejudice to re-creation if multiple in-depth independent reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They "exist" with a Facebook page with 5 followers and a launch date this month... I'm still going with my gut that this is parody. Carrite (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Litecoin, I've lost count at the number of times it's been CSD'd & recreated!. -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I can see this being merged with Litecoin. Perhaps a section on litecoin could accommodate a table of the various forks and coin specifications of the scrypt based encryption crypto currency. I disagree with Carrite that its a parody, The amount of users on Facebook who "like" a page does not necessarily indicate hoax or fraud. Especially since its release into the wild was only a few days ago. As an anecdotal remark and outside the scope of a wiki article there appears to be some websites coming online which promise to be an exchange BTC/MEM or LTC/MEM for trade as well as a storefront where products (computer?) can be purchased? directly with Memecoins. Apologies, I digress. Hakware (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)hakware[reply]
Delete kill it with fire. Burn it. Spammy junk that has no references for it specifically, except to its own website. Just another scam currency designed to get people to part with their money, giving it to the creators of this "money". Seriously, what's the point of creating these "currencies" when their already exists perfectly acceptable other cryptocurrencies? If you have a bright idea about something, try and get it into Bitcoin or something. **** you, you ******* ****. (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is just yet another fork of Litecoin which exists just to be dumped on exchanges eventually and will be killed after it's unprofitable to mine it. I suggest waiting a week or two to see if the coin matures to a stable exchange or becomes a viable method of payment somewhere. 66.223.150.116 (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has just been listed on Crypsy Exchange^[4], source code on github^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.201.155 (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually it does not appear to be a "dump" coin. Not nearly enough promotion and love to justify as such. It was released during the deluge of other pump n dump coinage with no fanfare and only a handful of people mining it. Hash rates on the network have only gone up since it was listed on Cryptsy. Certainly time will tell. All this crypto stuff is too unstable for any of them to be taken too seriously. Hakware (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC) hakware[reply]
Keep, I find it reelvant and interesting.--Pwnagic (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valid justification. L Faraone 17:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I find it interesting because I can know when the coin was launched, how is wrote an address, how is mined (SHA256 instead of scrypt), what is the time between blocks...--Pwnagic (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can understand where all of the cryptocurrency suspicion comes from... However, this one is here to stay. It has an obvious, established, official website and it's network hashrate has only gone up since the launch. It seems that new services are being provided for it every other day. It is currently in the 'trial grounds' stage but has already made it to an exchange. There is slow, but uprising support for it on the official Bitcoin forum's appropriate 'Alternative Cryptocurrencies' section. Regarding the article itself: It is not a hoax nor is it explictly created towards the goal of being promotional. Veterans, I suggest you do a bit more research before casually flagging this for ANY deletion disregarding all of the work involved in creation of the page. So with all of that in mind, I see absolutely no logical reason to delete this article as it has already proven to be historical in it's (currently) short life. --Blaztoize (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — Blaztoize (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It may one day qualify for inclusion, but right now it does not pass the general notability guideline: Memecoin has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how any of the references in the article establish notability of memecoin itself (as opposed to litecoin). Peacock (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Moral

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

This was nominated for PROD but I feel AFD is better way to go. I do not believe this person meets notability guidelines as a creative professional. The sources appear to cover plays or production that the subject was involved with but it is not coverage on the article subject. I'm not sure that Maryland Distinguished Young Scholar of the Arts helps elevate her to a stand alone article sts either. It also reads more as a resume and promotion then a valid encyclo article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PRODder. Red Slash 04:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A young performing arts student. No evidence that she meets the WP:NACTOR criteria at this time; at best a long way WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Querus Abuttu

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this author in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Proposed deletion contested. ... discospinster _talk 00:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please include criteria for significant discussion of an author. Querus Abuttu is a member of the Horror Writer's Association, has published work (not self published) and is a horror writer with a past imersed in service to the United States Navy and U.S. Public Health. In comparison to the entry for Jeremy Shipp, there is no reason for this entry to be deleted. It has presence on Amazon, references per an interview, published work, and other venues. If I may draw your attention to one of my fellow writers listed on Wikipedia: Jeremy Shipp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Shipp My entries are no less valid than what is included on that page. Thank you for your consideration. Ctferg13 (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)ctferg13[reply]

Delete Amazon is a sales site, not a reliable source. Doesn't appear sufficiently notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a very interesting person, but there's nothing there that really meets WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. (Jeremy Shipp possibly should be deleted too.) Bondegezou (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability of an author is proven by reviews of their work, or significant awards, neither of which are present. The other SF author mention has at least been nominated for an award, but their notability is indeed a little dubious. I've sent it to AfD and we will see what people think. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Most of the citations are just listing her books. — Richard BB 07:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. L Faraone 17:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fulla Nayak

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

The article is a lie: "Fulla Nayak was the world's oldest woman, according to Guinness Book of World Records. She died of old age at 125." It's just not true, because her age has never been officially verified (there is no birth certificate). In my opinion, the lack of any documentation strips this woman of any encyclopedic notability. The story of her supposed extreme age was published by local Indian media, which were based on statements by family members and the (alleged) fact that her eldest daughter was 92 years old. Personally, with this piece of information I would give her age as less than 110 (but this matters not, of course). Due to her being a supposed regular smoker of cannabis (called "ganja" in India), her story (especially a photo of her) received quite some attention on the internet, by those who wished to make a point for the "Legalize It" movement. But I just don't believe that this is enough to lift Fulla Nayak above the Wikipedia inclusion threshold. FoxyOrange (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Daily News and Analysis and IBNLive— both are reliable sources. But, also note Guinness World Records has 0 entry in their online database! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question. What if there were sources and analysis debunking the claim of her age and discussing her cannabis usage? Because the article garnered 803,067 page views in the last couple of weeks. Abductive (reasoning) 16:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

725,527 views in one day! That's amazing! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources exists: [38][39][40][41][42], among others. The argument for deletion seems to be based on the probable falseness of one claim in the article, and the nominator's perception that their opinion outweighs policy. (Can anyone explain the strange spike in pageviews on May 12?) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to popular belief, WP:GNG is not a policy but a notability guideline and passing it is not the sole consideration for inclusion. Both WP:V and WP:NOT are however policies that may apply in this case. Funny ^Pika! 13:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, fair point. On the other hand, opinions (specifically FoxyOrange's opinion that "the lack of any documentation strips this woman of any encyclopedic notability") don't trump guidelines either. Which particular bit of WP:NOT are you referring to? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 04:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I did a poor job in the above rationale, having it based nearly entirely on personal opinions. I should have read through it again before posting it. I was referring to the fact that per Wikipedia:Notability (people), "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be worthy of notice", and as long as her age cannot be verified, she is just some old lady without any notable achievements, and therefore not suitable for inclusion into an encyclopedia. Also, it is quite intriguing that all news articles about her only cite her grandson, Narayan Nayak. He is the one who claimed "that she could be the oldest woman living in the world." and "that he would write to the Guinness book authorities to record the claim." As the Guiness Book does not recognize her, my guess is that in the end, the whole story is just not verifiable.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "worthy of notice" just a synonym for "notable" though? And notability is the result of receiving significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and doesn't necessarily relate to one's achievements. I think the articles linked above demonstrate that the topic is notable (and indeed, worthy of notice). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're basing the reliability of this story on the reputation of the secondary source. That would be fine if the subject was just meant to be routine coverage about a person who happened to be old, but I wouldn't consider a claim in a newspaper to be an authoritative source for an age related record. I doubt that if I claimed my grandparents were over 130 years old and that got picked up by the media that would make it true. This just strikes to me like a bit of WP:NOTGOSSIP hearsay released on a slow news day. Funny ^Pika! 07:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're arguing at cross purposes. My argument isn't that she verifiably reached a certain age and therefore is notable. Whether or not she did is irrelevant to her notability, which is determined by receipt of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which is the case (see above). I also don't see the relevance of WP:NOTGOSSIP; I think it's a stretch to call this either advocacy, an opinion piece, scandal-mongering, self-promotion or advertising. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what her claim to significance is, if not for an age record. Is it just for gaining trivial news coverage? That sounds a bit routine to me. Not every minor news story is meant to have an article here, regardless of how many news sources pick up it. On a separate note, I did find this page: Incomplete longevity claims and I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting this there. Or here: Longevity claims if anyone can source her date of birth/death. Funny ^Pika! 12:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not trivial coverage, significant coverage. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the 125 year age claim fails WP:V. According to the Guinness Book of Records, she was neither the oldest living person at the time nor the person with the longest lifespan. At the time of her death (November 2006), Elizabeth Bolden was the oldest certified living person (at 116) [43] and Jeanne Calment is currently the oldest verifiable person to have lived (to the age of 122 years) [44]. The reliability of sources clearly depends on context and the above references, while reprinted in several reputable news sources, would still be considered speculative. Since the claim has yet to be supported by documented evidence, I don't see how it can be used to contribute to her notablity here. I haven't found any reliable sources for the cannabis coverage, save to pro-marijuana blogs, which in any case is not enough to base an article on. Funny ^Pika! 03:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hearts, due to there being WP:RS above. Whether she was the oldest person at the time, or not, is irrelevant, given that she passes WP:GNG. The views spike IS incredibly intriguing: a glitch? Or was she featured on some major "this day" website? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Here's another article from the Times of India: "She claims she is 125 years of age. Her voter's ID says she is 120. Under either case, Fulla Nayak is probably the oldest woman alive." [45] The Guiness listing line should be deleted, though, if no reference is supplied. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've removed the claim that she was the oldest woman as verified by Guinness, per the consensus here that it's unlikely to be accurate, and replaced it with a quote from The Times of India. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the new lead "Fulla Nayak [...] was described as probably the oldest woman alive" sounds like a violation of WP:BALL. The article has been stripped of any facts, and is now purely speculative. It only reflects one opinion, and omits to tell the reader that there is no official confirmation.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not perfect. Perhaps you could amend it? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 12:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Zairi

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

No evidence of notability, likely added by subject of article himself

~~Keep~~ Very weak keep There's a small amount of coverage regarding some of his awards out there in Google News ([46],[47]). He passes several of the criteria at WP:PROF: ~~I think (given how often his books are referenced) that he could be said to pass #1;~~ he holds a named chair at the University of Bradford (the Juran Chair) which passes #5; ~~and as the Dean of eTQM College he also meets #6~~. The problems with this article are largely due to Prof. Zairi himself, since his staffers have been told to maintain the article, which to their minds seems to involve adding the same humongous chunk of unsourced puffery. If the page is kept, I'd recommend applying pending changes or perhaps even semi-protection for a while. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about the sources; [48] is self-submitted press release, and as you can see if you read Terms and Condition, "AMEinfo.com is not to be held responsible for the accuracy of the statements made in press releases by companies, PR agencies or individuals quoted in such releases or articles. " [49] is basicly a recruitment website for companies, so I don't really see either as reliable sources.Amlaera (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he is not qualified for #6 since it is an online, self-started college. And from what I understand, he does not hold a named chair at the university at bradford, as [50] says "Professor Mohamed Zairi, head of the European Centre for Total Quality Management at the Universityís School of Management, was awarded the Juran Chair in Total Quality Management by the Juran Foundation in conjunction with the e-TQM College". So I do not see him passing any of the criteria.Amlaera (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Juran chair is a position at the ECPBM, which is part of Bradford University's School of Management. Prof Zairi is, to date, the only person to hold this chair, so it's not exactly a well-established post, but it is a named chair at a major institution, so I think it qualifies. Fair point regarding the eTQM college, though; it definitely isn't a "major academic institution", so WP:PROF #6 doesn't apply; I'll strike that. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all that sure of #1 now either, he seems to only have an H-index of 5, which is well below what would be expected of an influential academic... Striking that as well, and amending !vote to reflect that. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a source for the statement that ECBPM is a part of Bradford University's School of Management? I can't find any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amlaera (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go (.doc download). Yunshui 雲‍水 12:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is not mentioned in [51] and his course is not listed at [52]. The only thing saying that it is part of University of Bradford is that document and some corporate press releases. Seems very fishy.Amlaera (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Determined to bust my balls on this, aren't you? This press release from the University indicates that he was a professor emeritus, so he wouldn't have any current courses listed. I'm assuming that he's no longer at the University even in that capacity (he's not listed at their staff profiles page, which lists active emeriti as well as current staff). The relationship between the ECBPM and the School of Management may not be as direct as I thought, either; it's listed in several places under the SoM banner, but not (tellingly) on its own website or on the SoM site.

Part of the problem is that self-promotion seems to be something of a watchword for Zairi's career, so the signal:noise ratio for sources is pretty bad; finding decent sources is like finding the proverbial needle. Academics aren't know for being easy to source (which is why WP:PROF is one of the few inclusion criteria that trumps the GNG) but it's my impression that there ought to be enough out there - given all the awards and accolades he's supposedly collected - to support an article. Don't ask me where, though... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yeah, sorry if I'm going hard at you here, wasn't my intention, it just spiraled out of control :) The problem with the prices and accolades is that many of them are virtually unknown or awarded by his own organizations as far as I can see. Amlaera (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to agree with you... let's see what others think, though. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This page is enough to convince me that the Centre really was affiliated with Bradford (but ceased in 2009, explaining why his name is not listed there now) but this page tells me the chair is not with Bradford but with "e-TQM College", a Dubai electronic learning institution. So there's some case to be made for WP:PROF#C6 but it's a bit tenuous. The fact that he used to be associated with Bradford but isn't now doesn't so much concern me (notability is permanent) as that it may or may not have really been a Bradford chair. The Harrington/Ishikawa Medal is also a plausible way for him to be notable but it seems very local and specific to me.. And the WP:COI problems are big enough, and the case borderline enough, that I think we're better off without. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein's due diligence. The best arguments for Zairi meeting WP:PROF are not persuasive, and the COI issues push this article somewhat into WP:NOT territory. I admit, individually these may be insufficient to merit deletion, but I believe it would be appropriate to consider the totality of the circumstances, and thus look at the issues in aggregate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~At best weak keep -- It is always difficult to judge the merits of an article that is a mere stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On reconsideration Keep -- Unlike US, where every lecturer is a "professor", in UK the title indicates that the university conferring it is acknowledging his distinction. WP should follow suit. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a direct comment on this AfD, but I think it's fairer to say that in the US "professor" is a much more common rank than in other countries. Over half of the teaching faculties at US colleges are not of professor rank. (My school has about 3 permanent lecturers for every person with Professor somewhere in his or her title). Does not change the overall correctness of your argument though. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's got a lot of publications including books with CRC Press and Routledge: [53], [54] 24.151.116.25 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A GS h-index of 42, even in a well-cited field passes WP:Prof#1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Goblin

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Ish dar ian 00:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, so I cannot see how this guy meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 08:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As far as literal and needed criteria to be eligible for Wiki, though not a large amount, he does, in fact meet the music artist notability criteria WP:MUSICBIO Criteria for musicians and ensembles - #5: Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels) along with releasing and working with other notable and page approved artists on noted various indie labels and retail store releases connected with Reid Speed and Nick Pittsinger as well as Excision. He is also linked to other notable artist's pages, as well as worked with the very notable band Alestorm more than once. And that's just by looking on the artist page. I have also seen an article on him on FEARnet, the biggest horror/dark themed music site on the planet. To be honest administrators, I have seen other pages with far less that have lasted for years on Wiki. I would like to see his page remain and grow. Hopefully my input helps. TheTic123 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — TheTic123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Link to the FEARnet article mentioned above to confirm additional notability discovered http://www.fearnet.com/news/review/drop-goblin-gate-%E2%80%93-ep-review TheTic123 (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I took a quick look and the above claims are confirmed, I see that he has released in fact on Ultragore Recordings that also released for Nick Pittsinger as well as his release's and long time connection with Reid Speed and Excision. Everything looks valid Tracygeorge (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC) — Tracygeorge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Has not released any albums on an important label as described by WP:MUSIC. Three questionably notable artists is not a roster of many notable artists. Above claims lack independent verification. Notability is not inherited from his connection with others. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All due respect Duffbeerforme you can't make a solidly sounding claim that the above mentioned names are questionably notable as I urge you to research who you are talking about as these names are extremely famous in the electronic dance music industry. Drop Goblin has released and worked with all the above and there are 100% proven claims if you check the talk page where links to these claims are proven. Your delete request is based on all presumptions which I don't understand why as there are rules to qualify for notability that he meets. Even if minimal. Listing number 5 makes his viability solid as the article states that music notability must have at least one (1) of the listed requirements. And even the administrator who created this AFD can't contest that. You forget to realize wiki is based on literal facts, not presumable ones. TheTic123 (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this meets any criteria of WP:NMUSIC. Criteria 5 defines "important indie label" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable." The two labels mentioned do not meet this criteria. Ultragore recordings is only mentioned on one page, Nick Pittsinger. All six artists who have released albums/EPs/etc with Play Me Records appear to have done so in 2010 or later (not "more than a few years"). Howicus (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to get it out of the way I am and have been a fan of Drop Goblin since before he was that name and upon discovering his wiki I wanted to help clean it up and help how I can. That said its a bit frustrating when people not well versed in the business but take it upon themselves to take a role in trying to look like they know the facts. And this above delete comment is as frustrating as it gets. Please go to the billboard equivalent for edm www.beatport.com search for play me records and ultragore (anyone reading this should too so he can't say I'm wrong) and then come back here and say these are old or obsolete labels (play me owner reid speed was nominated in the top 100 DJs of all times today actually (I think it was through DJ times magazine) . Anyways I ask any admins or peers that want to contribute to this consensus forum to have the strong knowledge of the business this man is part of. A "backseat" driver that does a quick google search would be unfair to all the work Drop Goblin has done in all these years. He has earned his dues. That's all I really have left to say. The rest is up to the deciding admin. Good luck DG TheTic123 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the labels are old or obsolete. Just the opposite, actually. I'm saying that they're too new and/or don't have enough notable artists on the label. Also, Reid Speed's nomination does not affect the notability of her record label (per WP:NOTINHERITED. Howicus (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Originaly I was planning to say what I last said and just let nature take its course, but seeing how I have noticed on many other pages like this where someone just drops a reason of deletion or other reasons with no personality cept' for being cold and monotone'ly general (unfortunately I think that's why many admins have a bad reputation due to their lack of personality and cold like decisions they make with not much (maybe some) care.), seeing you come back to respectively clarify makes me feel like a humble nod should go your way. A fan as I am and just a general helper to clean up this new page (ie: un-orphanizing it, and seeking out label names to add to the releases.) I just have one request to the deciding admin and I know this is most likely meaningless to the admin that has the "over sensitive" delete button at their fingertips, but based on the timeline of his existence and the things he has done, even if just a few things can be linked to other wikie pages and the rest is just open air information that does have some progressing significance (just not linked to wiki) , I would ask that you keep this page, even if monitored for a small while, to allow it to grow before making a hasty decision to delete. As I stated a few comments above this, there are some pages with far less content and less timeline history that have survived this website for years. Now I am starting to look like a over excited fan as opposed to someone just wanting to help, so I will end it there =) TheTic123 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has not been established in accordance with general notability guidelines or topical guidelines (WP:MUSICBIO). Best regards, Cindy(talk) 00:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All this promotional sounding material still doesn't make him notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://consumerist.com/2013/05/14/amys-baking-company-shows-businesses-how-not-to-react-to-internet-criticism-in-epic-facebook-meltdown/ http://jamigold.com/2013/05/handling-bad-reviews-lessons-from-amys-baking-company/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/05/14/lessons-from-amys-baking-company-six-things-you-should-never-do-on-social-media/ http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2013/05/for-amys-baking-co-kitchen-nightmares-turns-all-too-real.html
^ "The Constitution (26 Amendment) Act, 1971", indiacode.nic.in, Government of India, 1971, retrieved 9 November 2011
^ 1. Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. Retrieved 6 November 2011., "Through a constitutional amendment passed in 1971, Indira Gandhi stripped the princes of the titles, privy purses and regal privileges which her father's government had granted." (p 278). 2. Naipaul, V. S. (8 April 2003), India: A Wounded Civilization, Random House Digital, Inc., pp. 37–, ISBN 978-1-4000-3075-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The princes of India – their number and variety reflecting to a large extent the chaos that had come to the country with the break up of the Mughal empire – had lost real power in the British time. Through generations of idle servitude they had grown to specialize only in style. A bogus, extinguishable glamour: in 1947, with Independence, they had lost their state, and Mrs. Gandhi in 1971 had, without much public outcry, abolished their privy purses and titles." (pp 37–38). 3. Schmidt, Karl J. (1995), An atlas and survey of South Asian history, M.E. Sharpe, p. 78, ISBN 978-1-56324-334-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Although the Indian states were alternately requested or forced into union with either India or Pakistan, the real death of princely India came when the Twenty-sixth Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' titles, privileges, and privy purses." (page 78). 4. Breckenridge, Carol Appadurai (1995), Consuming modernity: public culture in a South Asian world, U of Minnesota Press, pp. 84–, ISBN 978-0-8166-2306-8, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The third stage in the political evolution of the princes from rulers to citizens occurred in 1971, when the constitution ceased to recognize them as princes and their privy purses, titles, and special privileges were abolished." (page 84). 5. Guha, Ramachandra (5 August 2008), India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, HarperCollins, pp. 441–, ISBN 978-0-06-095858-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Her success at the polls emboldened Mrs. Gandhi to act decisively against the princes. Through 1971, the two sides tried and failed to find a settlement. The princes were willing to forgo their privy purses, but hoped at least to save their titles. But with her overwhelming majority in Parliament, the prime minister had no need to compromise. On 2 December she introduced a bill to amend the constitution and abolish all princely privileges. It was passed in the Lok Sabha by 381 votes to six, and in the Rajya Sabha by 167 votes to seven. In her own speech, the prime minister invited 'the princes to join the elite of the modern age, the elite which earns respect by its talent, energy and contribution to human progress, all of which can only be done when we work together as equals without regarding anybody as of special status.' " (page 441). 6. Cheesman, David (1997). Landlord power and rural indebtedness in colonial Sind, 1865-1901. London: Routledge. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7007-0470-5. Retrieved 6 November 2011. Quote: "The Indian princes survived the British Raj by only a few years. The Indian republic stripped them of their powers and then their titles." (page 10). 7. Merriam-Webster, Inc (1997), Merriam-Webster's geographical dictionary, Merriam-Webster, pp. 520–, ISBN 978-0-87779-546-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Indian States: "Various (formerly) semi-independent areas in India ruled by native princes .... Under British rule ... administered by residents assisted by political agents. Titles and remaining privileges of princes abolished by Indian government 1971." (page 520). 8. Ward, Philip (September 1989), Northern India, Rajasthan, Agra, Delhi: a travel guide, Pelican Publishing, pp. 91–, ISBN 978-0-88289-753-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "A monarchy is only as good as the reigning monarch: thus it is with the princely states. Once they seemed immutable, invincible. In 1971 they were "derecognized," their privileges, privy purses and titles all abolished at a stroke" (page 91)
^ https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/41
^ https://github.com/muddafudda/MEMECoin

[1] ttp://consumerist.com/2013/05/14/amys-baking-company-shows-businesses-how-not-to-react-to-internet-criticism-in-epic-facebook-meltdown/ http://jamigold.com/2013/05/handling-bad-reviews-lessons-from-amys-baking-company/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyclay/2013/05/14/lessons-from-amys-baking-company-six-things-you-should-never-do-on-social-media/ http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2013/05/for-amys-baking-co-kitchen-nightmares-turns-all-too-real.html

[2] "The Constitution (26 Amendment) Act, 1971", indiacode.nic.in, Government of India, 1971, retrieved 9 November 2011

[3] 1. Ramusack, Barbara N. (2004). The Indian princes and their states. Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 978-0-521-26727-4. Retrieved 6 November 2011., "Through a constitutional amendment passed in 1971, Indira Gandhi stripped the princes of the titles, privy purses and regal privileges which her father's government had granted." (p 278). 2. Naipaul, V. S. (8 April 2003), India: A Wounded Civilization, Random House Digital, Inc., pp. 37–, ISBN 978-1-4000-3075-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The princes of India – their number and variety reflecting to a large extent the chaos that had come to the country with the break up of the Mughal empire – had lost real power in the British time. Through generations of idle servitude they had grown to specialize only in style. A bogus, extinguishable glamour: in 1947, with Independence, they had lost their state, and Mrs. Gandhi in 1971 had, without much public outcry, abolished their privy purses and titles." (pp 37–38). 3. Schmidt, Karl J. (1995), An atlas and survey of South Asian history, M.E. Sharpe, p. 78, ISBN 978-1-56324-334-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Although the Indian states were alternately requested or forced into union with either India or Pakistan, the real death of princely India came when the Twenty-sixth Amendment Act (1971) abolished the princes' titles, privileges, and privy purses." (page 78). 4. Breckenridge, Carol Appadurai (1995), Consuming modernity: public culture in a South Asian world, U of Minnesota Press, pp. 84–, ISBN 978-0-8166-2306-8, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "The third stage in the political evolution of the princes from rulers to citizens occurred in 1971, when the constitution ceased to recognize them as princes and their privy purses, titles, and special privileges were abolished." (page 84). 5. Guha, Ramachandra (5 August 2008), India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy, HarperCollins, pp. 441–, ISBN 978-0-06-095858-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Her success at the polls emboldened Mrs. Gandhi to act decisively against the princes. Through 1971, the two sides tried and failed to find a settlement. The princes were willing to forgo their privy purses, but hoped at least to save their titles. But with her overwhelming majority in Parliament, the prime minister had no need to compromise. On 2 December she introduced a bill to amend the constitution and abolish all princely privileges. It was passed in the Lok Sabha by 381 votes to six, and in the Rajya Sabha by 167 votes to seven. In her own speech, the prime minister invited 'the princes to join the elite of the modern age, the elite which earns respect by its talent, energy and contribution to human progress, all of which can only be done when we work together as equals without regarding anybody as of special status.' " (page 441). 6. Cheesman, David (1997). Landlord power and rural indebtedness in colonial Sind, 1865-1901. London: Routledge. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-7007-0470-5. Retrieved 6 November 2011. Quote: "The Indian princes survived the British Raj by only a few years. The Indian republic stripped them of their powers and then their titles." (page 10). 7. Merriam-Webster, Inc (1997), Merriam-Webster's geographical dictionary, Merriam-Webster, pp. 520–, ISBN 978-0-87779-546-9, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "Indian States: "Various (formerly) semi-independent areas in India ruled by native princes .... Under British rule ... administered by residents assisted by political agents. Titles and remaining privileges of princes abolished by Indian government 1971." (page 520). 8. Ward, Philip (September 1989), Northern India, Rajasthan, Agra, Delhi: a travel guide, Pelican Publishing, pp. 91–, ISBN 978-0-88289-753-0, retrieved 6 November 2011 Quote: "A monarchy is only as good as the reigning monarch: thus it is with the princely states. Once they seemed immutable, invincible. In 1971 they were "derecognized," their privileges, privy purses and titles all abolished at a stroke" (page 91)

[4] ttps://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/41

[5] ttps://github.com/muddafudda/MEMECoin

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8th Incline Colony}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/365 Head}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aarvy Hospital}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aarvy Hospital}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day to Day Economics}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khok Sung}}