Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 August 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 August	11 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Good consensus building, guys. (non-admin closure) Antrocent (♫♬) 13:13, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kahana

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

Doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria since he doesn't appear notable as an entertainer, military man, or martial artist. I also don't think he meets WP:GNG since the only 2 independent sources were written by the same author and my search didn't turn up the significant independent coverage I think GNG requires. I'll admit I don't have strong feelings about this and will withdraw this if other editors can produce the sources needed for GNG. Jakejr (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Its weak because I agree that a few more references are necessary but the two references by the same author are still to large well known Newspapers and are far more than a passing mention. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in article and this one I added. Hollywood Stunt Performers, 1910s-1970s: A Biographical Dictionary, 2d ed.. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that the same person wrote 2 similar articles for 2 separate papers bothers me because I don't know that he's not a paid PR guy. As far as the stunt performer book goes, there's hundreds and hundreds of performers listed so I'm still not convinced of notability. Jakejr (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This additional LA Times piece by a different reporter, Doug Smith, is quite in depth: Shooting Pains : Students at Kim Kahana's Stunt School Learn That Failure Means Fractures for Those Taking Falls on Film. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination There's now enough sources. Jakejr (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Deor (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Navid Nasseri

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

Proposed deletion removed by article creator without explanation. Concern was that the article concerns a young footballer who fails the football-related notability guideline by not having played in a fully professional league or at senior international level, and I can find no evidence for his passing the general notability guideline. Please note that the appearance for Bury in the infobox is not confirmed by standard statistical sources, e.g. Soccerbase. Soccerway confirms two inclusions among the substitutes, but he never appeared in a match. Struway2 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Agree the two appearance claim is misleading as he was an unused substitute on both occasions. An example of WP:CRYSTAL, No problem with recreation of this article if he ever meets any of the NFOOTY criteria. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG... JMHamo (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not only is he a professional footballer, but he is also a Iran under-21 national team player - these both should be sufficient reasons. Princeofpersia1 (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether they should be sufficient is a discussion for another place; at the moment, they aren't. The football-specific notability guideline WP:NFOOTBALL says that a player is notable if he has played in "any FIFA sanctioned senior international match including the Olympics", and is generally regarded as notable if he has played in a fully professional league, where "played" means the player "was in the starting line-up or came on as a substitute". Mr Nasseri has done neither.
- The explanatory note at WP:NFOOTBALL clarifies that "youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG". Among Mr Nasseri's colleagues at his current club are a number of young professional footballers, some of them under-age international players, some with loan spells in a well-reported but not fully professional league, one having played for a previous club in the NextGen Series and the UEFA Youth League, but unless someone demonstrates significant non-trivial media coverage of that player in sources independent of the subject, they don't qualify for an article either. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkel Hess

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

Non-notable musician. No evidence of significant independent coverage available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom TheFrontDeskMust (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even with additional references, not clear that it meets WP:GNG. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sourcing is tangential, either not particularly mentioning him much or providing lists of music he's produced, but not concentrating on him at all. The two exceptions, [1] and [2], aren't secondary: as news sources meant to introduce us to the guy, they're primary sources and not chronologically independent. Nyttend (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First article by a new editor who may be having trouble finding their way around. I have given them a welcome box on their talkpage to help them. Also worth noting that they have commented on the talk page of this discussion. I do think it is very poor indeed that no-one bothered to actually message them about this proposed deletion! DuncanHill (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The creator of the article (Rosemarie Vind (talk · contribs)) has been notified about the discussion. The fact that said user has chosen to create a new user account (RoseVind13 (talk · contribs)) to protest the deletion is a separate problem. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - She removed links to discogs (a generally reliable source that simply wasn't addressing Hess himself) and replaced them with links to unreliable sources: a blog post and something that's apparently from the guy's personal website. In all fairness, she may well have forgotten the first account's password; it's not as if she's participated here under both usernames. Nyttend (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I don't believe this is a case of sockpuppetry. I merely point it out to address DuncanHill's complaint that the article creator was not informed of the discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Free-to-view

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

I am probably going to read this in the morning and think "why on earth did I think that?". But to me, this reads like a massive advert for Sky TV. Some of this is crap - I use freeview myself and there is no way I get anywhere near 100 channels AND the BBC numbers definitely aren't in the 900s (BBC1 = 101 & 801, BBC2 = 102 & 802, BBC3 = 107 & 803 and BBC4 = 109 & 804 I think) - and most is original research. Laun chba ller 22:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, why on earth would you think that? Firstly the article is called 'Free-to-view' which refers to the specific technology used for encrypted but freely viewable satellite broadcasts, where no subscription is required. You use 'Freeview', a marketing brand name for the group of channels you receive with a television aerial. So 'there is no way [you] get anywhere near 100 channels AND the BBC numbers definitely aren't in the 900s' because you're not even using the system which the article is about. Secondly, while the article might read to you like 'a massive advert for Sky TV' it's hard to explain why because it's about FREE channels which don't require a subscription like Sky TV does. So unfortunately I think you're mistaken on just about every count. Bonusballs (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, poop. Withdrawn.--Laun chba ller 20:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn means no more AfD? Still lotsa problems though. No sources, and I never thought I'd ever say this, but a definite European (non-American!) bias. I really don't understand though - all US broadcast TV is digitally encoded, though available for free. Is that what this is? I ask here coz the most recent (and only) comment on the article's talk page is 8 years old. :P Dcs002 (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any European bias would seem to be more down to the fact that this particular arrangement of technology is far more common (and necessary) in Europe than it is in North America. This kind of encryption is to protect territorial broadcast rights, so that, for example, viewers in Switzerland may view their country's national broadcasters (ORF, etc) on satellite without a specific subscription being required, while ensuring that viewers outside that country do not also receive the transmissions, as would be the case if they were transmitted completely unencrypted and free-to-view. Since European satellites will have a reception footprint that covers many countries, encryption like this is used. It's used most in the UK, but also exists in other countries like Switzerland, Germany, etc. The situation in North America will most likely be different because one satellite's footprint will cover that country (or part of it) alone, hence free-to-view encryption is not used as it's a solution to a problem which does not exist in that part of the world. Bonusballs (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a valid use of WP:DINC#The Case for Discussion driving Cleanup.--Laun chba ller 12:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. The US broadcasting I was referring to is land-based transmission, not satellite. I'm not sure there has been any concern to limit cross-border transmission here either, as most broadcast TV is commercial, though not all. I agree with User:Launchballer that WP:DINC#The Case for Discussion driving Cleanup applies here, but I don't know that I'm really one to help because I seem to be so clueless about the subject. :( Dcs002 (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Worst Year of My Life Again. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tiarnie Coupland

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

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Worst Year of My Life Again where she has a significant role. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. Has not had significant roles in "multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Further more there is a distinct lack of any in depth significant "multiple published secondary sources" about the subject. AlanS (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched, but have been unable to find sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. A redirect to Worst Year of My Life Again would potentially be helpful for readers, however. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as per consensus below that the subject does not currently appear to meet any of the relevant notability guidelines. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Jane Williams

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

Non-notable academic. Meets neither WP:ACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR, or WP:GNG. Contested proposed deletion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Wrote a book and some academic journal articles. Has no biographical articles written about her in reliable sources. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~as obvious hoax. Banana Studies? Studying Pink Elephants? "Grand poohbah of Cadbury mini eggs?" Obvious and blatant hoax/attack page~~. Marginal at best, few to no reliable sources covering the subject.Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kindzmarauli: There are a lot of IPs vandalizing the article for unknown reasons. Either her "friends", her students, or just a random 4chan-like target. If you read the last stable version, the article is better. I was a little leery about setting semi-protection on the article since it would lock out the original author and I'm WP:INVOLVED, but with the heavy IP vandalism from multiple sources, I've asked for another admin to semi-protect it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - real scholar, with odd academic interests, but not well-cited. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've semi-protected the article, and won't participate here, but I would ask that both participants and closer pay careful attention to attempts to add any material (e.g. sources) that might support retention (or, for that matter, deletion) at places like the article talk page. Thank you. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have the article on my watchlist so any requests will be handled as appropriate. I'm beginning to think this is either a class project or related to a class. I deleted Southampton University Pre-Sessional Course, whom the article subject is an advisor at, earlier as a copyright violation, but has been recreated without the copied material (I proposed that for deletion, too). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, lack of coverage in reliable sources. People must be discussed, in multiple, independent, reliable publications, to achieve the level of notability required. Additionally, while citations to primary sources do provide verification for things like entry in the Southampton Parkrun, that information alone does not go to notability. Similarly, related sites, such as those of the University of Arizona's American Indian Studies programme do not show notability. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ACADEMIC. Flaming Ferrari (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An entry level student of Native American studies. She might eventually be notable but is not there yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Akinwale Arobieke

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

This is one of those articles where it's quite clear that even if it doesn't violate the letter of the BLP policy, it most certainly violates the spirit.

What we've got here is an article about a guy who got press coverage for being amusingly creepy, and seems to have a Wikipedia article for the same reason. That's neither acceptable nor satisfactory, and unless someone can demonstrate that this is more than just the output from local newspapers iterating on "man bites dog", it should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable in reliable sources, regardless of the reasons for it. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable in reliable sources" is...kind of tautological. If you mean "covered by reliable sources", absolutely, but the existence of the BLP policy means that the reasons for that coverage absolutely matter. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strange topic and probably not the most useful article, but the subject does have fairly extensive independent coverage by multiple sources (BBC, etc.). Coverage extends over a period of years, so not sure if BLP1E would apply either. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - aside from the "local news" sources, there are three BBC footnotes spanning 4 years for the "muscle touch ban" (an oddly unique court order of historical precedent) and the google trends results for "purple aki" show a small but consistent (and slightly growing) result[3]. Witty lama 23:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of reliable sources. independent coverage. BLP1E does not apply.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward H. Royle

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

Article of unclear notabilty. Article fail WP:BASIC and appears like WP:SELFPROMOTION Wikicology (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have included at least 2 newspaper cites quoting Edward H. Royle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinscriminalcode (talk • contribs)

Just because there's an article that mentions his name doesn't mean that he's notable, which is what this discussion is about. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd CSD this, but there's an assertion of notability, hence why we're here. He fails basic, as there isn't the slightest hint of him being notable outside of mentions of basic court cases. While he may appear in newspapers, most lawyers do at some point or another. I don't see any significant coverage or anything that should put him above or beyond the other thousands of lawyers in Canada. It's entirely possible this could be a promo with the new note saying he'd do things "pro bono" in "certain circumstances". Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the mention of pro bono which was only included because that was what the article said. user:martinscriminalcode — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinscriminalcode (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What article? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is CSD? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinscriminalcode (talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

when articles can be speedily deleted and not go through a formal process like this. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 20:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, I have to go with delete. He needs articles from reliable sources written about him in detail. Mentions in an attorneys directory might be more appropriate until articles outside Wikipedia show notability. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a cite from the lawyers directory. Martinscriminalcode (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)martinscriminalcode[reply]
Delete as not meeting notability guidelines. I would point out too that having an article in Wikipedia is never favorable to its subject. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can and does edit and is also usually the first hit on Google queries. Personally I would rather the first hit for my name be a website I controlled. TFD (talk) 06:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable individual. There are directory listings and some local coverage but no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Appearing as counsel in a notable case does not make him notable. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable individual. CesareAngelotti (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teza Technologies

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

Fails WP:ORG, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Reads like an advertisement. scope_creep talk 17:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jab843 (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per reliable sources. How is it written like an ad? - with references to criminal activity? That doesn't make sense. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Strawberrie Fields is a completely new user, only commenting on this article. scope_creep talk 19:05 28 July 2014 (UTC) comment struck as patently false with incorrect date information, edit made 11 August 2014. See Strawberrie Fields 50+ edits. --Bejnar (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it isn't written like an advertisement, but there are several other issues. The content largely relates to one person, who has his own Wikipedia page. There is nothing that suggests the company is notable, as it has some incidental coverage and thus fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Mediphor (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mediphor, the level of coverage is exactly what WP:CORPDEPTH indicates is insufficient. --Bejnar (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mikhail Malyshev (the banker who set this up) seems highly notable, per sources, and most of the article is about him. Can we not rename the piece Mikhail Malyshev? He doesn't have his own page as yet - the existing Mikhail Malyshev is a footballer. AdventurousMe (talk) 05:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Speedy delete per G3 SmartSE (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Windiz

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

85.225.12.162 (talk · contribs) has suggested that this is a hoax and the veracity of the article was also bought up on the talk page 5 years ago. I don't think it is blatant enough to qualify for deletion via G3, but based off my own searches I couldn't find any suitable sources. Bringing it here just in case there are offline sources that somebody has to demonstrate that it isn't a hoax. SmartSE (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap that. Scott Windiz, Eric Windiz, Warren Windiz and Anthony Windiz were all created by SPAs in within days of each other and are more blatant than this, tipping me over the edge to G3 this. SmartSE (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep since the article has been moved back to draftspace. (non-admin closure) ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Praneet sah

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

This article was not ready for the main namespace. My view is that it was accepted too early and should be returned to the Draft: space for further development. The gentleman is not notable, despite entering and being placed in a televised contest, and the references are misguided. One fails validation at all, one is dead, one "has a link to his blog in the left sidebar" and one is a youtube video from his own channel, but probably infringing someone else's copyright because it is the TV show he was placed in. The acid test of WP:42 is failed. Had I reviewed it I would have sent it back for further work with a strong suggestion that the gentleman lacks current notability. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD can now be considered moot as it has been moved back to draftspace. The "reviewer" is not currently associated with the AfC team, and so is not "authorized" to review and accept articles at this time. ArcAngel (talk) ) 18:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with that if it is the (or a) correct procedure. This discussion does require closure, though. Logically any editor can perform acceptance, even misguided acceptance, whether a participant or not, surely? Fiddle Faddle 18:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing though. Aside from admins, only those editors who are listed as an AfC participant should review, accept and move AfC created articles. If we allow editors who don't meet the requirements of being an AfC reviewer to perform those actions, then Wikipedia ends up with lots of sub-standard articles in mainspace before they are ready, which could lead to xFD discussions on the merits of their notability. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Noting that the keep votes amount to either WP:OTHERSTUFF or offer no rebuttal to the compelling arguments offered by User:NinjaRobotPirate especially. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with boats

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

Listcruft. Totally meaningless unsourced list of film titles and nothing else, with no encyclopaedic context and no explanation for why we would need such a list. What's next, List of films with cars? List of films with people? If there's a genuine need for the information the list can provide it would best by served by a category, not a list. Thomas.W ^talk 17:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not against reworking this article into a category. Isamuel (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Extremely general, trivial, non-encyclopedic list. WP:ISNOT applies. The list fails to contribute to the state of human knowledge. reddogsix (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious listcruft. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As is illustrated by Category:Lists_of_films_by_common_content, there are many lists of films collected by common content. As Wikipedia:Trivia_sections correctly points out, such lists "can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation: they can just add a new fact to the list." This has already begun to occur with this list—it has grown exponentially since its creation, growing nearly 1000% (with contributions from multiple users) in just its first day. As the aforelinked Manual of Style page points out, as this article grows, it can be better-organized, into "a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table." I do not believe that any of the criteria for deletion apply. It contributes to the state of human knowledge by organizing and categorizing that information—already, it is more possible than it was yesterday for a person interested in both film and boats to find further articles of interest. The information is also all verifiable. Isamuel (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sink per nom. Way, way, way too indiscriminate to be meaningful. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mind-bogglingly indiscriminate. A list of films about boating would work. But not a list of every film that has a boat in it. Plus, it's missing Jaws. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This is satisfied by Stuff Magazine's "25 Best Boat Movies Ever" article and Top 10 Sailing Films, an article from 'Classic Boat' magazine. Evidently, films with boats in them is something which has been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". —Tom Morris (talk) 09:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have created a few list articles about films featuring common content. The challenge here is that boats are fairly ubiquitous in films. This is reflected in the branching of related categories. It mostly starts with Category:Films set on ships (having less than a dozen films), with Category:Seafaring films under that category and itself having 15 sub-categories. If this list were a list of films set on boats, it could include all the films in these categories with a description of each one. But what about films that have relatively briefly boat scenes? Can we do some kind of secondary sourcing? I mean, do we include Saving Private Ryan just because it has the landing scene at the beginning? Another option here is to just have smaller lists very similar to each category, rather than one big list for everything. That way, we can cut out films that lack direct relevance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 10:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Man the lifeboat! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Exhibit A for the prosecution: You've Got Mail? Presumably there's a boat in there somewhere, even though the synopsis doesn't mention one. Where's Joe Versus the Volcano? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And no The Boat That Rocked. It even has the word boat in the title! Aaaagggghhhh!! Seriously though, support Erik's idea of having a list for films set on a boat. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and convert/move into a list of films where the action happens mainly in a boat/ship, example Titanic. Very interesting topic and may constitute a genre. emijrp (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recommend subdividing the list into four sections: Sailing, Seafaring, River-boating and Boat warfare to strengthen the inclusion criteria since it is too indiscriminate as it stands. It is all very well to say we should restrict to films set mainly on a boat but where does that leave films like Jaws (film), Adrift (film) and Swallows and Amazons#1974 Film Version where the majority of the action occurs off the boat, but a large chunk of the plot still revolves around a boat? If you follow Tom's links above you will see the films are boat-themed, so it is the thematic prominence of the boat that is notable, not simply its presence. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far too indiscriminate and trivial Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is Listcruft Wikipedia:LC and trivial. Frmorrison (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this for every film we have an article on that has a boat appearing. This is crazy, and needs to have added The Return of the King, An American Tale, Superman: The Movie, Man of Steel (2013 film), and I have not yet began to even think about this issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 23:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deni Simeunović

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

Restored article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league & he doesn't have any international caps therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has played in the Europa Cup qualifiers.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romain Delacretaz

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

Several people already asked that this page should be removed, but the main author of this page removed such requests quickly the first time.

This man seems not well known enough. I could find no article about him, no reliable source with his name on the internet.

This seems to be a kind of advertisment page, as is the french page, which has been mainly written by the same user, who only writes pages about this "institut de la bourse", his CEO, one guy working for it (french wikipedia page of Marc Touati, to add a link to french version of the present page), and something related to one product of this company (MSI 20000).

I add that the "institut de la Bourse" is a SARL (Société Anonyme à Responsabilité Limitée : anonymous socierty with limited responsability), with a capital of 10 000 euros http://www.institutdelabourse.fr/?section=accueil&page=avertissement

So I think this page has nothing to do in an encyclopedia, and should be removed.

Comment - I completed the nom for IP User:31.39.233.46. Ansh666 17:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obviously, there is not even a claim of notability in the text of the article as it stands. It has a suggestion of expansion from the French Wikipedia article, but that is equally poorly sourced: its text (which tries to associate the subject with various names) is riddled with maintenance tags and the need for citation. No evidence that his company (Alexa rating beyond 3m) is notable despite its authoritative-sounding name; no evidence found from multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) that the subject is of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that being a CEO is a claim of notability, but it really doesn't matter anyways. Ansh666 18:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the French article has more content but reads as a self-promotion essay without any more backup for notability. I'd also suggest investigating the other article authored by this user (in 2010) MSI 20000. It's an orphan since all that time and this forum post from that year notes that it is created by... "L’Institut de la Bourse". Witty lama 00:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I've tried searching a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources to help support WP:N notability. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also List of The Nekci Menij Show episodes as a logical consequence. Any redirect is a separate editorial decision. Sandstein 11:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nekci Menij Show

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

This article is heavily reliant on one or two sources to support the various statmements within, and those sources do not seem to support its notability as a whole as being "significant coverage in reliable sources". Much of it is to the Mashable piece, a post on the Tumblr blog "Popsessed", and mentions in various lists of things on social media but nothing of note (not even at the top of the lists). There's been no further press since 2012. I cannot seem to find anything in Google beyond what's already in use on the article, and similar clickbait lists. This is currently listed as a good article, but that simply regards how well written it is it seems.

So to sum up, sourcing is minimal and reliant on interviews with the creator on social media sites, and poor rankings in unimportant lists of random websites' favorite things. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, along with List of The Nekci Menij Show episodes, per WP:BARE, WP:FANCRUFT, and (for the list) WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Non-primary sources include Idolator/BuzzFeed (not signficiant coverage), International Digital Times (reliable?), and an NYU student blog (not reliable). Mashable is usable, but the article culls very heavily from it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there isn't enough third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Nicki Minaj article, as a worthy mention thanks to the few reliable sources. 和DITOR E tails 03:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a mention from the Nicki Minaj page as being completely irrelevant to each other though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Demonstrates notability with multiple reliable independent sources with sigcov. Here's another article by Mashable (pub. 2013): http://mashable.com/2013/03/13/nekci-menij-twitter/ 23W 23:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 9 sentences demonstrate significant coverage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9 sentences is medium coverage at most. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't count a roughly 200-word article as "plainly trivial". Aside from that link we still have significant coverage in International Digital Times and Mashable. I don't know the consensus on using student-run news blogs, but given that it's received some positive press and that the author has written for a mainstream newspaper, I think this is being used reliably here. 23W 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are primary sources, just saying. This does not qualify as a reliable source, so we can't use this either. Nothing can even be found on the series here to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The interview might be a primary source but it's still independent from the subject. It's also not devoid of secondary coverage (there's quite a few paragraphs before it goes into the interview). I can start up a WP:RSN thread on NYU Local if you'd like. 23W 20:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Primary source independent of subject" is an oxymoron. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:IS: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example." 23W 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A series creator is certainly not an independent source. Therefore, interviews with him don't count as notable coverage. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's still independent; the interviewee did not author nor publish the interview. 23W 21:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. WP:PRIMARY's footnotes include interviews as primary sources, independent or not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It also is not an independent source since it is based on the creator's word. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never denied that it was a primary source.

I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding how the definition of an independent source does not factor in whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary; please read WP:IS.

whether or not the interview portion can be used to demonstrate notability, the independent, secondary commentary can. 23W 21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except we're all saying it cannot because it's primary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
y'know how sometimes interviews pepper in other (secondary) commentary? This interview has that (and more!) Hell, if you keep the first seven or so paragraphs you have a decent-sized review. But I'm just repeating myself now so I'll go. 23W 22:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the article does feature a quite lofty review but it just shows the ephemerality and bare notability as mentioned elsewhere in the debate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen WP:BARE being thrown for both reason to delete and keep, but I digress. 23W 23:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet notability requirements, and as mentioned above, the sources aren't the best. If you want to put it into perspective, this series' account only has 20k subscribers, whereas the top accounts have tens of millions. Upjav (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It is open to have the article userfied for further work in order to establish notability, but as it stands, the article does not verify notability and no one in this debate was able to find anything significant. SpinningSpark 01:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dent (artist)

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

I could not establish that he meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Seems like promotion (by relative?) from WP:SPA. Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, on the basis there are some possible claims to notability but they are unverified. If the article is written by a relative you would think they would know of any significant coverage of the artist's work and, judging by the quote from The Times, even this does not seem to mention him. Dent has a brief 35 word profile in "Artists in Britain since 1945", which I've added to the article as a reference, but it doesn't suggest he had much of a presence on the art scene. Sionk (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Having searched the online archives of The Times, I found that the existing quote does mention him by name (in parentheses, not square brackets — i've corrected the quote in the article). It's hardly significant coverage though, and I found no other relevant hits. The Times does have some mentions for "Group 63" (not to be confused with the Italian Gruppo 63), but the ones I checked were in exhibition listings and none came up in conjunction with "Dent". I don't have access to any other newspaper archives from the period, however. Note that "Artists in Britain since 1945" includes 14,500 artists. Qwfp (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in the interests of full disclosure, I'm the one who posted it, and I am his grandaughter. But that doesn't mean that he isn't worthy of staying listed. I put the post in when cleaning out Mom's files last year. She had saved several newspaper articles about him, but the only one I mentioned was the Times because it was, unfortunately, the only one that she had cropped the full page so I could tell where and when it was from. She had also saved several exhibition promos. I had only written the first one because I didn't think it was necessary to put more. Most of them were joint exhibits with "Group 63." Unfortunately, Mom died and all her stuff is in storage halfway across the world from where I am, so so I can't dig it out and cite more right now, but I have added a couple of links to the page. It's really hard to find anything about Richard Dent on the web because this was so long ago. I don't know how to research newspapers from that time period. Plus, finding web listings seem to involve filtering through thousands of links about the football player by the same name. But I think the article is worthy of staying listed, in part because large format enamel work is rare and, indeed he may not be another Picasso and his works don't sell for millions at Christies, but he did have some influence on art in London at that period in history and he was quite prolific. Also enamel work and copper work is lasting, and I have found several of his works listed in auction catalogs and on on-line auction sites, not just from England but from as far away as Australia and Canada. So people still hold his works and have an interest in knowing who created the piece of artwork they are holding. --Mariandent (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No great finds in the major databases (though tough to distinguish from the Chicago Bears player), and a search of the British Newspaper Archive didn't find anything useful. I can also confirm that The Times cited is a passing mention.[4] czar ♔ 07:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sarindar Dhaliwal

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

I could not establish that this meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 16:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has significant coverage that establishes notability per WP:GNG. See Canadian Art Magazine, Art Sync, La Presse. Tchaliburton (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. GoldAggar (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn after seeing what other editors have found. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. As WP:CSD#A7. Title salted. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Dinwiddie

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

Non-notable actor, fails WP:ACTORBIO. Article unreferenced, user also creating slew of articles based on very minor actors. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 16:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete consider SALT Article is worthless, unreferenced, and has been recreated twice after deletion. XeroxKleenex (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inori Aizawa

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

First, the article is a direct violation of WP:NOTADVERT because its subject is purely an advertisement device. It is like writing an article for the image of the women you find on the box of the product of your choice.

Apart from a YouTube ad and some news outlet briefly acknowledging its presence, there is no coverage, let alone the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTADVERT does not apply in this case, since that policy refers to writing actual advertisements on Wikipedia (e.g. Drink product Y to lose weight in 30 days!), and not writing about advertisements that are notable. We have many articles about advertisements, including Grim Reaper (advertisement), Just Do It, Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland?, Winston tastes good like a cigarette should, and I'm a PC. In other words, deletion should not be argued on the basis that the article covers a topic intend to advertise Internet Explorer; rather, the focus should only be on whether it meets WP:GNG. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In theory, you are right: An article about an instance of advertisement isn't automatically a violation of WP:NOTADVERT. But in practice, this certain article's sole purpose is to show how cute she is. Now, that is self-promotion. Again, cuteness can be the sole subject of one article but only if there is evidence (in form of significant coverage in reliable sources) that the subject is considered by huge majority of the planet or has won't an official cuteness award.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing User:Sky6t of affiliation with Microsoft Singapore? If not, I'd highly suggest you redact your claim that this article is "self-promotion." --erachima talk 12:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dignifying this comment with an answer. Each day, many articles are deleted because of failure to comply with Wikipedia policies and most – if not all all of them – are written by selfless well-meaning editors. The article does what it does. I have no comment as to whether what the article does is a result of mens rea by the writer. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do in fact have a comment on the matter: the one you made when you claimed the article was self-promotion, which is a very serious claim. So I ask again: Are you accusing the article's creator, User:Sky6t, of possessing a personal or professional conflict of interest with respect to this article? If you are, on the basis of what evidence are you doing so? If you are not, why do you refuse to take back this serious accusation against a fellow editor? --erachima talk 16:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An article advertising a subject is promotional; an article advertising a promotional device is therefore self-promotional. Furthermore, COI applies when an article promotes the author. (Self-promotional authors write promotional articles.) Featured Articles are actually self-promotional because they promote themselves and need no advertisement. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the term "self-promotion" means, either in the English language or in Wikipedia terminology. If that's how you personally use it, I would heavily recommend you drop the term from your vocabulary while on Wikipedia to avoid repeating this misunderstanding in the future. I also yet again insist that you please redact or rephrase the original statement to make it clear that you did not think you were accusing the article's editors of WP:COI issues. --erachima talk 16:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's hear how would you describe "self-promotional" in the context that I explained. Then I decide.
But again, does it matter? The article unjustly uses Wikipedia to put Inori Aizawa into the center of attention and ends up promoting IE and Microsoft too. That doesn't necessitate that its writers are minions of Dr. Demonio.
Concerned,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Self-promotion" refers to human beings advertizing themselves to advance their personal (usually career or financial) interests. It is not used in the context you describe. It does not have any other meanings. It cannot be applied to a mascot. It does not apply to featured articles. Your claim that this article is self-promotion is an unambiguous accusation of WP:COI on the part of its editors, and while the fact that you apparently are unfamiliar with the definition of the word is a reasonable defense for making the mistake in the first place, it does not excuse leaving it up there.
And it matters because you are falsely accusing people of serious editorial misbehavior. Even if it's a misunderstanding, you should be mortified. --erachima talk 17:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eluding question that can resolve this issue once and for all, aren't we? So get this: Any time you decided to give up the act of the pot calling the kettle black and instead, come up with the correct phrase, I will consider paraphrasing myself. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read your mind, and you're using words to mean things that nobody else uses them for in English, so I cannot possibly tell you what you think you are saying when you use "self-promotion." Just replace it with almost literally any other phrasing that reflects what you think and you'll be fine. --erachima talk 18:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination rationale is clearly mistaken, so this should probably be a speedy keep. That said, the amount of content in this article is slight enough that I see little reason this can't be covered as part of OS-tan, so feel free to merge it once the discussion's over. --erachima talk 12:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is to be merged, I'd say it would be more suitable at Moe anthropomorphism. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OS-tan includes the other browser personifications. --erachima talk 13:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or merge somewhere as suggested by some users. Not notable enough to have a standalone article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Why should I have a User Name?, would you be willing to reconsider now as more content, as well as multiple reliable sources, have been added to the article? Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: it is a blatant WP:ADVERTISEMENT in its current state. Article clearly failed WP:GNG. I can't find reliable sources that establish its notabilty. Wikicology (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, a google search for 藍澤祈 provides plenty of hits from computer software and technology news websites, plenty of them that are major sites from Hong Kong and Taiwan with significant readership. WP:NONENG sources can also be used to assess WP:GNG. --benlisquare_T•C•E 05:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Wikicology, would you be willing to reconsider now that the article has been substantially changed, and multiple reliable sources added? Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 05:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Keep or Merge to Moe anthropomorphism and/or OS-tan - The sentence "Aizawa was adopted by Microsoft Singapore" is notable as a major company adopting a moe mascot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am revising my opinion per the sourcing below but have not left out my merging opinion should this not pass WP:GNG. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In the article reference 1 is a blog, reference 2 is blog, reference 3 is a Youtube video, reference 4 is a blog. bpage (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Bfpage, would you be willing to change your stance now that the unreliable sources have been removed and a number of reliable ones added? Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Bfpage has changed his vote to "keep" below. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I'm not sure if WP:BEFORE was followed properly here - there's a large number of sources available. I confess that some of these may not be considered reliable, but the majority certainly are:

And this is only just the english-language sources, and not considering the non-english sources as User:Benlisquare has pointed out above. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admitedly I am a new, new-article reviewer and tagged this article for deletion. If you found so many references, why didn't go back to the article and insert them? Wouldn't that have made this whole discussion moot? bpage (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated way back at the beginning, this discussion should have been closed as a procedural keep and then dealt with via expansion or merging, but that didn't happen. --erachima talk 03:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done just that. These sort of things take time, especially as I have limited free time today. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Satellizer and Knowledgekid87. I know Satellizer said "Strong Keep" but in fact his reasons rule out keeping because:

WP:NOTADVERT supersedes WP:GNG; it is not allowed to advertise even notable topics in Wikipedia. Articles are required to cover their subjects from a non-neutral point of view.
I clicked on those links. They are passing coverage (the opposite of significant coverage required by WP:GNG) of fiction-only details (the opposite of encyclopedic coverage required by WP:PLOT). Some of these use mentions of other Microsoft ads to add to their volume. For example, how can this link be considered an evidence of notability? Notability means the subject must have impact.
Suppose the article is kept. What are we going to do with these links? Write one article that contains something like this:
"Inori Aizawa is Microsoft's Internet Explorer mascot. She hates bullies and likes ice cream.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]}
Or are we going to dump them into a Further Reading section, a la the advertisement tactic of "What our satisfied customers say" section? Or are we going to repeat:
"TheVerge said IA likes ice cream. The Register said IA likes ice cream. Business Insider said IA likes ice cream. ..."

Fleet Command (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Except, of course, this article isn't an advert. It's written in a neutral fashion and the article isn't helping to promote Microsoft or its products in any way. How is NPOV being violated? The article merely describes Inori. And even if the article is promotional in tone, AfD isn't cleanup, so if the GNG is met the article should still be kept.

2) Inori is the sole/main focus of all those articles. That's the very opposite of what "passing coverage" is, which is a passing mention of the subject.

3) Nope, the sources contain much more information than that. And coverage by multiple RS shows that Inori meets the GNG regardless of "what are we going to do with these links".

As a BTW, I won't be able to reply until tomorrow, it's getting late here. And I'll be willing to clean up the article a bit in time too. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you believe the best reply is just to say that opposite of things that I see? i.e. I can see that article is an advert, but you say "Except, of course, this article isn't an advert." Should I believe my eyes or you? Next, I didn't say Inori isn't the subject of those articles. What I said is that news outlets will write an article if Microsoft so much as poops, but such material is not Wikipedia material per WP:PLOT. (I cannot stress it enough that in Wikipedia, bombardment misrepresents notability.) Finally, the last items isn't what I said: Sources do not contain enough material to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". In fact, they are pretty biased.

Another point that is significant is that all your defenses are based on saving the article from deletion, while I said "merge" not "delete". The article does not have sufficient contents anyway and per WP:SIZERULE, can be merged, even if the outcome of this AfD is to keep it. No hard feelings... Fleet Command (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Sorry but the problem here is you haven't proven that the article is an advert. I've made my reasoning clear as to why I believe the article isn't; it's written neutrally and isn't promoting Inori/Microsoft in any way. Most of the comments here say "delete because WP:NOTADVERT" without giving any clear reason why.

2) I don't really see how WP:PLOT applies, as none of the sources I provided consists of only a "summary-only description" of Inori. Nor do I see why WP:Bombardment applies, as a)Inori isn't a single event and b)as I said above, Inori is the main focus, not a trivial mention. Some of the sources do indeed contain similar content, but most of is different.

3) That's a pretty big misinterpretation of NPOV there. What NPOV states is that all viewpoints by individual sources should be given a fair and proportional representation, not the sources themselves. So basically, sources which praise Inori should be added, but sources criticizing her should be added as well. That's what NPOV means, not "this source is biased so we shouldn't add it."

And I never claimed that you were trying to delete the article, I'm just saying that Inori is notable enough, and enough content and sources exist, for her to have her own independent page. Apologies for the late reply, I only just had time now to do so. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, sir. No need for repeated apologies; I'm retired and myself am in no hurry to come here. If you are indeed not pounding at the deletion prospect, let's dispense your three-itemed list and turn our attention to merge vs. keep only. The clearest motive for the merger is the small size, per WP:SIZERULE. What do you say? Fleet Command (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, after the article expansion today at 10,311 bytes I daresay the article is large enough as a standalone. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually, SIZERULE accounts for the "readable prose size", which is around 4889 bytes now. According to the same page, for an article to survive a merge just on the ground of size, it needs to have ten times the current size. (40 kb). But this way just an explanatory text. I won't take side in this post. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is less than 1 kB it says "If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub." That's not the case here. If its >50kb it says you need to split it into different articles, and if its <40kb you don't need to split it based on size. Dream Focus 21:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not the case here because you are reading the wrong entry. The entry of interest is "< 40 kB: Length alone does not justify division". For the record: 4889 bytes roughly equals only four kilobytes, not forty. (I thought better let you know, because maybe you read the wrong entry because you miscalculated.) Additionally, "> 50 kB" reads "greater than fifty kilobytes". "< 40 kB" reads "less than forty kilobytes". Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FleetCommand, How can you claim to be retired here and on your user page when you contribution [5] clearly show you are certainly not? Dream Focus 12:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. Because, you see, I've heard Fleet Command's "retired, not dead!" speech before and I have seen our fellow admin Mark Arsten who has been having zero edits for a long time refusing to consider himself retired. And then, there is a certain user that I don't name who says he is retired but actually received a temporary 48-hours block for edit warring. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put it this way: There has been a great change in my wiki-life consisting of a severe reduction in my editing rights, privileges and habits. I thought "retired" is more polite, less controversial and more accurate than "great purge". As far as it concerns you, Dream Focus, I no longer nominate your beloved anime and manga articles for deletion, so you have nothing to complain. But I don't want to digress from the topic any further, at least not here. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fleet Commander~~ FleetCommand, where are you seeing the advert? I don't know whether it's an interpretation thing, but I'm not seeing it myself. Is the Samsung Galaxy S5 article an advert, or is it a page that merely explains the topic? Is the AT&T article an advert for AT&T? What are the components of a page which make an article an advert, and where are they seen in Inori Aizawa? --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me for being frank, but you've written my username wrong. If you were me, would you take claim of "I'm not seeing it myself" from a person who wouldn't see your username correctly? I myself might have dismissed it as a trifle if you hadn't asked for the proof strictly in the form of evidence, as if we're dealing with a scientific matter. Proof, you know, can come in the form of testimony, authority and definition as well. So, let's dispense with wordplay altogether: Both you and I have already stated our opposing opinions and failed to persuade each other. All that is left is to gently agree to disagree, especially, because I think the outcome of this discussion would be to both our satisfaction. Fleet Command (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I really did get your name wrong. My bad. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable sources have been found showing it clearly meets the general notability guidelines. It is not an advertisement. Dream Focus 14:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dream Focus. It's been long time... Still having a soft spot for manga/anime characters, don't you? We used to clash a lot over this fact in AfDs, remember? You always said "Keep" and I always said "Delete". No hard feelings though. Just nostalgia. Fleet Command (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 14:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG per reliable sources identified by User:Satellizer.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a substantial number of reliable references and sources to the article, which is now in a very different state as compared to when it was nominated, as well as when some of the initial delete !votes were cast. It is my request that the closing admin please take this into consideration. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 04:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it received significant coverage by independent secondary sources. Notable. Cavarrone 06:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While previously sitting on the fence without much of a really strong opinion either way, I'm now inching towards a keep following Satellizer's major rehaul today. I was more neutral and indifferent earlier on since the page was rather barebones and didn't demonstrate much notability, however now it seems more salvageable and compliant with the expectations that we have for these kinds of articles. My primary concern is notability, and as of now it's been properly addressed; I still disagree with the argument that this page is an advert, since there's a difference between a promotional page and an article discussing an advertisement campaign (a la Category:Advertising campaigns, Category:Advertising slogans). --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw that someone asked me to reconsider my so-called vote. I believe, if things have changed, we must expect the nominator to change their stance; no need to ask every user one by one. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came across as nagging, it's just that often AfD viewers make "drive-by" !votes and then never visit the AfD again. I felt it was necessary to inform the !voters whom commented before the article overhaul that things have indeed changed, and the notification only works if the user's userpage is linked to, thus I did it separately. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your vote should be on what you believe, not just repeating what the nominator says. Satellizer has significantly increased the size of the article and added in a well referenced reception section. Is there any doubt that this passes WP:GNG now? Dream Focus 12:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In AfD's in general, the nominator's stance is only crucial when they are the sole argument for deletion. In the case of this AfD in particular, the nominator's stance is irrelevant, being factually incorrect and based on a misunderstanding of several policy terms. --erachima talk 12:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has equal voice. No one's !vote is ever "irrelevant". In this case it just isn't as relevant as the Keeps, by some opinions. -- GreenC 16:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Equal voice does not mean equal weight, and the person to whom I was replying went further and thought that being the nominator somehow granted extra weight. As to the general issue, of course there are irrelevant votes. Determining which opinions are grounded and which are irrelevant is the entire reason we have humans close these discussions rather than a mechanized up/down vote. --erachima talk 17:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a democracy but it is consensus-based and sometimes consensus is to ignore the rules. Much of the complaint about Wikipedia and AfD in particular is its rules-lawyering atmosphere, where only the specialist warriors excel, so there has been a sort of unspoken shift to give weight to a common sense plain language argument even if not to the letter of the rules. All you can do is employ the rules and hope for the best, but I've seen enough rightfully irrelevant !votes carry the day. -- GreenC 04:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, "Why should I have a User Name?"
Withdrawing a nomination is only allowed in presence of either no comment or unanimous consensus to keep. As long as there are valid "Merge" recommendations, there is little I can do in the way of withdrawing. As for changing, nominator should never change the nomination. (Minor edits to the nomination is only possible by leaving the old prose with strike-through style applied to it.) But you needn't worry. Article has certainly improved so much so that the character is no longer self-promoting. There have been strides in the way of improving NPOV since I last posted.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lisa. As far as I know when there is "no consensus" an article is not deleted. So I don't understand why people who want to keep an(y) article, seeing that there is no consensus, simply do not forget the relevant discussion and use the time to make another article or other articles or edit existing ones in WP. Are we here to prove we have the best arguments or to develop this project? (If you reply please let it not have any element to bring me back here and lose more time. I want to work elsewhere.) Nice to meet you. Thanks and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Unanimous consensus" is not the synonym of "no consensus"; it is the antonym. "Unanimous consensus" means "every and each !vote reads the same". "No consensus" means they highly vary and their description text don't tally either. Also the "no quorum" rule does not apply to AfD. Finally, the "developing project" argument is one that impresses no one because the nominator has already decided that deletion is actually an improvement. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Lisa, please don't spread blatant incorrect information, there are no such rules as you wrote above. Withdrawing a nomination is allowed at any time, and in cases "the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing" it is strongly suggested. And you can partially or wholly strike your nominations using Template:Strikethrough at any time, as well as you can add a new comment next to the old deletion rationale (possibly preceded by a bold note titled "Additional comment", "Update", "On second thought", "Withdrawn"). Cavarrone 04:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cavarrone: You should read your own links more carefully:
...if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed. A nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion.
And before accusing anyone of spreading misinformation, please consider that he or she might simply not agree with your point of view. Discussion in AfDs often get heated; it is important to keep a cool head and assume good faith.
And by the way, "information" is a non-countable group noun, and is never written in plural form. Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FleetCommand:, lol, please point us on where the sentence you cited says that "Withdrawing a nomination is only allowed in presence of either no comment or unanimous consensus to keep"! A nominator could withdrawn his/her nomination and the discussion could be remain open, but this is another issue. Yes, Codename Lisa is spreading misinformation, and you too. BTW I don't care one bite that she withdraws her nom or not, just care about you two do not spread blatant misinformation. Cavarrone 09:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pot calling the kettle black again... in presence of a direct quotation. So, thanks, I guess. You made my day. Fleet Command (talk) 09:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way "you cited" means "you showed us where it says". So "point us on where the sentence you cited says" means "cite your cited sentence" or "point to where you've already pointed us", which are admission that I've already done. And "misinformation" can never be "blatant", only "patent" or "flagrant". So much for being an autoreviewer... Fleet Command (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol @FleetCommand:, you made my day! The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time. Thanks for your desperate attempts of backing the nominator's lack of competence, we needed a bit of humour. And thanks for your irrelevant English lessons, very apprecciated. Cavarrone 09:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are welcome. Always a pleasure to show that A nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion and see you and the nominator desperately watching as I merge the article anyway, regardless of your worthless votes. So, live long and suck it. Fleet Command (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, a most complete citation: "The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed. A nomination should not be withdrawn in order to try to short-circuit an ongoing discussion." I assume you are unable to see the "little" difference, but let the others judge if it is the same than "Withdrawing a nomination is only allowed in presence of either no comment or unanimous consensus to keep". However it is always funny discussing with someone who pretends that the sentence "The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time" actually means "The nominator may NOT withdraw the nomination at any time". My best, Cavarrone 10:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"[...] I merge the article anyway, regardless of your worthless votes." You fail to see how disruptive that would be? Consensus is pretty damn important, not to mention policy, and it's really quite insulting when you use phrases such as calling votes "worthless", you really believe Wikipedia to be a place where you can do whatever you please, and the views of everyone else is "worthless" when compared to your own? Your interpretation of withdrawing AfDs is just as flawed as your interpretation of NPOV, I quote directly from WP:WITHDRAWN "The nominator may withdraw the nomination at any time. However, if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be speedily closed." Please take note of the word anytime, and the second sentence, aka Nominator withdrawing the nomination DOES NOT EQUAL the AfD getting closed. And gee thanks for telling another editor to "suck it", how very civil and mature of you, I must say. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 12:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am a bit ashamed that I discomforted you, Satellizer. After all, you're the guy who did all the hard work. So, even if "you" in my sentence applied to all people here (which isn't), you were credited by your action, not vote. And if there is any consolation, only "!vote" has value; "votes" are worthless anyway. Now, as long as "withdrawing" equals "short-circuiting", it does not matter which is used. However, as for saying "suck it", yes, it was inexcusable. Sorry. (Although I checked the dictionary and it means "get serious". Why do people think it is an insult?) Fleet Command (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. As for the withdrawing thing, you can't "short-circuit" an AfD by withdrawing it, as the discussion would remain open anyway. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been expanded during the AfD. Some editors have claimed PR/Advertising, but neutral editors have worked on the article and genuinely believe it worth keeping. The sources are mostly independent and demonstrate some notability. -- GreenC 16:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I change my initial position now that more references are part of the article and appears to be notable. Thanks for all the input. This has been a learning experience for me.bpage (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've struck through your delete !vote above, as you've changed your stance and (I assume) forgot to do it yourself. Thanks. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 23:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Peridon (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cash For Clothes Xchange

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be purely promotional article of a non-notable business. Stesmo (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Clearly not notable and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, so tagged as non-notable. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self Publishing in India

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

There's nothing specific about self-publishing in India that cannot be discussed in the self publishing article. As it stands, this article is just a collection of mostly non-notable self-publishing companies and their websites (and therefore also rather promotional). Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Self-Publishing in India" is the most often looked out thing in Google by new Indian authors, So the article must be included. Additionally Publishing sector of India is now having a great percentage of self-published books and works, so the article covering these aspects must be made available on Wikipedia. The companies mentioned in the article are notable, as the press articles and their involvement in national book fairs are reported, within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pa2ankurtiwari (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIR applies to this article which says little of actual relevance about the supposed topic and consists primarily of a list of non-notable companies operating in the field. I also note that the author's attempt to move the list to project namespace apparently in order to circumvent the AfD by claiming that the list is not an article but a "wikipedia project" and that the AfD process therefore does not apply to it makes it rather hard to assume good faith. JulesH (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR as an almost contextless slew of links. The topic of the list is of poorly-defined scope and thus of little encyclopedic value. (As an aside, the creator of the article has also been blocked for abusing multiple accounts.) --Kinu ^t/_c 20:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as well as NOTDIR already mentioned this a WP:LINKFARM. MarnetteD|Talk 20:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Pa2ankurtiwari has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Since we do not, at this time, know who the original editor is I don't know if it can be speedy deleted or not. If it can and somebody want to add the {{Db-g5}} tag that would be great. If not we can let this run its course. MarnetteD|Talk 21:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the (almost obvious) sockpuppetry wasn't caught until later, and because the creator of this article is the suspected master account (created prior to the one known suspected sock), I think a G5 probably wouldn't be appropriate. No reason not to let this run its course, unless of course evidence arises to the contrary and/or a WP:SNOW situation arises later in the discussion. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination and WP:NOTDIR. CutestPenguin (Talk) 12:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstones Sports and Social Club

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. At best, it may be worth a redirect to Blackstones F.C.. Boleyn (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- looking at this article, most of the sources cited are not about the subject at all, just about various tangentially related things. The article has virtually no content, barely enough to identify the subject, and is mostly just a directory of associated groups. Delete. Whether or not to create a redirect after deletion is an editorial decision. Reyk _YO! 06:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable club Gbawden (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

How dare you delete my social club on wikipedia Blackstones Social Club is not just football !

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowden Grove Park

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

Local park with no wp:gng claim to notabiility. John from Idegon (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's some coverage there; more than I expected to find. There's obviously plenty of local coverage like this. The Chamber of Commerce tells us, "Snowden Grove Park is the nation’s largest youth baseball complex... [and] ...hosts the Dizzy Dean Baseball World Series, the USSSA Fall Nationals and the NABF World Classic. Snowden was named USSSA Complex of the Year for 2008" (the first claim is confirmed here). I don't think it's quite accurate to describe it as simply a "local park" and there's certainly a claim to notability. Whether it's enough is the question. I'm maybe at weak keep. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Stalwart111: Those all appear to be WP:ROUTINE mentions for events held at the park, not about the history and significance of the park itself. Query whether the local newspaper and chamber of commerce constitute independent sources, or are engaged in promotion? There are no specific notability guidelines for buildings, parks and other landmarks, and therefore they must satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG within significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. I'm not seeing it here, but I have not yet finished my Google search. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that all seems pretty spot-on and John was right to bring it here, I think. I suppose I have concerns about deleting an article for the biggest youth baseball facility in a country where baseball is the "national pass-time". I'm not a baseball person, nor am I American but such a facility in my country (Australia) for one of our national sports (AFL, NRL or Football) would likely be notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 13:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a significant venue, for both baseball and concerts, in the Memphis-Mid-South region. I'm finding sources that deal specifically with the venue (not just passing references) in reliable, mainstream media sources. Such sources include: (1) this and (2) to a lesser extent, this from My Fox Memphis, (3) this, (4) this, (5) this, (6) this, and (7) this from The Commercial Appeal, (8) this from The Memphis Daily News discussing it as one of the leading Memphis tourist attractions, and (9) this and (10) this from Local Memphis. The in-depth coverage from the city's largest daily newspaper, The Commercial Appeal, is particularly persuasive IMO. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet GNG per Cbl62'a sources. Rlendog (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG coverage listed, and venues are a part of the gazetteer. Unscintillating (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seinfeld DVD releases

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

Article exists solely to list DVD contents and fails WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Seinfeld#DVD releases already exists. And "Easter Egg" section completely fails WP:NOTGUIDE, as it instructs readers how to find content. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - A few quick searches reveal that there are numerous DVD lists on Wikipedia (Deep Space Nine, etc). I guess the "List of Seinfeld DVD releases" page could be improved, but deletion would remove this useful information completely. The DVD part of the main Seinfeld article does not have any the details present in "List of Seinfeld DVD releases" page. Keep the "List of Seinfeld DVD releases"! -- A user of the List of Seinfeld DVD releases page

The same DVD contents can be found at Amazon or other retailers, but that information in a stand-alone article fails Wikipedia policy. A summary should be present at the main Seinfeld article. Also, see WP:USEFUL. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Failure of GNG. An alternate would be to condense and merge with Seinfeld. United States Man (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the information certainly needs to be put in table form, but other than that it should be kept. Noahcs (Talk) 05:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)-[reply]

You have not said why it should be kept nor addressed my policy concerns. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Seinfield get rid of the the uncessary junk. It should per correctly formatted per style guidline. JayJay^{What did I do?} 16:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a marketing catalog; useful only for those who want to buy or those own the whole package and want to find an episode. All of these fall into unacceptable uses of Wikipedia written in WP:NOTCATALOG. Fleet Command (talk) 07:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is the List of Seinfeld DVDs any different than numerous other "List of XYZ DVDs" on Wikipedia? See List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases, List of The Simpsons home video releases, List of Family Guy DVDs, List of Hannah Montana DVDs , etc, etc. There are 12 of these pages in the first 20 search results, I'm sure there are many, many more. Are these other pages up for deletion? If not, then why is the List of Seinfeld DVDs up for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.197.55 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not different. Those other pages will definitely be put up for discussion based on the outcome of this AFD case. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So this one little discussion on the Seinfeld DVD page will set the precedent for deleting all the "List of XYZ DVDs" pages? You might want to get input from the users of those pages as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.197.55 (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Precedent's not a good word, per WP:ALLORNOTHING. And yes, getting input from other editors would definitely have to take place. But this article simply lists DVD contents, which by itself is not inherently notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's just too much information to merge into the main article, and too much of value will be lost by deletion. Perhaps this needs to result in a discussion of policy on these lists, but I'm definitely on the side of keeping this, time to think about WP:NOTHING. XeroxKleenex (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Release information is an important part of an encyclopedia information on a media product (e.g. a film or TV show). If there is too much information for it to be conveniently included in the main article on the product then clearly a sub-article is warranted. The assertion above that WP:GNG is not met is ridiculous as there are literally hundreds of articles available in reliable sources discussing releases of DVDs of this show (examples: [6][7][8][9] etc). The article is currently lacking important information (i.e. the dates on which these various sets were released in different regions) which is usually present in other similar articles (e.g. the above-cited List of Doctor Who DVD and Blu-ray releases), but as the article's potential eventual state is what is relevant here I do not see why we cannot simply wait for this information to be added later. If some of the content (e.g. the easter eggs section) is deemed inappropriate, that should be removed from the article, rather than having the entire article deleted. JulesH (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse long alleged alien abduction

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

Entirely non-notable alien abduction story and a WP:FRINGE mess. Prod removed by creator without explanation. Kolbasz (talk) 13:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Kolbasz (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete ~~per WP:G3~~ as seems to be a complete hoax. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure where any "alien abduction" story stands relative to WP:HOAX but this does not appear to have any sources meeting WP:42 I cannot see the only claimed reference, as is blocked by McAfee as a dangerous site, so I will remove it. - Arjayay (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious delete. I tagged for Speedy Delete G3. This should be deleted and removed now. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know if it's a hoax or if it's mistaken interpretation of things or if it's real. Whatever it is, there's no indicated notability, and no references. There are many such cases, I believe. Long's no George Adamski, anyway, publicity-wise. He might be genuine, which I don't believe Adamski to have been, but there's just no notability shown. And that's what counts here. Not the happenings or lack of them. The notability. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should have been speedy deleted, though this editor disagrees. And I have cut most of the article, not an entire blanking. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate references. RomanSpa (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently not a hoax, but does not seem to meet WP:GNG anyway. GregorB (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Confirmation: The Hard Evidence of Aliens Among Us? features his story and while he was on Coast to Coast, there don't seem to be enough reliable sources to warrant an article for Long or his alleged abduction(s) at this time. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 22:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Aginor

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

PROD removed by article creator with no reason. WP:NOTNEWS: this was en entirely unremarkable excercise, possibly wort a couple of lines in the article on the ship in question. TheLongTone (talk) 12:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable minor event. It might, as TheLongTone suggested, merit a short notice in another article, but evacuations like this are a dime a dozen nowadays, and not worthy of separate articles. Thomas.W ^talk 13:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable event. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could be covered with a sentence or two on the article for the ship. This is non-notable. Stesmo (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2014 Libyan conflict, which this was in response to, or Greek frigate Salamis (F-455), the ship responsible. Ansh666 17:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might be worth a mention in related articles like Greek frigate Salamis (F-455) but not notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:27, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK Ching

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

Does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Was a regular soldier who only won the third highest military honor in Bangladesh. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, but that seems rather a rigid application of rules since he was the only member of an indigenous community to be awarded a medal following the Liberation War. Surely that fact makes him notable? --Iain1917 (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My application of WP:SOLDIER, is normal, I don't understand what is rigid about it. If you are advocating that this is an IAR situation, I don't see why being "the only member of an indigenous community to be awarded a medal following the Liberation War," a very specific set of requirements you have created so that this soldier would be unique in some way, is important enough to warrant us ignoring the relatively simple guidelines set forth in WP:SOLDIER. However, I am very far from being an expert on Bangladeshi military history, so if I am wrong in concluding that your categorization is overly specific then feel free to enlighten me. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your application of WP:SOLDIER is that the man is not notable because he only won the third highest medal available; I am suggesting that the fact he was the only member of an indigenous community to be given a medal is notable in itself. I don't see that this is either creating a specific set of requirements or being overly specific. He was unique in being the only decorated member of an indigenous community in the Liberation War. Do you not think that to be either unique or notable in any way? Iain1917 (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The article Indigenous peoples in Bangladesh says there are 45 indigenous communities in Bangladesh. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I really don't follow your logic. Surely the fact that there are 45 indigenous communities in Bangladesh emphasises the notability of the one individual from all of those communities to receive a decoration for his action in the Liberation War?Iain1917 (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood that point. I thought you were trying to say he was the only one from his indigenous community to win the third highest military honor. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The topic's notability should be judged under WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Once again, failure of WP:SOLDIER is not a valid reason for deletion.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - received enough media coverage, although only upon death. --» nafSadh did say 16:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can find full page obituaries. Szzuk (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (WP:SNOW) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropod

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

This seems like a dictionary article, which belongs in Wiktionary; in fact there is already an article (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arthropod) The only sources listed are dictionaries, so it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Llightex (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: actually, as the article makes clear, it is a dictionary non-entry. After deleting, replace with a redirect to Arthropod as a plausible misspelling. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 13:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep per David Eppstein's repurposing of the page to a valid disambiguation. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Potentially useful navigation page disambiguating a common spelling error that could plausibly refer to two different articles. The purpose served is similar to the redirect proposed above, but is more useful in the case that the second listed article is the one the user was looking for. Seems logical to me. JulesH (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no legitimate dab entries, so "WP:NODABS" applies. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added two legitimate dab entries (one to the parent article of the meaning discussed in the previous AfD and one to a music album with a track by this name). Two entries alone wouldn't ordinarily be enough for a dab page but I think that together with the two common misspellings it should be sufficiently useful as a dab and too much to put into hatnotes instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Now three entries. All three refer to subtopics of other articles but that should nevertheless be enough for a dab. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now a reasonable dab page. PamD 05:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid page with entries meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems like a content issue from the get-go - http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Anthropod shows it to be a fairly common search term. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sabro Korsvejskolen

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

I can't find any evidence of notability to satisfy either WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. Schools are not inherently notable per WP:NSCHOOL. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that educational institutions did not need to have any kind of notability. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be incorrect. See WP:NSCHOOL. Tchaliburton (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a high school. High schools are usually kept by editor consensus. Throwing WP:NSCHOOL at a secondary school generally doesn't work here. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its a high school - if it is all "ordinary" schools in Denmark are high schools (from 0 to 10 class). The school doesnt have a gymnasium (Denmark). The article says the school has a "lower secondary education", and I cant find anything about gymnasium at their home page. Christian75 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it educates up to the age of 16 (which is the end of compulsory education in many countries) then it is a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because it's a secondary school and per sources being available. Useful link: Danish Folkeskole Education. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a high school because it educates to leaving certificate level. Experience shows that with sufficient local research high schools meet WP:ORG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 'nuff said. --do ncr am 02:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Park Joy

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

Not notable. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per the discussion page:

S.M. Entertainment is by far the main music producer of Korea. They debut less than one band a year and each new band becomes one of the most successul Korean act (Girl's Generation, Shinee, f(x), Exo, Super Junior are the main SM acts since 2005) with various competition victories. Note that I am not SM-biased; I like quite a few bands from other producers and I personnaly dislike some of SM's bands.

Anyway, Red Velvet had their first TV performance a couple of days ago and it might take a year before their first victory, but basically, this girl is no indie performer and if this page is deleted, it will be recreated in a matter of months because the group will start to make headlines, the girl will show up in various TV shows or dramas etc... It just makes sense to keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.46.121.200 (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not how we do things: a subject has to be notable before the article. It sounds like you are admitting they are not notable yet. —teb728 t c 23:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally admit they were not when the page was created indeed. This page was created too soon. But our music industry pace is not their music industry pace. What I meant was that by the time this procedure goes on, they could be notable. And indeed, they are now. Their single is charting at No1 in Korea, they have done several national TV shows and have appeared in numerous press article in national press. Please see the Red Velvet deletion discussion thread for more details. 83.202.52.122 (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 90.46.121.200, but my IP got unexpectedly renewed...[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ENT.--Rpclod (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with TOO SOON. She is not the sole subject of those published works, they were always in conjunction with the group itself. Her performances on those shows was also part of a group. I do not believe she yet deserves a standalone page when her entire history is as yet a stub. She has had zero solo activities thus far. It's just too early. Her entire recognition as an entertainer lies with Red Velvet.Asdklf; (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Asdklf;[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO on all fronts - redirect to the group until she launches a career of her own or becomes the primary focus of the group. --Karst (talk) — Preceding undated comment added by Karst (talk • contribs) 11:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is normal that she fails notabilty on all fronts, for she is only 17. Has not had enough time to gain notability (not a famous child actress.) WP:TOOSOON is tailored for her. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 07:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet notable. The page can probably be created after she achieves what the other members have, but not now. SmileBlueJay97 talk 15:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Those asking for a straight delete claim that the title is WP:OR and the content is WP:SYNTH. This characterisation was not effectively challenged by anyone. As such, the title cannot be kept, even as a redirect. There were some calls for merge, but no particular consensus on where to. The article can be userfied on request for anyone who thinks they can do something with it. SpinningSpark 08:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Assyrian sentiment

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

There is no such concept as "Anti-Assyrian sentiment". The text is between Original Research and Synthesis. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written in the article's talk page, I also doubt that the article's subject actually exists. However, I will wait until some editors more expert in the field give an opinion before voting. I think all of the content in the article is factually correct - the problem is with the grouping of that content into an article with this title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. The article also relies too heavily on one source. While I acknowledge there may have been discrimination against Assyrians, there aren't enough sources to show that the topic itself is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (with mild restructure of lead) to Persecution of Assyrian Christians. The Ottoman Empire managed its religious minorities as a series of millets, where the head of the church was responsible for this people's behaviour. "Assyrian" here means the members of that millet, i.e. of that orthodox denomination. "Sentiment" is an unhelpful euphemism - Muslim persecution of Christians is usually, because of actions that have allegedly offended the sentiments of Muslims. Muslims seem hypersensitive to being offended. This article is at presnet a mere time-line, which I do not like, but it is certainly no rubbish; it may wlll need more citations, vut that applies to many articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why can't all this just be included in a history of Assyrian Christians article (if it is not there already)? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron, we have already invented, well others have invented the concept and we have made an article here on it, the Assyrian genocide. So that one covers much more than what is being speculated (OR and synthesis) here. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if victims of genocide consider the crime inflicted on them to be an "invented concept"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the nominator I may accept a redirect, if not a deletion is agreed upon, to History of the Assyrian people. There is almost(?) nothing (for me nothing) to merge, as all the article content is already there or in Assyrian Genocide. Thanks. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the article title an content is OR and synthesis I doubt "Anti-Assyrian sentiment" is something people are liable to search for. So no need for a redirect, I think. I'd just like some editors who are expert in the field to look at the subject and decide. Is "Anti-Assyrian sentiment" a term that is in use anywhere, such as in academia? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. The article is synthesis. The sources - where they exist - don't actually discuss "Anti-Assyrian Sentiment". bobrayner (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I second Chris Troutman in that it might be a valid topic for an article. However, it does need much better sourcing and a different focus, as the article currently synthesises several topics. CesareAngelotti (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge contents with existing articles on Assyrian genocide and Assyrian nationalism. About half the content of this article is already covered in the two existing articles. The new material can be used to improve them. Fiachra10003 (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurudu Da

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

Assuming it exists, it's not notable. The creator did a loop creating the director and adding things to other articles. I speedied the director but that can't be done for the film, and I'm not confident it's a hoax, particularly because it's foreign. Perhaps there are editors who know more about Sri Lankan sources and can find something. Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently the film exists: I find it listed (without significant coverage) in a couple of lists of Sri Lankan films, including http://worldheritage.org/articles/List_of_Sri_Lankan_films_of_the_1980s —teb728 t c 23:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reading the About for the World Heritage Encyclopedia, I can't tell how well vetted the material is. It appears to be a meta-encyclopedia obtaining information from different encyclopedias (perhaps even from Wikipedia). It is then "crowd sourced, referenced, and edited." However, there's no reference for the entry for the film, so where does it come from? Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that it's not clear that the World Heritage would be a reliable source in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Apparently Nimal Tennakoon is a filmmaker from Sri Lanka, but I cannot find anything about a Sri Lankan filmmaker named Wimal Saman Jayaweera. Perhaps a Sri Lankan Wikipedian might assist? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I had better luck searching for Saman Jayaweera. —teb728 t c 07:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for being relatively unknown and not covered by reliable sources. IF sources speaking about the film come forward, please ping me. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find a couple of mentions but no significant coverage. I hope my comments above did not delay deletion. —teb728 t c 11:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Black

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

Article on living people without proper sourcing; I couldn't establish that they meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep, though I could understand if others disagreed. Their latest album had several reviews, though two of them I found were only in university media. They dug a pit for themselves by not having a google-able name! Sionk (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The link to the website goes to David Longoria's page now, indicating the band has ceased to exist (for the moment). With two self-released records and an EP, it fails the WP:BAND criteria. It could be incorporated into a page about Longoria who seems notable enough, should he put out a solo record at some point. Karst (talk) 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Weak keep. Not a lot of non-local coverage found, but there's maybe just enough from these to merit an article: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. --Michig (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per sources provided above - It certainly needs improving tho .–Davey2010 • (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject just crosses verifiability and notability thresholds. That the band is apparently no more is not relevant since notability is not temporary. - Dravecky (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Wesner

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

Working my way through the list of artists of questionable notability at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists, proof of wider notability seems very thin for Robin Wesner. She had some press interest for her 2011 solo show, but this was more in the form of an event listing. I can't find any independent proof of her solo exhibitions in commercial galleries further afield than New Jersey. The "New Art International" book suggests it is a vanity publication containing 100s of artists. With no evidence of awards, prizes, or critical acclaim, I'd probably have to lean towards a "delete" recommendation. Sionk (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NickGibson3900 - Talk - Sign my Guestbook 10:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. While as a member of that WikiProject, I view it as always unfortunate to lose an article about a respected female artist, the policies of WP:N must be respected. I am working on a good faith effort to uncover more information about Robin Wesner through print sources that I have access to but so far I have not been able to find any direct information indicating her notability beyond that which has already been unearthed. BaseballChue (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing also, unfortunately, since I like to rescue articles on the block if I can. Searched 10 SERP pages (my usual number) didn't find anything much, except maybe show listings, press releases, etc. Would be good to keep more artists in Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BioRails

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

I could not establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I could find nothing beyond advertisements and run-of-the-mill press releases. This does not appear to meet WP:N. Reyk _YO! 05:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find any coverage in reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Another AfD which shows the problem with mass nominations, I'd suggest that if any of these don't pass GNG (Picadilly Star and to a lesser extent BGC Stopover Pavillion look particularly shaky) then they be submitted as separate nominations Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArthaLand Tower

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

A group of already completed or yet to be built office towers in the Philippines. All written by one person and person has only written these articles. The majority of links to the articles goto KMC MAG Reality Group, who happen to be the firm leasing the office space. Bgwhite (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially Picadilly Star, ArthaLand Tower and The Finance Centre, those are notable skyscrapers listed in Emporis website. I suggest improving the articles instead by citing some of these sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Will try to look for more. --RioHondo (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Davey2010 • (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ArthaLand Tower - Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include: [15], [16], [17], [18]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northamerica1000, all references come within the same week. They all use some of the same verbiage that came from the press release. The building still hasn't started construction, even though refs said they would begin in July. Wikipedia doesn't allow films an article until filming has started. Books and music usually aren't mentioned until released. Why have a building article, that hasn't started construction and the refs only come via a press conference? Bgwhite (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fort Bonifacio, no claim to notability, local coverage only. --Bejnar (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that the articles listed below the nomination are also nominated for deletion, not just ArthaLand Tower. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to clarify my redirect above, each one of these buildings does not have significant coverage for a standalone article, coverage yes, significant no, all local Manila. All together they could make a paragraph in the Fort Bonifacio article about the building boom in the mid 2010s. --Bejnar (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG includes local sources. Unscintillating (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR There is no argument for deletion here, as the nomination instead casts aspersions. There is no sentiment for deletion here, and the nomination is confounded with both existing buildings and those that are "yet to be built", where a deletion argument for the latter should cite WP:NOT. Unscintillating (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) WP:NPASR does not apply, as I have commented, and I am not the nominator. (2) The claim for deletion is the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources such that each of the six buildings fails to meet the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. As the guideline at WP:NGEOG indicates, Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments can be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. They require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability. No claim of historic, social, economic, or architectural importance has been made. LEED certification is not such a claim, nor is "technologically advanced" which claim pretty much equates to "new". Notwithstanding that the claim of "one of the most technologically advanced" is unsupported by an independent reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and/or WP:CSD#G5. With the article being overrun by sockpuppets and the sockpuppets spreading to other articles, it is best to close the discussion early and delete everything. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scientist Movie

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

Non-notable movie article by user intent on publicizing his studio. No reliable sources. —teb728 t c 08:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I will openly and freely state that I neither read nor speak Bengali, a search for "বিজ্ঞানি" did not bring up any hits that looked substantial. Many of the links I clicked on (which were translated through Google Translate) used the term to refer to a scientist in general and did not reference this movie. Despite the film's claims that it was a huge success, there's nothing out there to substantiate this. A search in English did not bring up anything promising either and to be honest, the lack of English language sourcing/coverage is particularly telling. Even if a Bengali movie never hits English shores, wildly successful films will usually have some mention in English somewhere, even if it's just one of the various English language blogs or database "anyone can review" sites that covers Indian cinema. If anyone can find sources in Bengali or other sources that would pass notability guidelines I'm willing to change my opinion, but I don't really think that they exist at this point in time and the claims are so large that they almost, almost fall into hoax territory. In full disclosure, I just blocked the article creator for having a COI username. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give this the benefit of the doubt that this was a local indie film and the claims were wildly exaggerated. I'm just a little leery about the claims, given that the page for Doialwood states that the district is the "home of the entertainment industry, including several of its historic studios" despite there being no record of a district by this name- which is suspect considering that something of this nature would be covered somewhere. I'm sort of leaning towards this being a hoax, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

per WP:INDAFD: Scientist (film)

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

Delete If not an actual hoax, this is (at kindest) TOO SOON and lacks available sources to meet WP:NF. Alleged director name appears found only in social media, and in no manner connected to a 2014 film titled Scientist. Link to "star" Farzana leads only to a disambig page and not to a Bengali actress. At this time we have a lack of WP:V. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Michel

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

BLP that has been unsourced for 8 years. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. Michig (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The French Wikipedia article, created on the same day as the English article, is equally unsourced. I did find one article in Variety ([19], via Questia, subscription reqd.) that quotes the subject in the context of his employing firm's activity, but that is not enough for biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zain Awan

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. His name is not an uncommon one but just being a journalist doesn't confer notability and I can't find any sources that discuss him. Sitush (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified User:Carelesswhisperz the actual author of the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and my apologies. I just let Twinkle do it and usually it gets it right (but obviously won't in these rather unusual circumstances). I guess I'll have to take more care. - Sitush (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG. Video sites have dominated the search results. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nomination -- SaHiL (talk) 05:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 01:03, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iar Elterrus

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

Nothing to suggest WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG is met. It does have articles in 2 other languages, but appears to be an average author. Boleyn (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I am aware of the topic. Iar Elterrus is a popular Russian author with total book circulation more than 200 thousands books. In Russian Wikipedia we discussed that this article is meeting of criteria and believe me, we are currently have much stricter criteria for inclusions than here. Just to note, because the Russian article is bigger than English one, this was easier to proof to need to keep the article. - Vald (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vald, thank for your input. Are you able to add any information and sources to this article to help? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can add information and sources to this article. How much time do I have? Thank you. Vald (talk) 12:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a great help, thank you. After hearing about the article surviving its notability being questioned on Russian Wikipedia, and trusting that User:Vald can help establish its notability, I withdraw my nomination and will look over in the article in a few weeks and see if it does need a full AfD discussion. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SpinningSpark 19:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Washi (disambiguation)

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

Similar reason for my previous request to delete Typhoon Parma (disambiguation) and Typhoon Pepeng (disambiguation) as per WP:DAB and WP:TWODABS unless if this has other storms named "Washi" aside from those two. j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 08:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2014 (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/2014 July 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:57, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, primary topic with one other meaning capable of being referenced in a hatnote makes disambiguation superfluous. bd2412 T 20:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 01:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Twodabs standard isn't nearly enough to justify the damage caused by creating dead links. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, it is blatanty nonsensical having a dab page for just two entries one of them being a primary topic. Better served by a hatnote. Cavarrone 10:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (natter) @ 17:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Tropical Storm Washi" is clearly the primary topic. Per WP:TWODABS, there is no need to have a separate disambiguation page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j3j3j3 ...pfH0wHz 06:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete The appropriate dab hatnote has been on the primary topic article since 18 December 2011, the day after the article for the 2011 storm was created. It was added with this edit. When this disambiguation page was created ten hours earlier, it may not have been possible to determine which storm, if either, was the primary topic. Hindsight is 20/20. It would be interesting to hear from @Jason Rees:, who apparently made the decision in 23 February 2012 that the 2011 storm was primary. --Bejnar (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the deletion or non deletion of this page, however i do note that there are several TC disambiguation page that could be deleted along with this page. There are only three links to this article outside of the links caused by the deletion process. It is worth noting that the 2005 version only caused a handfull of deaths where as the 2011 version caused >1000 deaths and the name was retired by the WMO's Typhoon Committee in February 2012. I would have made the call that this article is the primary one based on the retirement and WPTC Standards which generally dictate names that are retired get the main article. Generally speaking a retired name is a name that has become a general household name. There is also no article for Tropical Storm Washi 2005 yet - jsut a redirect to the 2005 PTS.Jason Rees (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deor (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Totti Corchiani

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Article has been tagged for notability for six and a half years and notability has still not been established by anyone. Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. IMDB credits him with one film in which he seems to have had a small role and a production credit, and the film itself doesn't seem particularly notable. No other coverage found. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Singh (activist)

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

Minimally sourced WP:BLP of a person notable only as an organizer and unsuccessful candidate in municipal politics. Doesn't pass WP:NPOL for those roles, there's no other claim of notability here substantive enough to get him past another subject-specific inclusion guideline instead, and the volume of sourcing provided doesn't even get him over WP:GNG. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a CV and fails WP:GNG. Simply nothing notable here. Tchaliburton (talk) 03:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 05:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails WP:POLITICIAN. As to the GNG? A Google news search yields nothing useful, a regular search throws up either insignificant mentions or non-independent sources, which are insufficient to show notability. BethNaught (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Algorithm examples

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

This article is a mess, and it's hard to see what topic it could cover that would make it worth trying to rescue it. It is the work of one editor, quite idiosyncratic. It is currently subject of a WP:RM with unspecified new name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried prodding it a few months ago with the rationale "This article has no clear topic (the title is very vague), and reads less like an encyclopedia article and more like an excerpt from an introductory theory of computing textbook. Even a complete rewrite wouldn't save it, because what would the rewrite be about?" It was unprodded, but I think the same issues remain valid. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, then merge A related discussion has started at Talk:Algorithm examples#Requested move. At first glance, I agreed with Dicklyon and David that the article has no clear topic. However, the topic of the article would be clearer if it would be renamed Examples of abstract machines. I would agree with deletion if the two related articles, Abstract machine and Model of computation would not be stubs deserving a large expansion. After looking at these two articles, my suggestion is rather to merge the three articles. In any case, as some parts of Algorithm examples could be very useful for a section Examples in Abstract machine, it would be counterproductive to make them unavailable by deleting the article. D.Lazard (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree with merging Abstract machine and Model of computation, since the latter includes e.g. lambda calculus and μ-recursive functions, which are not machines, while the former includes e.g. the SECD machine and Warren Abstract Machine, which are not primarily intended as models of computation. -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. It seems like WP:SYNTH (an unpublished paper, perhaps), of mostly good quality, but containing a number of unsupported value judgements about what is "better." -- 101.117.90.93 (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the idea of having some worked out algorithm examples isn't bad but I don't think this article qualifies. What I was expecting was examples of searching, sorting, etc. So to me the question is, does this article at least represent a start, something that could be reworked to be such an article without the OR and with better references? And my opinion is no, that by the time you reworked the current article there would be nothing left but the title anyway. The current article contains too much unencyclopedic language such as "The Turing machine model is primitive, but not as primitive as it can be. " according to who and compared to what? Or "Atomization comes at a (usually severe) cost". So much of the article is written that way that I don't think it can be reasonably salvaged. Regarding the suggestion to merge with abstract machine I think the same criticism applies, the language of this article is so value laden I don't think there would be much that could really be cogently merged. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unclear what the topic of the article actually is, and it does not seem worthwhile to attempt inventing a topic and shoehorning the content into it Some editors have already made valiant efforts to do just that, with mixed results. I would not be averse to content being farmed out to other articles as seems appropriate, but we should not leave lying around an incoherent mess without a clear topic while we wait for such a merge to happen, and it does not seem like this discussion will engender a solid consensus on how such a possibly complicated merge should proceed. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Model United Nations. Shimeru (talk) 06:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Model United Nations Development Programme

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

Tries to assert notability, but there are not enough reliable sources per WP:GNG. Seems almost like a club website. Although in terms of AfD this isn't a valid argument, there are many much larger conferences such as the UCLA and Berkeley Model UN Conferences, as well as Stanford and Harvard that draw over a thousand participants from all over the world, and still don't have enough reliable sources. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Model United Nations. There is some useful content, but this programme is not notable, and the only two sources are not independent. If it could be sourced better, I'd change my mind. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3: obvious hoax The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2GO Aviation

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

Article lacks any independent sources. Company appears not to operate at present, seems WP:CRYSTAL. No evidence of notability or existence. WWGB (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unreferenced article about a (proposed?) airline that, bizarrely, says it started operation in December, 2014, using paste tense to describe future dates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced and has all the look of a hoax article. MilborneOne (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanossgaming

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

Apparently, according to Lazygamer.net (whatever that is), this person is the 5th most popular Gaming YouTuber. I don't think we have guideline for that category of people, but I am pretty sure that this person doesn't pass any kind of guideline that requires significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 10 August 2014 (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) 03:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All we have are a bunch of references to statistics about YouTube viewership, but no significant coverage of the actual topic in reliable, independent sources, which are required to show notability. A secondary issue is that the article includes prose such as "and is since a while always seen playing with his friends", which doesn't strike me as encyclopedic content. But I could be wrong. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just found an article mentioning him in Kotaku Australia, looks like there's at least some notability. XeroxKleenex (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a passing mention in a gamer blog. That's not significant coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment A reliable source doesn't have to be the New York Times, and that site is a news organization, with an editorial staff and a physical address. It's not a blog run out of somebody's basement. Vanossgaming was used as the source for the article, and was the source for the videos included in it, it wasn't a passing mention. I included it as an example, not as sufficient to support the Vanossgaming article on its own. XeroxKleenex (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku has been determined by WikiProject Video games to be a generally reliable source, except for "blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance", which is exactly what this is. It's a passing mention of a video demonstrating a glitch, not "significant coverage" of Vanossgaming himself as WP:N requires. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. I have only been able to find trivial coverage. Woodroar (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally created the article, but has since then been discussed many times to be deleted. I do not quite understand why, since his channel is greatly discussed in the YouTube community, but as said it is new compared to the other channels in the top 20. This is why he is not mentioned on many websites yet, so many references are missing. Also, I am a fan of him, and this said the article was pretty much made from a fan point of view, and in the talk page I mentioned it could be slightly edited. He does not fail WP:N since, as said, he is highly ranked in the YouTube community and he does not fail WP:V either, since the websites showing his statistic are licensed and highly reliable. JordiTK (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He obviously exists, has a YouTube channel, and many subscribers, but that doesn't count towards notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and primary or unreliable sources doesn't allow us to write a quality encyclopedia article. We require multiple in-depth independent reliable sources, such as legitimate game journalism, to meet that minimum threshold. I'll use a ridiculous (but true) analogy: if the Sun was only discussed on forums and in user-edited databases, we wouldn't have an article about it on Wikipedia, despite the fact that most of us see it every day and it's pretty important to our continued existence. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand this, however, I have been told (by an admin as well) that the websites I am linking to, like Vidstatsx, which of course shows his channel's statistics, is enough proof for an article. I am sorry if this is not the case and if the article will be removed again I will search for more reliable websites, but it will probably take a while before they are mentioning him as being known on YouTube. JordiTK (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did that admin tell you that Vidstatsx was a satisfactory source for helping establish notability or merely for verification of one or more statements in the article? Many sources are considered reliable sources for the purpose of verifying specific assertions, but touch only trivially on the subject of the article or give what is considered routine coverage. An example would be a theatre program that can be used to validate a claim that the subject of an article played such-and-such part in such-and-such a play at that theatre, but it wouldn't at all help establish the person's notability. In this case, the Vidstatsx page verifies nothing but the fact that Vanossgaming is listed on that page. It lumps his page in with over 100 other pages, and gives him no particular focus.

If a guideline specifically for gamer notability, similar to the one for academics and the one for actors, were to be established by consensus for gamers, it's possible that one agreed-to criterion for establishing notability would be "Included at any time on the Top 100 page on the Vidstatsx website". But that isn't currently the case. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Largoplazo is correct. Rankings on sites like these, including on YouTube, are subject to being gamed, which is part of the reason that Alexa doesn't "count" towards website notability guidelines. Woodroar (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This is a pretty borderline case. In addition to the Kotaku reference mentioned above, this source and this source do manage to show some degree of notability. That being said, the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG hasn't quite been met yet (though I might change my !vote if more sources are found). Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 11:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: He's well-known among people I know and definitely prevalent on the internet, but I just don't see the coverage required to keep it. _{None of the sources show up in the WikiProject Video Games whitelist, although since he's primarily a YouTube channel, that doesn't mean a lot.}
Delete - He may be popular in the YouTube crowds, but he doesn't have the coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails to meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. This is the only thing even approaching a reliable source that would meet WP:GNG, and there's no significant coverage in it about the subject. All the other references in the article are sites that chart views and subscriber data which fall under WP:USERG and, regardless, have no context or significance for the subject in terms of showing notability. - Aoidh (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) to sustain an article about this YouTuber. The best hits in a video game reliable sources search were passing mentions from VG247 and Kotaku—not nearly enough for a full article, nevertheless a blurb or section somewhere else. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 06:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Horrid Henry: The Movie. (Speeding up the process & closing) (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Stitt

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

Non notable actress only starring in 1 tv show, Fails WP:NACTOR & WP:GNG, I wouldn't object to redirecting since that was previous afd closure –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Horrid Henry: The Movie, her only major role. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: fails NACTOR, only known for one thing, so redirect to Horrid Henry: The Movie. Would temporary semi-protection be necessary to enforce this? Last time IP/non-confirmed editors made 3 attempts to make an article out of the redirect, all premature. BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. It is definitely WP:TOOSOON for an independent article. --Jersey92 (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Snow keep and nom withdrawn. Given the unanimity here, I feel I can close this despite having !voted myself. Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of International Management

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

Not sourced, and notability not established. JDDJS (talk) 00:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

provisional keep. Just because the creator is too lazy to come up with refs, it doesn't mean the journal isn't notable. It's published by Elsevier, for starters. And have a look at Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), specifically where it says "For the purpose of Criterion 1, having an impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports always qualifies under Criterion 1", ie, it's probably notable. The impact factor (as mentioned in the entry) can be seen here and here. Needs refs and some cleanup. Hairhorn (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's notable, satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals). XeroxKleenex (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Sizable impact factor, index in Social Sciences Citation Index and Scopus. Clear pass of NJournals. Article is bad, I did some cleanup and added a source for the IF, but that is no reason for deletion. Nom is reminded of WP:BEFORE. I suggest to withdraw the nom to save the community time and effort. --Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just add more reliable sources, academic journal, is notable. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I agree with the !vote, I don't agree with the rationale behind it. There exist tens of thousands of academic journals and many of them are completely forgettable (i.e., not notable), so being about an academic journal is in itself not a reason to keep an article. --Randykitty (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone above. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn/Snow keep either way is fine way with me. JDDJS (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep: Withdrawn by nominator and clear consensus. Bduke (Discussion) 00:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury hydride

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

WP:TWODABS - "If there is a primary topic located at the base name, then the question arises whether to create a disambiguation page, or merely to link to all the other meanings from a hatnote on the primary topic article. If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article." There is indeed a primary topic, that being the dihydride. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator

Overwhelming opposition. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. At the very least, this should exist as a redirect. Arguments as to whether there is a primary topic here don't belong at AfD (although, FWIW, I don't think there is). -- 101.117.57.51 (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pages are automatically converted into redirects by the deletion process, so you don't need to protest about that point. Regarding the primary topic argument, see below. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's just completely untrue. Deleted pages are not automatically converted into redirects by the deletion process. Read WP:Guide to deletion. Furthermore, there is no conceivable to delete the article history here, so AfD is completely the wrong place for this discussion. However, now that it's here, no, there is no primary topic. -- 101.117.57.51 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I simply change my proposal to redirect instead. However, this is just a formalism, as you're the only one concerned at this point. I was only of the persuasion that was how the deletion process operates, since that was my past experience, so please pardon my ignorance on that matter. It is your prerogative to have an opinion concerning the primary topic, but do not confuse it for fact. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I also disagree that there is a primary topic. Granted, the dihydride may be more common or understood, but I feel uncomfortable distinguishing chemicals because of that. Also, though I know OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an invalid argument, we also have Lead chloride and Iron chloride, each giving only two articles about two different oxidation states. BethNaught (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to be concerned about whether or not the dihydride is the primary topic. Conventions set out by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry has already predetermined that it is the primary topic. We can deal with those examples later. Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A link to that advice would be helpful. However, it is interesting to note that Mercury(I) hydride is, as the article notes, systematically named mercury hydride. So if someone searches for that term they may expect the (I) compound, but get redirected or somehow referred to the (II) compound, that could be confusing or annoying. We have to remember that WP is not a reference just for chemists, and so we ought to make navigation as smooth for the general reader as possible. There is no value in deleting this disambiguation page simply becuase IUPAC has decided that (II) is the primary meaning when most people probably haven't heard of IUPAC. BethNaught (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, IUPAC has not decided that (II) is the primary meaning. There is nothing at all in the "Red Book" to support that idea. What's more, a search of Google Scholar shows that the phrase "mercury hydride" in the chemistry literature always refers to HgH. NIST also uses the phrase to refer to HgH. I think the nom is misunderstanding both the AfD process and the nomenclature rules of chemistry (or else is being intentionally disruptive). -- 101.117.57.51 (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That is correct, mercury(I) hydride is systematically named mercury hydride, but you miss the point that systematic nomenclature is designed specifically for chemists. So if someone who is not a chemist, searches for that term, they should have no expectation to preferentially arrive at either page. However, if a chemist searches for that term, they should expect to arrive at the dihydride, unless they mean for the term to refer to the monohydride. There is a precedent that demonstrates this concept - 'beryllium hydride' as a term, describes both the common hydride of beryllium, which is the dihydride, as well as the monohydride; however, chemists expect to arrive at the dihydride by default. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might. But as the IP 101 has said above, IUPAC hasn't made the determination you said. It seems that the only argument you have is your personal opinion, which may be shared by many chemists you know but should not be presumed. For the record, I am not totally ignorant of chemistry, having studied it in sixth form (~= high school to Americans), and realise that the more common one is what is typically meant, but as far as I understand it this does not necessarily apply to all elements. What I'm saying is this AfD appears to be more about your interpretations than helping readers out with a helpful disambiguation page. BethNaught (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The section in the IUPAC Recommendations 2005 that contains the aforementioned convention is section IR-5.2, which states "Multiplicative prefixes need not be used in binary names if there is no ambiguity about the stoichiometry of the compound (such as in Example 10 above). The prefix ‘mono’ is, strictly speaking, superfluous and is only needed for emphasizing stoichiometry when discussing compositionally related substances, such as Examples 2, 3 and 4 above." Which is why the second most common term after 'water', for the H
₂O molecule, is 'hydrogen oxide', not 'dihydrogen oxide', or even 'dihydrogen monoxide'. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about multiplicative prefixes. Explain to me how that passage shows that the dihydride is the primary meaning of hydride. Indeed, the whole point of the disambiguation page is that there is ambiguity about the stoichiometry of the compound. BethNaught (talk) 11:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the II oxidation state is the most common for mercury (which is also the traditional method for determining the primary stoichiometry of any binary compound); secondly, the dihydride is the most thermodynamically stable, and is virtually the only hydride of mercury encountered or synthesised at anything approaching normal experimental conditions. On the contrary, the monohydride is highly unstable, and esoteric. Yes, the monohydride is a favourite topic for studies, but that does not indicate its primacy. Another point to consider, HgH is a mercury hydride, but is not the mercury hydride. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the term 'ambiguity' may seem to be subjective as it appears in the except, it is defined by traditional interpretation of trends in the periodic table, of I'm certain you would have learnt of in a fourth form science class. For instance, how you were possibly asked to give the stoichiometry of calcium oxide, or zinc phosphate. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply giving your personal opinion here. Thermodynamic stability etc. are not IUPAC nomenclature criteria. What is relevant (in terms of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) is that of the 985 Google Scholar hits for "mercury hydride," over 80% refer to the monohydride HgH. As noted above, that's also what NIST uses the phrase to mean. If there was a primary topic, the monohydride would probably be it. As it stands, however, there's ambiguity which requires that this disambig page be kept. -- 101.117.30.194 (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)That is by no means personal opinion, but the general one among most chemists. WP:GTEST may be useful, but is subject to bias. To summarise the weakness of the G-test, "That Google searches pull up the one now is a matter of public popularity only, and not a guidance for science writing! Moreover, Google is a purely commercial enterprise, only the poorest of academic search tools, certainly vis-a-vis chemistry searching; its prioritization of reported hits is not under user control." - Le Prof. The G-test is indicative, but not guaranteeing of the association of the term. Furthermore, NIST is wholly unreliable for this purpose, just ask the Chemistry Project. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is not the same as "Google." Google Scholar searches the academic literature. And perhaps we should ask the Chemistry Project what they think about your recent editing. -- 101.117.57.173 (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference whether Google Scholar is used instead, the issue remains. Which recent editing? Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. You'll find that I am using the exact same reasoning which they used to counter my argument, when discussing the moving hydride articles. They used the example of zinc hydride, I don't think that you will be anymore successful than myself in convincing them otherwise, but feel free to try. Since I'm am rephrasing their argument, I can't be incorrect, unless they are duplicitous. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think we can get a speedy close for this AfD discussion, since the nom has withdrawn the deletion recommendation and changed it to a recommendation for a redirect, and there are no deletion !votes. If that is done, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC debate can be continued on the article talk page (although it's clear that there is no consensus for a primary topic existing). -- 101.117.30.194 (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, check WP:BLAR. Herein it, it instructs to formally submit the article to a deletion discussion. Ergo, this is the correct forum. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least redirect. Readers looking this up will be disappointing if its not here. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To restate my current position, I am proposing a conversion of the topical disambiguation page to redirection page. This is based on the presence of a primary topic favouring the use of hat-notes over a disambiguation page. The primary topic is determined to be Mercury(II) hydride, according to the second suggested criterion of primacy as given in WP:PTOPIC. Specifically, mercury(II) hydride has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value. Furthermore, the recommendations set forth by the central authority on chemical nomenclature (formal and informal), instructs the correct usage of a synthetic name such as 'mercury hydride' - that the dihydride is given primacy over the monohydride, as it is the more intuitive. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no primary topic. --Kkmurray (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain? Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the Red Book supports your primary topic claim nor should it have primacy. --Kkmurray (talk) 02:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the Red Book, why should it not have primacy? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete (Redirect) It seems to me that the primary topic here is actually Mercury (I) hydride - it seems that Mercury (I) Hydride is systematically named Mercury Hydride, whereas Mercury dihydride has other systematic names. The google scholar searches by the IP editor seem to indicate that mercury hydride generally refers to Mercury (I) hydride in the literature - I'm thinking that Mercury (I) Hydride should be the main topic with reciprocal hatnotes between the two. I'm not really sure that the disambiguation page is doing anyone any favors, anyway - the only information you have upon which to disambiguate between the two compounds is their chemical formula - given that there are only two compounds, it seems like showing either one of the pages with a hatnote would actually do a better job at disambiguation, since you have more information on which to judge whether you've got the right one, and if you have the wrong one, there's only one other choice.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 03:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained, neither chemists, nor non-chemists normally use the stoichiometric specific naming to search for chemicals. It is the exception, not the rule. And again, the G-test is indicative, but does not automatically guarantee that the primary topic is associated with the term. Regardless of which is the primary topic, I appreciate that you agree that the disambiguation page is rather pointless. For what it's worth 'mercury hydride' is also one of the systematic names for HgH
₂. Plasmic Physics (talk) 03:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nomination based on a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia deletion discussions work aligned with a misunderstanding about Chemistry nomenclature. --John (talk) 05:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - neither topic is the primary topic, both are academic curiosities. Either they are merged if there is not enough to tell about both of them (which does not seem to be the case), or they are both articles with an explanatory disambiguation page in front of them (in other words, keeping the current status quo). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an article with this name should certainly exist. What is in it is up to discussion, but nothing needs to be deleted to do this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, misguided nomination, and I don't buy the claim of a distinctly primary topic. The current DAB is the best option. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think it is clear that nothing needs to be deleted regardless of which topic is deemed primary, as Graeme Bartlett stated. ChemNerd (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SK#1 j⚛e decker ^talk 05:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freight Train (book)

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

Only one "Open Library" ref. Waiting with a "sources" tag since 7 and a half years and no development in that sense. Not notable book. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A classic picture book for little kids, won a Caldecott Honor [20], has been the subject of noteworthy spinoffs [21][22] and continues to be acknowledged as an important book of the genre.[23][24][25] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Caldecott Honor is one of those rare awards that would be enough to keep on that basis alone and Arxiloxos found more sources to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination. Thanks for the refs found and added. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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